d. Building a new clubhouse near the 18th green would be silly, IMO, as it would mandate that all traffic proceed by the first tee. Plus, there is no assurance that the land would be approved as it belongs to the town and not the club.
e. RDGC needs a clubhouse, locker room and dining facility that is commenserate with the stature of the course. Since this cash surplus is generated significantly by visitor rounds, then the club should invest on behalf of their customer base and provide an experince that is more memorable. Besides, what else should the club do with all the $$?
f. RDGC also does not want to be shamed by Coul Links.... ;) I would bet that, given the bespoke architecture of Links House, Coul's facilities will be charming, under-stated and stunning!!!
For any of the 1500 souls on this website who have played Royal Dornoch, please answer honestly with your heart and your head and your experience the following questions:
1. Should the current clubhouse remain, or should it be replaced?
2. Should the 7th hole and green be reconstructed to the right of the current fairway and the 8th hole changed to have a new tee on what is now the 7th green?
3. Should the 11th green be extended onto what is now the daily 12th tee, making the current 12th medal tee now the daily tee?
I am sitting in the RDGC clubhouse as I write this. All responses on here will be read and appreciated. Anybody who wishes to contribute but not respond on this public website, please e-mail me directly.
I am a 35-year member at RDGC and will be attending the AGM this Friday where these and other issues will be discussed and voted on. Your thoughts will inform me greatly,
Thanks
Rich
Ian
What would the club do with a 22 bedroom hotel? I can't imagine the club would ever have a need for such a large house.
Ciao
Ian
What would the club do with a 22 bedroom hotel? I can't imagine the club would ever have a need for such a large house.
Ciao
Sean -
I hear you on this one for sure.
As an overseas member of RDGC, I certainly would stay there and perhaps others would as well.
Lots of clubs have places for members to stay, but maybe that's more prevalent in the US. I'm not an expert here at all.
The Royal Golf Hotel just makes sense to me because: the architecture is sound, the positioning of the building is damn near perfect and if you saw the architect's rendering of the transformation to a clubhouse, you may also agree.... :D !!
PM me if you would like to see them and please provide an email address.
Sure as hell beats the crap out of this eye-sore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro)
Cheers,
Ian
2. I really like the proposed changes to #7 as it brings the hole closer to the ridge-line and allows players to see the water. It's an uninteresting hole until you get to the green anyway, IMO. Hitting an approach shot to an "infinity green" is more interesting that the gorse back drop that exists today.
I only played Dornoch once and walked it at sunrise a couple of other times. I enjoyed the town and the people I met. That brief visit hardly entitles me to an opinion, but I don’t remember thinking that the house and town needed sprucing up or modernized. In fact, as a visitor from the rural western US, I was charmed by buildings that were constructed to last for generations and have done so. This respect for history and tradition is reason enough for travel and discovery. So, my vote would be to change nothing. I love old things that provided enjoyment for generations. The Dornoch clubhouse felt more comfortable and appropriate than, say, Narin. If it doesn’t work for the members and visitors, that’s for the members and staff to determine. The same goes for the course.
Ian
What would the club do with a 22 bedroom hotel? I can't imagine the club would ever have a need for such a large house.
Ciao
Sean -
I hear you on this one for sure.
As an overseas member of RDGC, I certainly would stay there and perhaps others would as well.
Lots of clubs have places for members to stay, but maybe that's more prevalent in the US. I'm not an expert here at all.
The Royal Golf Hotel just makes sense to me because: the architecture is sound, the positioning of the building is damn near perfect and if you saw the architect's rendering of the transformation to a clubhouse, you may also agree.... :D !!
PM me if you would like to see them and please provide an email address.
Sure as hell beats the crap out of this eye-sore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro)
Cheers,
Ian
For any of the 1500 souls on this website who have played Royal Dornoch, please answer honestly with your heart and your head and your experience the following questions:
1. Should the current clubhouse remain, or should it be replaced?
2. Should the 7th hole and green be reconstructed to the right of the current fairway and the 8th hole changed to have a new tee on what is now the 7th green?
3. Should the 11th green be extended onto what is now the daily 12th tee, making the current 12th medal tee now the daily tee?
I am sitting in the RDGC clubhouse as I write this. All responses on here will be read and appreciated. Anybody who wishes to contribute but not respond on this public website, please e-mail me directly.
I am a 35-year member at RDGC and will be attending the AGM this Friday where these and other issues will be discussed and voted on. Your thoughts will inform me greatly,
Thanks
Rich
Ian
What would the club do with a 22 bedroom hotel? I can't imagine the club would ever have a need for such a large house.
Ciao
Sean -
I hear you on this one for sure.
As an overseas member of RDGC, I certainly would stay there and perhaps others would as well.
Lots of clubs have places for members to stay, but maybe that's more prevalent in the US. I'm not an expert here at all.
The Royal Golf Hotel just makes sense to me because: the architecture is sound, the positioning of the building is damn near perfect and if you saw the architect's rendering of the transformation to a clubhouse, you may also agree.... :D !!
PM me if you would like to see them and please provide an email address.
Sure as hell beats the crap out of this eye-sore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-sPa7omro)
Cheers,
Ian
Ian
I can understand a dormy house, but a hotel?
I can understand why foreign members would want better facilities, I would too if I was a foreign member. But there is no need to go nuts with a gin palace for a course that is really only very busy well less than half the months of the year. I don't like the current house, but I would be far more concerned about integrating the house better with the course. Right now, this is the worst aspect of Dornoch...the walk from 18 to the house and very little relationship between the house, course and sea. Not a single hole on the course is anywhere near as annoying as this lack of relationship.
Take a look at Castle Stuart to get an idea of what Dornoch could have, but the 18th has to finish near the house. Hence I think the last should be a par 5 to the putting green. I think that single change would be justification for a well designed house along the lines of Castle Stuart. A house which offers good views (and access to the course) of 1, 18 and the sea. If that isn't on the cards, as a member, I wouldn't want to spend big on house that will deliver a more up to date version of what already exists...just spiff up what you have and curse that the huse is terribly situated.
I saw the plans for a new house...not impressive and downright lacking in creativity. The committee needs to get about and get an idea of the possibilities rather than building a barn.
Ciao
It was my understanding that the club had a pot of money to build a new clubhouse and weren't dependent on finance, is that correct ?
Niall
James,
moving the clubhouse out to the 8th would do more to kill the ambiance at Dornoch than Coul Links ever could and building a clubhouse to fit just two events per year is the sort of financial stupidity that has gotten many a club into serious difficulty. Dornoch is in good shape at the moment but if you strip the US greenfees out of the equation then things look very, very different.
Jon
Rich,
Thanks for starting this thread. Some interesting points have arisen that relate to other clubs as well.
By the way, has consideration or a proposal ever been made to change the (seemingly not appreciated as much as the rest of the wonderful course by some) 16th-hole in any way? Just curious.
Atb
2. I really like the proposed changes to #7 as it brings the hole closer to the ridge-line and allows players to see the water. It's an uninteresting hole until you get to the green anyway, IMO. Hitting an approach shot to an "infinity green" is more interesting that the gorse back drop that exists today.
Rich:
Royal Dornoch is one of the rare 10's in The Confidential Guide so as a general rule I am loathe to suggestions to alter the course.
Ian's comment on #7 brings up the point that Royal Dornoch has always had great appeal to Americans because, more like our modern links courses than those on the Open rota, it already offers a lot of water views through the course. To me, the idea of adding another one is just pandering to Americans, at the expense of a perfectly good hole currently. Maybe you should ask them if that's what they're after.
If YOU were designing this hole for the first time and saw the site, would YOU put the fairway 60m from the cliff and decide to leave all that lovely gorse in place?
For the most part, the par 4s at RD all favor a draw or at least chart a right to left tact.
The new 7th hole moves left to right and brings some variety to the routing. It also strengthens the 8th hole.
...
Cheers,
Ian
I prefer the classic style clubhouse.I don't think that's the best timing as it and the posts were renewed in the last 18 months :-)
The only thing I would do immediately is take down the obnoxious sign.
Sadly as I poorly mentioned before, my guess is that the changes are driven by the " nouveau riche" who have settled in the area in the last 20 years. Most of whom have strong ties to the US or the M25 area.
And yes, I think the sales pitch [it is a sales pitch] that #7 will be more beautiful is an appeal to the American golfer more than the locals. For that matter, so is scaling up the clubhouse. The members have all seemed quite comfortable there since I first saw it in 1982.
If YOU were designing this hole for the first time and saw the site, would YOU put the fairway 60m from the cliff and decide to leave all that lovely gorse in place?
For the most part, the par 4s at RD all favor a draw or at least chart a right to left tact.
The new 7th hole moves left to right and brings some variety to the routing. It also strengthens the 8th hole.
...
Cheers,
Ian
Ian:
I believe there is a difference between thinking about how I would design a hole if I saw a site, and thinking about whether to alter one of the ten best courses in the world. I believe all architects should have respect for the best work that has come before them, and hesitate in thinking they are so smart they can always improve upon what's there.
Practically speaking, making such alterations is more likely to make a course fall out of the top ten than to move up. Once you're up there, there is nowhere to go but down.
And yes, I think the sales pitch [it is a sales pitch] that #7 will be more beautiful is an appeal to the American golfer more than the locals. For that matter, so is scaling up the clubhouse. The members have all seemed quite comfortable there since I first saw it in 1982.
.......in order to vote, you MUST be present in person; no proxy or absentee voting at all.
Can I suggest that if you haven't already done so, you all read the full report on the changes in question as posted earlier in the thread before making any final judgements. There are definitely more than a few considerations mentioned that haven't been discussed on this thread. Whether all of these have been taken on by the club and are to be discussed in the AGM as the opening post notes is another matter.
https://issuu.com/mackenzieandebert/docs/visionforchampcoursevrdgc2015-07_di (https://issuu.com/mackenzieandebert/docs/visionforchampcoursevrdgc2015-07_di)
Sean,
Gorse/whin removal on 17 is mentioned and so are changes to the fairway bunkering on the 5th. The 2nd has "No recommendations"
Is this typically how master plans are done in the UK? The membership votes on each individual proposal and winds up with some of what was proposed, but probably not all? It seems like it would tend to lead to work that looks not quite done.
I don't know that I have ever heard of a club in the U.S. doing it the same way. There is a committee process that sorts out the final recommendations, but I've never dealt with a "line-item veto".
Sad that the 7th will be changed as recreating the green precisely is just a pipe dream. This is a change that is just pandering to the 'awesome' crowd that will add nothing to the quality of the course and whose biggest effect will be to slow down the pace of play as people search for balls that have disappeared down the slope. If sea views are what is important then why not just cut down the whin?
Jon
Is this typically how master plans are done in the UK? The membership votes on each individual proposal and winds up with some of what was proposed, but probably not all? It seems like it would tend to lead to work that looks not quite done.The members have a say on each point on their own course and not going with the overall tweaks of a designer, how audacious!
I don't know that I have ever heard of a club in the U.S. doing it the same way. There is a committee process that sorts out the final recommendations, but I've never dealt with a "line-item veto".
Is this typically how master plans are done in the UK? The membership votes on each individual proposal and winds up with some of what was proposed, but probably not all? It seems like it would tend to lead to work that looks not quite done.The members have a say on each point on their own course and not going with the overall tweaks of a designer, how audacious!
I don't know that I have ever heard of a club in the U.S. doing it the same way. There is a committee process that sorts out the final recommendations, but I've never dealt with a "line-item veto".
With your experience you know clubs in the UK and US are not run the same way. I understand the proposal speak in trying to put it over as an overall scheme as Ally puts it. Looking at the proposals they aren't exactly creating uniformity but more adding individual changes along with clearing some gorse and some appear to be changes for changes sake.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. The members of the Club disagreed with most of those comments, as well as mine, but c'est la democracie!
https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/8225/_Royal_Dornoch_Golf_Club_looks_to_the_future_with_a_new_clubhouse.html (https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/8225/_Royal_Dornoch_Golf_Club_looks_to_the_future_with_a_new_clubhouse.html)
New Clubhouse gets planning consent at Dornoch.
Looking at the plans on the council website, a huge amount of money and space being used up storing members clubs and trolleys.
Unless I missed it the membership at RDGC has not agreed to build a new clubhouse. Indeed it was rejected recently when they were asked. Just to be clear getting planning permission is irrelevant in as much as I could put in for planning permission to turn the course at Dornoch into a giant caravan park and I might well get it as well but that does not mean it will happen. You do not have to own the land or building to get planning permission on it here in Scotland.Good point Jon. At the end of the day the decision is likely to be member based so I trust all those involved read the rules and regulations of the club and understand precisely who can and who can’t vote in such a decision including less obvious details such as whether not only those attending the appropriate meetings can vote or whether absentees can vote too. Complicated subject where things can go awry if not handled properly.
I too thought the membership turned down the new house proposal. So I was surprised to see approval for a (much different) plan. Why would somebody pay to go through the planning process if they weren't confident the proposal would eventually pass? Out of interest, in Scotland, how long does the applicant have to put spade in the ground to meet planning conditions?
Happy Hockey
I too thought the membership turned down the new house proposal. So I was surprised to see approval for a (much different) plan. Why would somebody pay to go through the planning process if they weren't confident the proposal would eventually pass? Out of interest, in Scotland, how long does the applicant have to put spade in the ground to meet planning conditions?
Happy Hockey
Assuming that Scotland follows England and Wales planning laws if so it is 3 years before planning permission elapses. All they need is to start part of the foundations (or footings) and build it for as long as they like to 'activate' the planning permit.
I have not heard anything about the membership passing a plan to BUILD a new clubhouse and that sort of thing is usually quite well known locally so I am sceptical about it being the case though it is not impossible.
Jon
Jon
I'm assuming they have just renewed the ground lease for a lengthy period ? If so, depending on how it's worded, they could come to regret the index linked rent review.
So is the new clubhouse definitely going ahead ? Sorry, if I missed the news but I wasn't aware it had been settled.
Niall
Jon
With any legal agreement all will depend on the specific wording. RPI/CPI indexed rent reviews are generally used when it is either difficult to determine a market value or where it wouldn't be appropriate. The purpose of using them is that the rent at review is generally the same value as that originally agreed taking into account inflation. These clauses used to be fairly straight forward but I've recently come across an example being passed off by solicitors as being "standard" that "compounds" increases. On a 99 year lease with 5 yearly reviews that could make a huge difference.
Anyway, I'm sure both the club and the Council have taken professional advice.
Niall
Jon
I'm assuming they have just renewed the ground lease for a lengthy period ? If so, depending on how it's worded, they could come to regret the index linked rent review.
Niall
Jon -
The site for the new clubhouse is not the current 18th green. The site is the area between the back half of the current practice putting green and the parking lot, pretty much next to where the starter's hut is now located.
The forward half of the putting green has already been extended towards the helicopter pad.
I doubt the new clubhouse will be visible to anyone standing on the 16th tee.
DT