[Jon Wiggett]

Neil,

if you want my opinion I would offer that although the individual holes look good and fit the property well there are too many places where you have to walk past other greens and tees on the way to your next hole. This would cause a lot of disturbance and delays as groups waited for each other to play or pass by.

Jon

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Ben / Adrian,

Just for a bit of fun I had a play around with your routing....... 



Essentially I wasn't looking to re-invent the wheel so holes 1, 9 thru' 13, 17 and 18 stayed the same.  The middle six holes became seven with the addition of the 15th, a medium length par 3.  I also looked to mix the holes up to try and reduce where you play up-down-up.  As a result the 2nd leads you down toward the furthest point on the course via a small walk and the third which now becomes a long par 3.

The new fourth plays opposite to your fifteenth and the fifth is a medium length par 4 again playing opposite to your fourteenth.

A long par 5 is the new sixth which gets interesting around the 150 yards from the green with a narrowing fairway and water either side - I liked the look of this hole.  The same can be said of the seventh which can play either as a mid to long par 3 or a risk reward drivable par 4.  I also preferred the two holes around the water to play clockwise so as not to bring the OOB into play.

Eight is a mid length par 4 and nine stays the same - the only difference is the extension of the pond to cut infront of the tee - I listened to your idea that the first should make the golfer think when on the tee and not just flail away with driver - the water and your narrowing of the fairway would influence this decision more.

As mentioned the ninth thru' thirteen stay as your routing with fourteen playing as your sixth, the new fifteenth bridges the gap to the sixteenth which plays as a reverse of your eighth.  Seventeen and eighteen are as your routing.

If you have time let me know what you think........

Cheers,

Neil.

Neil,

Thanks for your image/sketch. It is interesting as we have gone through over 50 different routing sketches as well as visiting the site to get the best green locations, tee shot vistas etc. One of the layout options we came up with was quite similar to Holes 3-7 as you have drawn.

Comments on your drawing:

Hole 3 would be quite steep uphill and the green will not be very visible from the tee as it is the highest point on the whole course and the green is too close to the boundary.

Hole 4 fairway and green is too close to the boundary and there is a horse jumping paddock there instead of a farming field. We have drawn the centre of the fairway 80 metres away from the boundary.

Hole 8 - Adrian has convinced me that the hole is better the other way round.

Hole 15 - tee is a bit close to the firing lines off the 18th tee.

Another concern - as Jon has also raised is the number of cross over from greens to next hole tee and the distances covered. We have tried to limit this as possible as it will be a walking course rather than one for buggies.

Also I am not a fan having 3 par 3's in a similar direction for the sake of 'filling in' the site. It is more interesting if they were in 3 or 4 different directions as possible.

I also feel that there is too many heavy rough as club golfers will be using the course. The majority of the current members are over 60's!

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Just a technical question for you.  Why go to the extreme detail of 5cm contours on the green detail, especially on the steeper slopes which you can't use for hole locations?  Most UK and European designers use a main contour interval at 0.25m, with intermediates, on the green only, of 0.125m.  Outside of the green it would be generally be 0.5 or 1.0m, depending on whether it is a flat or hilly site.  That's a lot of sketching and digitising to take up your time at such a detailed scale. 

Good luck with the project.  Very brave of you to put it on here for analysis.

Robin

Hi Robin,


Thanks for your info re: contour lines. I dont mind drawing the extra lines and it does give you more detail on how the green levels work. The greens are on average 500m2 - they are not that big.

It is a landfill golf course which requires more shaping and allows us to be more creative albeit the extra contouring. I also understand time is cost and money. It is also important to get things right early on.

I have done the contours at 1m, 0.25m and 0.05m (greens and nearby surrounds only)

I do agree that it is brave to put some information on the internet! It spices things up and helps us as well as others.


Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Here are some site photos for you all




Hole 1 - View from rear of proposed green - new green will be raised and built behind the existing green.




Hole 2 - View from proposed tee (both tee and fairway will be raised about 2-3 metres with a bank going down towards the trees and existing ditch




Hole 2 - approach to proposed green (a large mound will be located on the right here + a smaller mound left of the green)




Hole 4 - View to proposed tee from proposed green (tee area in middle of image and 3rd green will be located close to lone tree)




Hole 5 - view to proposed green (green is beyond the telegraph pole on the left)




Hole 11 - view from proposed tee (on existing green - 3-4 metres high to raised green in gap between trees)




Hole 12 - rear view of proposed hole




Hole 13 - proposed view from tee (the fairway will be raised between the trees)




Hole 13 - closer view to gap in tree (Adrian is on one of the existing greens)




Hole 13 - boundary (edge of proposed fairway is quite far right)




Hole 14 - view from proposed tee (as well as rear view of proposed 5th green on the right). The proposed 14th green is located just right of the telegraph pole in the background.




Hole 15 - view from proposed tee (centre of fairway is between the 2 white dots in the background) The proposed green is located just right of the telegraph pole line at the rear of the field.




Hole 16 - view from right side of the proposed green




Hole 18 - view from fairway (conifers to be removed!)




Hole 18 - rear view from proposed green position with hills in the background




View of clubhouse from 9th green position




And finally the White Horse! visible from most of the golf course.


Cheers
Ben

[Neil White]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for taking the time to respond re: my routing plan - it was fun to do and not meant as a serious critique......!?

I agree that the three par 3's going in the same direction isn't ideal - but as you pointed out the site doesn't allow for much movement and seems to dictate an up-down-side-to-side orientation for the holes.

The same goes for the walks, which I didn't consider to be much of a problem as the distances weren't that strenuous but Jon is correct that it may cause minor problems when walking past adjoining tees - again on tight sites there will always be some amount of noise / movement disturbance. 

The photos really help to explain the site and I hope that you are looking to keep us informed on progress.

Out of interest, how much inert material will you be utilising on site and when do you expect the course to be finished?

Best of Luck to both SAS and the club!! 

Cheers,

Neil.

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for taking the time to respond re: my routing plan - it was fun to do and not meant as a serious critique......!?

I agree that the three par 3's going in the same direction isn't ideal - but as you pointed out the site doesn't allow for much movement and seems to dictate an up-down-side-to-side orientation for the holes.

The same goes for the walks, which I didn't consider to be much of a problem as the distances weren't that strenuous but Jon is correct that it may cause minor problems when walking past adjoining tees - again on tight sites there will always be some amount of noise / movement disturbance. 

The photos really help to explain the site and I hope that you are looking to keep us informed on progress.

Out of interest, how much inert material will you be utilising on site and when do you expect the course to be finished?

Best of Luck to both SAS and the club!! 

Cheers,

Neil.

Hi Neil,

Its always great to see other ideas and others having a go at an alternative layout. Maybe one day we can meet up and we will give you a tour of the site whether its before, under construction or post seeding. A site visit prior to designing the layout is vital so that you can get a feel for it etc.

There will be between 300,000 to 500,000 cubic metres of landfill over 2 phases. Adrian's influence is the TOC and there are references from courses that we have already done.

Cheers
Ben

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't know, what do you think about using the oob more aggressively on #2?  Since you have this feature why not exploit it?  The tee starting alongside the OOB and the green close to it as well.  You can then make #3 a much shorter par 4 using the water more as a risk/reward (maybe drivable par 4) hole rather than a no man's land distance where the water is considered.  This could even allow for #9 to be played as a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  The tee range on this hole of some 125ish yards could be quite a talking point for the course.

Like the others, I much prefer the first iteration with "double fairways" and more centreline bunkering - especially if the bunkering is going to be as limited as you say.  Its the only way to make it seem like there is more sand than there really is.   

Ciao

Sean - Ben and I discussed shortening the 3rd hole yesterday, partly to get the lake larger, it will be a better hole at 300 yards and we are not so concerned with the overall length, perhaps we may shape up a 360 yard tee just incase. The 2nd is further over fractionally than that plan perhaps but we have to consider strays from the driving range.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Neil - Its a pretty good effort, I agree the walking behind greens is perhaps a bit much. I like your long par 5 as a hole, the 3rd is definetly better the other way, 'our' 16th will be quite a stand out hole, probably 210 yards from the back, downhill with green that will feed in from the left, hopefully with no bunkers. With your 4th we are a bit restricted and cant use as much land. The 13th on our plan is going to need a bit of a shift over too.
I think we can make that six hole block quite different, even though the holes look boring and samey on the plan. In principle Ben and I want to treat them as pairs so they will be some co-joining and perhaps shared fairway bunkers, we are in 2012 though and not 1870 and todays safety guidelines and litigation we need to create corridors of play and adhere to reasonable limits. The beauty of landfill is that it is our modelling clay and we can make some quite oblique features to divide holes and create best lines into the greens.

[James Boon]

Ben,

I love the fact that you and Adrian are willing to put up your designs on here. Its very brave but makes for some great discussions!

View of clubhouse from 9th green position
Cheers
Ben

Looks like they need a new clubhouse as part of the scheme. Something else to get your teeth into, but if you are too busy with the course I do know an architect... 

Cheers,

James

[Jon Wiggett]

Ben,

I love the fact that you and Adrian are willing to put up your designs on here. Its very brave but makes for some great discussions!

View of clubhouse from 9th green position
Cheers
Ben

Looks like they need a new clubhouse as part of the scheme. Something else to get your teeth into, but if you are too busy with the course I do know an architect... 

Cheers,

James

James,

I know your comment was partly in jest but I believe you may find that the clubhouse fits their need and their purse just fine. It is refreshing to see a club spending the money they have improving the course rather than creating white elephant of a clubhouse.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()