Where, Who, and Goals

[Chip Gaskins]

IF any of us were to fall into some serious money (i.e. #5 employee at Google type money) where you didn't have to worry about the "business model".....then I would love to hear some of your answers to the below questions:

1) Where? (with the obvious constraints in place today, no more Monterey ocean front, environmental restrictions, foreign ownership regulations, etc)
  - America (New England, Mid West, Prairies, etc)
  - UK (Ireland, Scotland, England, etc)
  - Exotic (New Zealand, Cabo, Costa Rico, etc)

2) Who?  Someone from the obvious establishment or would you be willing to give a lesser known architect a shot like Keiser did early on at Bandon?  If so, who?

3) Would you put any real restrictions on what you wanted (i.e. can't start with a par 3, must be over 7000, can't have blind shots, small greens, etc?) or would you trust the architect and hope for the best?

4) Would you attempt to design it yourself with oversight from a real architect

5) Would you make a low maintenance budget a top goal?

6) Would you choose NOT to use beautiful waterfront acreage if you knew it would harm the environment (even if local environmental regulations might some how allow it, i.e. Dominican Republic course I just heard about)

7) Would you want a vibrant local membership of solid golfers OR an international group OR no group (Sanctuary & Institute)

I look forward to the open check book answers....

[J_ Crisham]

Northwest coast of Ireland in the dunes . Coore/Crenshaw and stay the hell out of their way .Definitely a place whre the locals are welcome. Who better than the gregarious Irish to spend a day on the links and a postround drink or two.

[John Moore II]

The course would be on water somewhere, a lake, ocean, river, anything. I'd design it myself, it would be par 70 and very long. I might get help with it, Nicklaus and Woods. (go ahead, bring it on) Smallish greens, very firm. Narrow fairways, tight bunkering. Tight greenside bunkering. I'd have to know how much environmental damage would happen and how much I could repair with the course itself. There would be no membership, if you play there, you play as my personal invited guest.

[Kyle Harris]

Reclaiming some of the backfilled mining areas in Schuylkill County, PA. Or near Centralia.

I'd be the designer and visionary.

[C. Squier]

Simple:  I'd have no idea where it would be.  I'd ask Doak or C&C to take the checkbook and call me back in a few years w/ a plane ticket.  Let them build their dream job.  There isn't a damn thing that I could add to that scenario that would improve the course.  Imagine the suspense of not knowing!  

OK, I lied....no waterfalls.  

CPS

[Mark Pearce]

Before it was opened I was given a tour of the Buckinghamshire club in Denham, Bucks, England.  It was aimed at Japanese business men, as far as I could tell.  The manager was certainly keen to show me the space that could be used to work whilst waiting for a car to take you to Heathrow.  One comment really grated with me.  Whilst showing me the spike bar he said "of course, we don't want to be the sort of club where we're two deep at the spike bar on a Saturday morning".  My first priority is a membership that play and socialise.  I want to belong to a club where anyone who's a member can get a game and where competitions are frequent and popular.

Other than that, I'd want it nearby, so it would depend on where I lived and I suspect if I did become that wealthy we'd probably move north of the border.  I'd get someone beginning to make a name for themselves and give them completely free rein but with a desire for it to be tough but playable.

[Jay Cox]

I would build on extremely hilly, rocky land in New England, with no water except for perhaps a small stream and, if necessary for irrigation, a small pond.  The land would prevent one from building any course except a quirky one.

I would design it myself, but with the best technical help that I could afford.

I would build very few bunkers, if any.  The main hazard would be the topography.

I would move almost no dirt anywhere except around the greens, but I would not hesitate to manufacture greens.  Although I would not conciously attempt to emulate them, my models would be Yale (Raynor) and French Lick Springs (Ross), two of my favorite sets of greens, both containing a mix of low-profile and built-up greens and both blending perfectly into their severe, hilly sites.

I would devote the lion's share of the maintenance budget to the greens, which would be wild but not too fast.  Fairway irrigation would be minimal.  The fairways and (especially) areas surrounding the green would be fast and firm.  Although the maintenance budget would be small, I would hire a top of the line superintendent -- if I could find one willing to work at such a place.

I would not care about the overall length of the course or the length of any individual hole.  I would let the land dictate length -- and, as noted earlier, make sure that the land had enough movement that it really would dictate length.

One of my main goals would be to make the course feel like a cohesive experience rather than a set of individual holes.  Golfers would have views of earlier holes and later holes throughout the round.  If possible, there would be a few shared playing areas.

I would not seek out blind shots, but I would expect that the best routing available would include at least a handful of them.  I would expect that a blind second would be part of the penalty for a poorly placed drive on at least a couple of occasions.

The course would be open to the public, but it would not advertise its existence or expect to get much public play.  (If possible, it would be at the end of a long, unmarked driveway through the woods.)  It would have a junior rate of less than $10.  If anyone wanted to join, it would have members, too, but no frills.  The clubhouse would consist of one large room where members could have a drink with each other or with their families after a round.

There would be no cart paths and carts available only to those who could not play without them.

[TEPaul]

Personally, the where doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I think the fun and challenge of architecture is just trying to squeeze as much interest and interesting challenge out of the pre-existing offering of any raw site without having to slavishly be saddled with many of the apparent and expected conventions of golf and architecture.

[Sean_A]

I don't know where.  Half the fun of the project would be the search for the perfect location.  I would certainly have a stab at building it myself.  If I have plenty of dough why worry about the screwups?  Though I would like a partner who may nudge me in the right (my direction) direction - but mainly for a bit fun.  Perhaps Paul Cowley would be interested.  I suspect the course would struggle to reach 6500 yards or a par of 70.  I also don't see all that many bunkers employed.  This should all be possible on the right property.  

Gosh, when I dig a bit further on this UK model of sub par I would like too push it even further - take note that I don't care if the course is challenging for the flat bellies.  It would be very cool to design a course under 6000 yards and one of my many ideal models would make this possible.  

1. I don't want a hole over 500 yards.  This makes two reachable par 5s in the 475 to 490ish range.

2. I want at least 5 par 3s - hopefully 6!  In some sense the property will be chosen with the par 3s very much in mind.  

3. I want a few monster par 4s in the 460ish range.

4. A handful more around 400-440 - say 3.

5. I want a handful of short par 4s one of which is 275ish yards.  The other two at about 300 and 325.

6 A few par 4s of about the 360-390 range.

I make this type of course to be well under 6000 yards and envision it playing a bit longer in some places and perhaps a bit shorter in other places.  For certain it will surprise people to be under 6000 yards - it will certainly feel much longer because folks generally forget about the short par 3s "because they are meant to be short".  They will remember

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Personally, the where doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I think the fun and challenge of architecture is just trying to squeeze as much interest and interesting challenge out of the pre-existing offering of any raw site without having to slavishly be saddled with many of the apparent and expected conventions of golf and architecture.

What?

 

[Jim Nugent]

Somewhere in the rolling sand dunes of the middle east.  Doak.  Only restriction: make the best course he can.  I would work up my own routing first, then see how much different Tom actually did it.    Since money is not a concern, neither is the maintenance budget.  Someone would have to convince me the waterfront location would harm the environment.  Welcome local and international play.  

[CJ Carder]

1.  Where
Right here in Hampton Roads, preferably somewhere between Williamsburg and Yorktown - out near, but not necessarily on, the York River.

2.  Who
I honestly don't particularly care, but that has more to do with me not having a wide enough knowledge of different current architectural styles.  I'd definitely do my research.

3.  Restrictions
My one restriction, and perhaps also my goal at the same time, is that I want an experience similar to Augusta, Oakmont, etc.  This has more to do with conditioning, but I also want it difficult, firm, fast, and a solid dose of elevation changes.  Though I've never seen it, Kinloch is probably close to what I'm envisioning, but it's on the west side of Richmond and I don't want to drive 1 1/2 hours to play golf everyday.  

A few other smaller restrictions are no cartpaths (walking only), a clubhouse at the top of a hill overlooking the course, and a front to the clubhouse that is removed from the main thoroughfare (think Muirfield and the big field between the road and the stone wall).

4.  Design it yourself?
I'd like some input on the holes... but in all honesty, if the architect thought my ideas were dumb, then by all means, yield to the architect.

5.  Low maintenance?
I thought money wasn't an object here?  

6.  Environment?
I don't want to harm the environment, regardless of how much leeway I have with legal restrictions.

7.  Membership
I want solid golfers, and I want solid golfers who appreciate the atmosphere I'd be trying to build.  I've heard Oakmont members are masochists.... I think that's fantastic.  Part of golf is challenging yourself and if you are a solid golfer and prefer to play on a course where you regularly shoot even par or some fantastic score, then you're not really challenging yourself.  Local or international, I don't particularly care, though I lean towards a mixture of both as I think international golfers add a very important flavor to a membership.

[Bill Brightly]

Simple:  I'd have no idea where it would be.  I'd ask Doak or C&C to take the checkbook and call me back in a few years w/ a plane ticket.  Let them build their dream job.  There isn't a damn thing that I could add to that scenario that would improve the course.  Imagine the suspense of not knowing!  

OK, I lied....no waterfalls.  

CPS

"OK, I lied....no waterfalls."  


See, you already are meddling!

[John Moore II]

Yes Clint, what if a waterfall was natural to the property? Would you make them remove it just to not have one?

[Craig Sweet]

Just southwest of Ovando, Montana (right off RT.200)....an amazing piece of land!  I'd hire C&C or Doak....open it up for everyone.

[Kirk Gill]

The main battle would be between my ego and good sense (i.e. should I design it myself or hire someone who actually knows what they're doing). The secondary battle would be between aspiring to greatness or just wanting to build a good, solid course (the degree to which the course could aspire to greatness would have a lot to do with the outcome of the first battle!). The third battle would be between my egalitarian impulses and my desire to covet and keep the result to myself.

To specifically answer your questions:

1) Where? There's a parcel of land near where I live now that is absolutely aching for a golf course, so that would be my first choice, but I'm open to finding a better bit of land. Finding the perfect place would be a good part of the fun.

2) Who?  If I didn't tackle it myself (or if I did, and then needed someone to come in and do it right), I'd probably just IM someone on this board and see what their schedule is like!

3) Would you put any real restrictions on what you wanted (i.e. can't start with a par 3, must be over 7000, can't have blind shots, small greens, etc?) or would you trust the architect and hope for the best?  I'd want proper drainage, and I'd care first about how it plays for the shorter-hitting, average golfer, with the tips coming second, rather than the reverse.

4) Would you attempt to design it yourself with oversight from a real architect?  The temptation of that would be most difficult to resist. Of course, as has been said on here before, what self-respecting architect would want to play second-fiddle to the likes of me? Perhaps if the pay was very, very good........

5) Would you make a low maintenance budget a top goal? Yes, for the future of my pocketbook, and the planet  

6) Would you choose NOT to use beautiful waterfront acreage if you knew it would harm the environment (even if local environmental regulations might some how allow it, i.e. Dominican Republic course I just heard about)   Having played little seaside golf, it's not in my blood. If the sandy, dune-filled oceanside site of my dreams was available, it would tempt. But since this project wouldn't be driven by the profit motive, and since I do have a conscience, I can't imagine building in a place that I knew would be hurtful to the environment, if there was no way to build without that harm. And I don't think you have to be some kind of tree-hugging moron to feel that way.

7) Would you want a vibrant local membership of solid golfers OR an international group OR no group (Sanctuary & Institute)  While the Sanctuary model would be tempting, I'd rather have folks play, and respond to what they experienced. Of course, I guess I could always shut it down every once in a while and have it to myself........

[George Pazin]

I'd probably go nuts, building courses all over the place. Weird ones, too. Less than 18 holes, more than 18 holes, quasi private, mostly public.

I'd be most curious to buy a parcel of land in western PA and try to build an Oakmont-type replica - basically, as many of the same holes as possible, given the obvious physical limitations. Then I'd make it no rough, fast and firm as hell, and then invite Tiger and a few others to test out some hypotheses.

EDIT: I'd also throw some money into making certain other people's (mostly other posters) ventures get off the ground.

[John Moore II]

On second thought, I would also like to design a course thats shortish, 6500yds, with no bunkers. But have it with small and very undilating greens with Ross like runoffs. Keep them rock hard and lightning fast. And invite other Pro's down to see if they could shoot par or better. That would be fun.

[paul cowley]

I don't know where.  Half the fun of the project would be the search for the perfect location.  I would certainly have a stab at building it myself.  If I have plenty of dough why worry about the screwups?  Though I would like a partner who may nudge me in the right (my direction) direction - but mainly for a bit fun.  Perhaps Paul Cowley would be interested.  I suspect the course would struggle to reach 6500 yards or a par of 70.  I also don't see all that many bunkers employed.  This should all be possible on the right property.  

Gosh, when I dig a bit further on this UK model of sub par I would like too push it even further - take note that I don't care if the course is challenging for the flat bellies.  It would be very cool to design a course under 6000 yards and one of my many ideal models would make this possible.  

1. I don't want a hole over 500 yards.  This makes two reachable par 5s in the 475 to 490ish range.

2. I want at least 5 par 3s - hopefully 6!  In some sense the property will be chosen with the par 3s very much in mind.  

3. I want a few monster par 4s in the 460ish range.

4. A handful more around 400-440 - say 3.

5. I want a handful of short par 4s one of which is 275ish yards.  The other two at about 300 and 325.

6 A few par 4s of about the 360-390 range.

I make this type of course to be well under 6000 yards and envision it playing a bit longer in some places and perhaps a bit shorter in other places.  For certain it will surprise people to be under 6000 yards - it will certainly feel much longer because folks generally forget about the short par 3s "because they are meant to be short".  They will remember

Ciao

Sean...I missed this one earlier.

I think your numbers are right on for a fun course...or a course to have fun on.

I will go you one better and promise that if I ever come into the big money, I will come and build you your course on land of our choosing, and at my expense......as long as whenever we look at a spot that looks like it might need a bunker,....we think about it twice, and then not put one in.

ch ;)w!

[Philippe Binette]

Where, I  would built something on a flattish (with little contours) sandy loam site just north of Montreal.

I'll design it

It's just going to be a course with some simple well-built bunkers, good greens on a fairly open piece of property (think Garden City)

Main criteria, Easily Walkable. yardage up for debate but I doubt it would be more than 6800 (I want it to be known as a little subtle monster)

Maintenance: a smart super and average budget, don't want to look like Augusta)

Concept: 18 holes with about 40 - 50 houses (no fake huge castle, but small well designed houses) close to the clubhouse (creating a little village)
Try also to make the course connect with an existing town

Fee: 50 $ public (good architecture accessible with hdcp card) during the week (tee times every 10 minutes)
weekends: private course for friends and guest only

Would love to have a caddie program

No carts, no gps, no gadgets, just golf...

One major tournament each year, invitational type

[Jeremy Rivando]

Where: South Island, New Zealand on the coast or an inland valley.

Who: I'd design it, with the help of the best shapers and bunker builders (maybe Jim Wagner) my money can buy.

Style: It would be an organic course, utilizing the latest science to provide chemical free maintenance.  No golf carts (maybe the Segway could be made available), short distances between tees, few bunkers (around 40-50), some blind shots, a wide yardage spectrum (140-240 Par 3's, 300-490 Par 4's, 520-610 Par 5's), varying green sizes (4000ft2 - 8000ft2) very little earthworks,  simply shaping in tees, bunkers, and greens.

Definitely a caddy program

No frills clubhouse, small golf shop, great snack bar

Small local membership (200 or so) and an international member representation

Maintenance budget? whatever needs to be done to keep the greens green, otherwise mother nature determines the conditions

Fun, fun and more fun

[Mike_Cirba]

Vegas,

Rees Jones,

Over 7500 yards,
Lush and Green
Waterfalls everywhere
Squiggly bunkers
Stimping over 12

Rees is the Open Doctor, who better?

It would make Cascata look like Burnt Out Muni

Anything we could get away with.

The more cigar-chomping, real-estate mavens on the upside of variable rate mortgages the better.

[Evan_Smith]

I don't care where, just the best site for golf.  I'd like to get Ian Andrew to build one course because I like his design ideas,  Golden Age stuff and Stanley Thompson styles.  I would get someone else to build another course and then have them or Ian or someone else consult me on my own design at the same site.  Having 3 courses would allow me to have a Private club (access on all 3), but also 2 public courses and I would never charge more than $50 no matter how popular it became.  They would be walking only with no cart paths, and caddies available.  I don't have a length issue, just what works best for the site.  I would also want the courses to be F&F, and let them brown out in the summer if the rain doesn't fall.