[Brian Chapin]

What will we all think of the natural/native/no-mow/meadow areas that are the trend these days in 20 years? 

Obviously the benefits such as less water, fertilizer, chemicals and manpower to maintain them are well documented.  They provide great habitats to more animal species than can be counted and I have certainly implemented acres of them at my own course with great success both agronomically and politically.

I would guess (and I am guilty of this myslef) that most older clubs that have recently established "native areas" are doing so to help convince the membership that their course has not getting easier due to large scale tree removals.  I have heard from others much smarter than me that AWT didn't even like native areas and yet some of his most visible and well-known works are filled with them. 

Years ago trees were erroneously planted by greens committees all over the country without true regard for the integrity of the design or intent of the architect.  Today we can all see what a mistake they made. As we now remove all those trees are we in danger of making a similar mistake by establishing so many native areas?

[Mike McGuire]

Its harder to do native areas than it seems.

Invasives like reed canary grass get so thick its like water or OB. Planting fescue at to high a rate can produce the same effect in irrigated areas (or in a wet period). Saw both these scenarios happen recently at Erin Hills.

Without a budget to maintain and an experienced super its best to keep these areas way away from play.

[Powell Arms]

Brian,

We have removed numerous trees at Philly Cricket over the past two winters.  Much of the education was done via weekly emails from our Director of Grounds.  Overall, the tree removal took place to accomplish a specific objective: better conditions and reduced [maintenace] costs.

The effect on course ratigng was addressed, too, as a possible tangential objection to the overall objective. The text below is copied directly from a communication to the members.

*****

Course Rating
The three sets of WH course rating certificates.
1) Current 73.9 71.6 69.8
2) Trees as one 73.8 71.5 69.7
3) Trees at zero 73.6 71.4 69.5
(*The above numbers were calculated off of a table adjustment from the Course Rating Manual. Golf assocation field work may vary slightly.)

In general if trees exist on a golf hole, they get rated an obstacle value 1. Trees are measured from the center of the fairway using the following chart. You don’t see many holes with more than a two value and almost never greater than a three. Overall yardage influences the course rating by approximately 92%. Without doing a change in yardage, the Wissahickon rating will be almost exactly the same, or rating # 2 above.


**********

We have established native areas in to areas, (i) a tree nursery and (ii) along a railroad embankment that bisects the course.  Neither are in play, and the work was done to achieve the same overall goal.  Better conditions and reduced costs.   That said, the time to establish native areas is substantially longer than a layman would imagine.  It will take us 12+ months.

[Bradley Anderson]

Brian,

In my experience the naturalized areas cost more to maintain in the long haul. For the first three years or so there is the initial savings in rough mowing, but when the volunteer softwood trees start to grow up and then the thistle weeds start invading you take on a lot of hand spraying and bush hogging that is more expensive than what you spent by mowing those areas once a week for 25 weeks or so a year. And those areas become a seed stock for spreading weeds all over the golf course.

The term naturalize is very misleading. But that said, I like the naturalized areas for all that they do for the environment and appearance of the course.

[Brian Chapin]

I am more interested in an architectural argument for or against their establishment.  Do Native/Naturalized areas belong on a Parkland or Mountain golf course?  Put aside the time to establish or maintain them, which FYI really isn't very much or difficult (I know I've been doing it for years).

[Bradley Anderson]

Brian,

I go back and forth on that question. I have seen it work in some parkland situations, and I have seen it look silly in others. I think the key is to not overdo it.

[Powell Arms]

If the question is should native areas be established in areas where they are in play adjacent to fairways, then in my opinion the answer is "no".  

If the push to do so comes as an answer to tree removal, then it is no, because it defeats some of the reasons for removal; playability improvements and cost reduction, and the argument against, making the course easier, doesnt hold water, as described above.  In fact, I would think native areas would have a similar negative effect on playability when compared to trees.

If the push to do so comes from taking maintained areas and letting them "go native", I imagine that the impetus would be to reduce costs, as you outlined.  In my opinion, the answer would still be "no", or a "careful what you wish for" if the cost savings are compelling. Potentially reduced ability to hit recovery shots is the first unintended consequence that jumps to mind.  (The type of area I am envisioning with these comments is an area that is predominantly native grasses, of the type that swallows wayward shots)

[Mike McGuire]

I am more interested in an architectural argument for or against their establishment.  Do Native/Naturalized areas belong on a Parkland or Mountain golf course?  Put aside the time to establish or maintain them, which FYI really isn't very much or difficult (I know I've been doing it for years).

I would say native areas work very well architecturally in a parkland setting. They provide an obstacle which is preferable to trees and can look quite good. Think of a savannah with okas scattered amongst native grasses.

[Phil_the_Author]

Brian,

You and I need to have a serious conversation when I'm up there next week!

"I have heard from others much smarter than me that AWT didn't even like native areas and yet some of his most visible and well-known works are filled with them..."

Nothing could be further from the truth! 

[Brian Chapin]

i look forward to that discussion... you can re-educate me... again!  (notice i did give you credit for being much smarter than me!)

[Joshua Pettit]

I am more interested in an architectural argument for or against their establishment.  Do Native/Naturalized areas belong on a Parkland or Mountain golf course?

Brian,

Take any parkland or mountain course you can think of and try to envision what was there before there was a golf course.  Most often that would be the site in its native state (unless your talking about a redevelopment site).  If a good architect can integrate a golf course into a site that creates interaction between the golfer and the native landscape, then why shouldn't those "native" areas exist? Furthermore, why shouldn't every golf course be designed in a way that interacts with its context?  I believe that to be the definition of GOOD architecture, no matter which design medium you're talking about.          

This is really a site specific question and discussion.  No two golf courses are the same.  I think people tend to over-generalize when thinking about what a "Native Area" consists of.  Its not always just overgrown fescue.  And as your distinction indicates, Native and Naturalized are two different things.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()