Best New Courses Not Built on Sand

[Ira Fishman]

The Subject Line should be self-explanatory, but a bit of context for the topic: several of the great architects of the past 25 years seem to prefer and thrive on sand; however, the recent thread on Ross Top 100 Courses is strong evidence that soil should not be a barrier to great design. Tillinghast, Flynn, and Maxwell may be even stronger evidence.


What are the best courses on soil other than sand that were built in the past 25 years?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Of my own courses, Cape Kidnappers, Rock Creek, Stone Eagle, and Stonewall (x2) are the best that weren't built on sand. 

(The others are:  Apache Stronghold, Beechtree, CommonGround, The Rawls Course, St. Emilion, Stoatin Brae, and Tumble Creek.  Which is an okay list.)



Those were all WAY HARDER to build than Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal.  (Tara Iti wasn't so easy, because we had to get rid of all the trees and the root mass that went with them.)


But if you look at my track record ON sand, you can see why we prefer sand.  And it's not like I'm alone.  In fact, Donald Ross would have backed me up on that ... after all, what do Pinehurst #2 and Seminole have in common?  Pretty much any architect would rather build on sand, if they have half a brain.


I'm not sure about the answer to your question, though.  I'll be curious to see the answers.  [For Bill and Ben, there's Cuscowilla, Kapalua, Austin Golf Club, and the new Trinity Forest course ... I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple.]

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


Thanks for replying.  Since no one else seems to want to go next:


Although a bit outside my 25 year window, the River Course at Kohler is very good even though it probably is too difficult for me now.


In addition, I think quite highly of the Highlands Course at Primland which is firmly inside the window.


But I also have a question: it appears as if developers are searching low and high for sand, but not for what might be great sites on other soil.  Is that a function of the extra cost of building on/maintaining clay?  A function of Links/Links-like courses becoming so popular for traveling golfers with money?  A combination of both I guess.


Thanks,


Ira

[Peter Flory]

Erin Hills was clay based, right?

[Tim Gallant]

Others will know better than me, but I believe Ardfin wasn't built on sand, and judging by Ran's write-up, it looks like a great one.

[Tom_Doak]

Ira:  your last paragraph is a good observation.  Most of my non-sandy projects' locations were picked as being a suitable location for housing, or convenience to a town, or convenience to the developer's other interests - not searched out as being ideal land for golf.  Stonewall and Cape Kidnappers and Stone Eagle are the only ones where the site was identified for golf, and two of those predate the Bandon model.


So, I think you're right that such sites are under-explored.  But the truth is, there aren't many golf course developers of any sort out there looking right now.

[Tom_Doak]

Erin Hills was clay based, right?

No, Erin Hills was sand and gravel ... lots of gravel.  But it was identified as a good site in part because it would be cheap to build on, way before Bob Lang got involved.

[Kalen Braley]

Wine Valley isn't sand...its that fluffy palouse dirt

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting, Ira -- the obvious just occured to me, ie that the Scots built courses on linksland because it was no good for growing food; while today's developers build courses on sand because it's no good for growing sub divisions!

[Michael Wolf]

I enjoyed Mossy Oak in Mississippi. Couldn't have been easy to coax it out of the clay.

[David Wuthrich]

Tom,


What type of soil does Sebonack have?

[Peter Flory]

Erin Hills was clay based, right?

No, Erin Hills was sand and gravel ... lots of gravel.  But it was identified as a good site in part because it would be cheap to build on, way before Bob Lang got involved.

Glacial till was how I saw it described here.  Some clay sections, some sandy, some gravelly, etc.  https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/erin-hills/


My family owns farmland very close to it, so I just assumed that it was similarly heavy soil... but I guess the glaciers created lots of variances.

Sounds like it was kind of a challenge due to the inconsistency.  I know they've been trying to topdress the hell out of it each year. 

[Jeff Schley]

Interesting, Ira -- the obvious just occured to me, ie that the Scots built courses on linksland because it was no good for growing food; while today's developers build courses on sand because it's no good for growing sub divisions!

This is so true.  Utility of the land for it's intended purpose has changed over the decades, and many would say not in a good way.

[Jon Cavalier]

Nanea would be on my list, as would Rock Creek and Gozzer Ranch. Pikewood National and Kinloch too.

[Tom_Doak]

What type of soil does Sebonack have?

Pure sand with a bit of topsoil from all the years it was wooded, except for a couple of holes down by the entrance where the soil was a little heavier.  It was as good as anything we've ever worked in.  I still can't believe we trucked in sand to build the greens, "for consistency".

[Jimmy Muratt]

I agree with Jon's mention of Kinloch.  It's built on heavy Virginia clay.  In my opinion, it separates itself from other non-sand based modern courses with it's strategic design.  It can challenge world class players but still maintains a high playability and fun factor for all calibers of player.