"Natural" bunkers and open "Sand Scars" on links courses

[Tom_Doak]

I see RSG and Royal Porthcawl are going au naturel also...

How so?
Same consultants I presume?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I see RSG and Royal Porthcawl are going au naturel also...

How so?
Same consultants I presume?

Not sure about RSG. Martin Ebert is certainly at Porthcawl.


I'm sure there are many others. I find these ones out from a 2 minute trawl of one greenkeeper's blog.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Two years on and the trend continues with force. A lot of good conversation in this thread.


Like all design, the devil can be in the detail. “Natural” bunkers work best when they are tied in to the existing dune system. They are harder to work when standing proud on their own. They also work best when there is a little bit of restraint on the sand-line shaping. I see a tendency to build in too much cookie-cutter movement.


In the last two years, I’ve seen good examples and bad examples, often by the same architects.


Despite having to build bunkers rather than use a dune system, Tom MacKenzie did a great job at Trevose, partly because his positioning is playful but also because the bunkers are attractive, if a little similar in shape.....  I’m looking forward to seeing Narin & Portnoo. Concerned a few of the bunkers seem overshaped from aerials.....  Super excited to see St.Patricks because I myself routed an option there and I notice Tom has used quite a few of the same corridors and introduced others that I know will be great. This is a sure-fire Ireland Top-10. The green sites look fantastic so one of the key remaining questions for me is whether Tom & crew will keep subtle on the bunkers by using mainly existing landforms - hope so.


Meanwhile, I’m still not sold on the open sand scars. Gullane seem to be growing theirs back in and most other examples I see just don’t sit aesthetically with my taste. This could be execution as much as concept but little token scrapes on courses that are fully covered in vegetation elsewhere just don’t look natural, ecological benefits aside.


Biggest concern with both bunkers and sand scars is that a similar solution will be applied everywhere, neglecting the fact that every links landscape is incredibly different to the next.


We swing one way then the next.

[Ben Stephens]

Two years on and the trend continues with force. A lot of good conversation in this thread.


Like all design, the devil can be in the detail. “Natural” bunkers work best when they are tied in to the existing dune system. They are harder to work when standing proud on their own. They also work best when there is a little bit of restraint on the sand-line shaping. I see a tendency to build in too much cookie-cutter movement.


In the last two years, I’ve seen good examples and bad examples, often by the same architects.


Despite having to build bunkers rather than use a dune system, Tom MacKenzie did a great job at Trevose, partly because his positioning is playful but also because the bunkers are attractive, if a little similar in shape.....  I’m looking forward to seeing Narin & Portnoo. Concerned a few of the bunkers seem overshaped from aerials.....  Super excited to see St.Patricks because I myself routed an option there and I notice Tom has used quite a few of the same corridors and introduced others that I know will be great. This is a sure-fire Ireland Top-10. The green sites look fantastic so one of the key remaining questions for me is whether Tom & crew will keep subtle on the bunkers by using mainly existing landforms - hope so.


Meanwhile, I’m still not sold on the open sand scars. Gullane seem to be growing theirs back in and most other examples I see just don’t sit aesthetically with my taste. This could be execution as much as concept but little token scrapes on courses that are fully covered in vegetation elsewhere just don’t look natural, ecological benefits aside.


Biggest concern with both bunkers and sand scars is that a similar solution will be applied everywhere, neglecting the fact that every links landscape is incredibly different to the next.


We swing one way then the next.

Ally,


M+E have done a couple at Princes on 2 new par 3's one on the Himalayas and the other on the Shore. I am 50/50 about it and need to see it for myself to make any further judgement on it.


Cheers
Ben

[Thomas Dai]

Well done for bumping this old thread, a nice re-read.
I wonder if any of the courses that have over the last few years opened-up 'sandy scar' areas have suffered a really powerful storm and if so what the effects on the 'sandy scars' were?
Nature is a powerful beast - look what a big storm did to Westward Ho! Curiously I note there are no suggestions within M&E's re-design proposals for opening-up some 'sandy scars' at W-Ho!.
But 'sandy scars' do look nice in photographs, especially ones taken from a drone with the sun shining and blue water nearby.
atb


PS - Aberdovey's bunkers whilst a bit muted now to what was there a few yrs yrs ago are still pretty impressive and the one's an hour up the road at RStD-Harlech are very impressive, but then again the present Harlech Course Manager is ex-Aberdovey.

[Niall C]

Yes indeed, this thread is a fine read with some interesting stuff.


Re sand scars - I've made mention of late of the work done down at Glasgow Gailes where literally acres of pine trees and gorse has been removed. In particular there is a triangular area of just under 3 acres that was enclosed by the 8th, 9th and 10th that has been stripped of trees and gorse. They have put a simple chestnut and pale fence round it which is an old trick to dampen down any wind blow.


In other areas which aren't quite as extensive they have left them open. The work has been ongoing for a few years and was largely completed last winter from what I gather. I had been under the impression that the ground had been seeded following being cleared but I'm told that is not the case. It has been left to reseed naturally.


So far, as far as I know, there has been no real issues with wind blow which may have something to do with the nature of the weather and soil on the west coast as Clyde mention in a previous post. It's certainly quite a startling look if you remember the course before.


As for why the work was done, or rather who suggested it I'm not sure. It may well have been STRI or a simple desire to get back to a more linksy feel but as far as I know M&E weren't involved.


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if any of the courses that have over the last few years opened-up 'sandy scar' areas have suffered a really powerful storm and if so what the effects on the 'sandy scars' were?
Nature is a powerful beast - look what a big storm did to Westward Ho!

Storms can do incredible damage to the primary dunes along the coast -- see Westward Ho!, Aberdovey #12, Doonbeg #14, etc.


However, wind erosion of sand scrapes is an ongoing thing.  It may happen more prominently in storms, but it's happening all the time.  The bunkers at many of my courses - from Pacific Dunes to St. Andrews Beach - are 2+ feet deeper than when they were built, even with the courses actively putting sand back into the bunkers to try and combat the erosion.


Interestingly, my latest consulting job is another example for this phenomenon.  New South Wales Golf Club is certainly one of the windiest places I have worked.  Years ago, they went to revetted pot bunkers for all of their greenside hazards; and then when the cost of repair became too great, the greenkeeper at the time, Gary Dempsey, started a transition to "sand scrapes" for fairway hazards.  Whether to continue that bi-polar style [or how to address it] has been the biggest topic for the club since they hired me to consult.


Personally, I think they've done a better job with the sand scrapes than most:  Gary was well aware of the problems of wind erosion, so he introduced a lot of native plants and pigface [a.k.a. iceplant] into the scraped areas to minimize the area exposed to the wind.  They are really effective, and hold up fairly well, as long as they are used in moderation.  Indeed, the same goes for the revetted bunkers:  our focus is on deciding which of each type are crucial to the interest of the golf holes, and which could be filled in to reduce maintenance costs.


In fact, a good rule of thumb for a consultant is to notice whether he is always adding things and never subtracting.

[Tim Gallant]

Saw this on twitter and thought it was worth sharing. Not links, but similar sandy soil. Also, see James' earlier posts about Notts.


https://twitter.com/NGC_Greens/status/1215246710366253056

[jeffwarne]

I find it interesting that Aberdovey went to the more natural bunker many moons ago and it passed with barely any comment. I haven't been back since so I don't know how they have held up. Mind you, their bunkers were hunkered down rather than flashed...quite unusual. 

Ciao

Was great to see-last time (2014ish)- I was there they were fine.


Sod wall bunkers have to be rebuilt frequently too and had become way too common at too many courses.
Ocasionally they are cool to scare the bejesus out of you but a constant steady diet with always the same blast out recovery(unless it's aginst a wall and unplayable) wasn't a good trend.I'm a bit bitter having had three unplayables in 5 holes in Senior Open Q on balls that rolled into bunkers with minimal options for the next shot short of stroke and distance if unlucky, and blast out if lucky-zero skill in that-and I think rub of the game is integral to the game-but having them play as virtual water is not variety.
I'm happy to see some variety returning and welcome the natural where appropriate and practical.

[Tom_Doak]

I saw a few of these on my recent swing through Hillside, Royal Birkdale, and Formby.  All of the courses had them in a limited capacity.  Most were 100-150 yards off the tee, so not intended for play; they are for habitat, and to give players a little more to look at.


To my eye they were fine, but whike they may be a talking point for members they are not really an architectural point of interest.  It seems like some courses (Prince's) are now going to larger areas of exposure and that will likely continue until someone goes too far.

[Thomas Dai]

See Sean’s phototour of Dawlish Warren for some examples of terrific pretty natural bunkering. Deep pits, irregular/rough edges, wooden edge supports, wooden entry/exit steps. Cunningly located too.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68013.0.html
Atb

[Sean_A]

I saw a few of these on my recent swing through Hillside, Royal Birkdale, and Formby.  All of the courses had them in a limited capacity.  Most were 100-150 yards off the tee, so not intended for play; they are for habitat, and to give players a little more to look at.

To my eye they were fine, but whike they may be a talking point for members they are not really an architectural point of interest.  It seems like some courses (Prince's) are now going to larger areas of exposure and that will likely continue until someone goes too far.

This was my thought as well for St Andrews New. The sandy open areas are neither here nor there in terms of playing design. But it looks a hell of a lot better than banks of gorse.

I agree that the Trevose bunkering is a huge improvement on what was there previously. As Ally mentioned, and it's not just for Trevose, it's seems like varying bunker size is not really a priority for most new work in the UK. Does anyone know why this is the case?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I saw a few of these on my recent swing through Hillside, Royal Birkdale, and Formby.  All of the courses had them in a limited capacity.  Most were 100-150 yards off the tee, so not intended for play; they are for habitat, and to give players a little more to look at.

To my eye they were fine, but whike they may be a talking point for members they are not really an architectural point of interest.  It seems like some courses (Prince's) are now going to larger areas of exposure and that will likely continue until someone goes too far.

This was my thought as well for St Andrews New. The sandy open areas are neither here nor there in terms of playing design. But it looks a hell of a lot better than banks of gorse.

Once they look like a natural area of open sand rather than a construction scar where sand was mined from, then I'm good with them.

I've seen a few that look more like the latter than the former, often because they stand proud on a site where there is no other open sand.

[Clyde Johnson]

It seems like varying bunker size is not really a priority for most new work in the UK. Does anyone know why this is the case?

That's something that I've been very conscious of with my on-going work at Seacroft. The natural landforms tend to dictate bunker size and form when re-shaping; selecting differing features if/when siting new bunkers can have a big effect. Of course you have to be wary of wind blow and maintenance capabilities.

[Sean_A]

It seems like varying bunker size is not really a priority for most new work in the UK. Does anyone know why this is the case?

That's something that I've been very conscious of with my on-going work at Seacroft. The natural landforms tend to dictate bunker size and form when re-shaping; selecting differing features if/when siting new bunkers can have a big effect. Of course you have to be wary of wind blow and maintenance capabilities.

Clyde

It makes sense the "housing" feature will largely determine the size of the bunker. However, I am seeing the same thing for inland sites where there isn't this restriction. I see it all the time for bunkers built into fill pads of greens. I guess even then wind might be a problem sometimes, but I find it hard to believe there isn't more scope for exploring bunker size than is the currently the case.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A bunker was installed over the back of the 17th green on the Championship course at Royal Aberdeen many years ago. A few days later a big storm blew all the sand out of the bunker. Shortly afterwards the bunker was converted back into a grassy bank.

Expanding matters further, size and shape and location have many factors that effect it. Not just wind action but storm water run-off (including water entering bunkers through the vertical face!) water table and flooding, ease/difficulty in mowing and edging, tree and plant root ingress, leaves and shade, surrounding soil type, edging grass types, sand types, sand-splash etc etc etc.

And all have time and money and maintenance implications as does indeed does 'suitable' sand supply, which I understand is starting to become an issue in some places (see also top-dressing etc).

And then we have the current trend for ecobunker/durabunker type astroturf layered edging. Where is this taking things I wonder?

Plus the liner and base layer issue. Some liners and base layers permit water to flow through bunker floors so well that the sand becomes so dry and powdery that it requires watering, which given 21st century water issues, is probably not the sort of thing that puts golf in a good light.

Cause and effects. Best intentions, technological progress and money vrs more traditional approaches.

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

This trend continues apace with the same treatment given to one links course after another. Part of that trend is mixing natural edge bunkers with revetted edge bunkers (something I’ve done myself). This needs to be done sympathetically to ensure there isn’t too big a contrast... as for the open sand scars, I copy this from my present post on the Porthcawl thread because it belongs here:



I’m still not 100% sold that removing the pioneering grasses and vegetation to expose open sand increases biodiversity. It certainly decreases aspects. I do know however that this approach is being promoted by the STRI so I could be talking out of turn.

Regardless, the open sand on many of these courses is being introduced as much as an aesthetic and because that is one of the drivers, the locations are not always the natural ones where you would expect to see blowouts etc. I remain unconvinced, either by the premise or by the execution. They are far too “obvious” and often incongruous with the rest of the landscape.

But If this is genuinely creating positive PR outside the golf industry then great. All I see is the PR within.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Having visited St. Patricks last week, I can say with some confidence that the approach there is very different to the approach I’ve seen over and over again in retro-fitting this kind of work in to established courses.


It felt much more organic and at one with nature.


Open sand scars and natural bunkers change with the wind, time and environment. Some will stabilise and grow over (especially when grasses are being maintained nearby), some will erode beyond the point of being stable (then see partial retaining / sod walls to hold shape) and some will just morph to an acceptable level. In St Patricks, there are also manmade scars from the Nicklaus work in 2006 that have been left to 15 years of wind and used or just been cleaned up a little by Tom and crew.


None of the open sand or bunkers has been “built” in to newly created mounds: They are all placed in the existing landscape. Some of them look like they have been created by sheep or rabbits. Some of them probably have.


I’m sure over time much of these areas will need to be “formalised” a little. That will be a pity. I think they are near perfect just as they are.