[Kirk Gill]

I was just reading the thread about improving the National Golf Links of America, and it got me thinking.

Honestly, why worry about improving a course like NGLA? It is an established gem (which, I must add, I have never played). Asking about "improving" a course like that is like asking how Bill Gates might accumulate just a few more dollars.

What I'd like to know is, what is the easiest and most feasible method to go about improving the architectural quality of poor and mediocre courses that might have potential for improvement. I played yesterday in my company golf tournament at City Park Golf Course in Denver, one of the least inspiring munis you could ever envision.

What can be done to improve THAT course? Taking into account budgetary issues, routing issues, etc., what would be the best first step that could be taken to improve that course for the thousands of people who play it every year? Since the course is not going to be scraped off the face of the earth and rebuilt from scratch, what steps can a municipality take to add architectural and playing interest to an otherwise banal layout? Assume that it would have to be done incrementally, so that the course could remain open and continue to be a source of revenue. What would be the first increment? Can the architectural interest of a course be increased without necessarily erasing the function of many munis which is to serve as a venue for the novice player?

Or is this a lost cause? Not worthy of consideration by those for whom NGLA is the norm?

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:  Some of my associates are very interested in doing work on courses like City Park; one who lives in Denver has talked about that course in particular.  But, it's hard to pursue those jobs because of municipal red tape ... we pretty much have to do it "pro bono" to avoid going through an exhaustive bid process.  And right now most of those guys are too busy with work for pay.

I also hesitate to take such work away from young architects who are trying to stay afloat.  

[Ted Kramer]

Having never seen the course my first thought is to get the course to play firmer than it does through the greens. I would imagine that most any course becomes more interesting if the ball bounds and bounces in the fairways.

This has nothing to do with speeding up the greens. This suggestion is about making the course firmer . . .

-Ted

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Kramer - firmess has rarely been an issue at City Park, although yesterday was an exception after some recent rains (and, it appears, a more "aggressive" watering regimen than I remember from the last time I played).

I don't know if "baked as hard as a rock" qualifies as "firm and fast" conditions, but they have existed at this course for years........

Mr. Doak - I understand what you are saying regarding dealing with the public sector and the beauracracy......but let's say I set before you an arrow-straight hole, trees along the left between the flat fairway and a road. Green up ahead with bunker right and left............in your mind, where might you start to tinker? Knowing that the powers that be are going to want to pinch every penny, what is the best bang for your buck way to make some changes to such a hole and add some strategic, architectural, or aesthetic interest - something to give the golfer something other than the most basic opportunity to hit the ball?

Some holes look like someone has already at least tried to add interest - there'll be a little set of bumps in the fairway in a landing zone, or some impinging bits of rough. A couple of those greens are severely sloped, and that was cause for some rejoicing. Still, on every hole I found myself thinking what subtleties my lack of training and experience left me unqualified to grasp that might improve the golfing experience for all............

[Bob_Huntley]

What causes the most grief to the municipal course golfer? I would probably guess it would be the agonizingly slow play on most occasions. I would suggest that OB's and sand bunkers are the main problems here.

Would grass bunkering be a minimal step in the right direction, especially in regard to cost?

Bob (The non-architect)

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob - of course eliminating hazards like that would speed up play - but then again you'd also remove a lot of the fun of the game.  Us muni golfers want our challenges as well.

 

In all seriousness, the main causes of hideously slow play at munis have nothing to do with design:  it's all about packing people in via 7 minute tee times, plus lack of knowledge about etiquette/too much emulation of glacial tour pros.  Seriously - my muni home Santa Teresa could be played in less than 3 hours easy in terms of its design - it's very walkable, not much distance from green to tee, all hazards are clearly visible with one exception; but try getting around in less than 5.5 hours on the weekend.  

[Ted Kramer]

Mr. Kramer - firmess has rarely been an issue at City Park, although yesterday was an exception after some recent rains (and, it appears, a more "aggressive" watering regimen than I remember from the last time I played).

I don't know if "baked as hard as a rock" qualifies as "firm and fast" conditions, but they have existed at this course for years........

I guess this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't post on or about things that you know nothing about.

Sorry about that.

-Ted

[Phil McDade]

Kirk:

Good question. I play most of my golf on muni's, and although I don't disparage them (they are what they are -- courses for the masses) there is a sameness to their look and the way they play that can get tedious.

Knowing budgets are limited for most muni's, I'd do these three things that wouldn't seem to cost a ton of extra money:

1) Put sand in sandtraps, and get rid of the boulders in them. The single biggest difference in quality I've noticed between most muni's and other courses is the quality of sandtraps; most muni sandtraps range from average to abysmal.

2) Widen the fairways, and cut down trees. Small digression -- many muni's were built in the 1950s and 60s, when cities were flush with cash, land was cheap, and golf became a game for the masses. Many many many trees were planted, and now they're all mature. I'm struck by how similar most muni's play; from the tee, the fairways are defined by tree-lined corridors, so you hit for the middle of the fairway, and then aim for the middle of the green, as few muni's really tuck their pins behind traps or on ledges. Widening fairways, and cutting down trees, opens up the angles of attack to a green (not necessarily better angles, just more of them), and increases the need for strategic thinking on courses. I'd leave enough trees to define playing areas between holes, but most muni's I play could do without about half of their trees that are now in play.

3) DON'T grow the rough to make muni's harder. Few things slow down play more on muni's than overgrown rough (and the endless hunt for wayward shots). This is a muni, after all; it's golf for the masses. My view is that rough on a muni should be somewhat penal, largely by decreasing the length a shot will carry/run out. You should be able to make progress toward the hole from muni rough, rather than simply punching out to the fairway.

[Tim Pitner]

I agree with Mr. Huckaby.  Please don't remove what little there is of interest on municipal courses.  

I used to play most of my golf in Denver on courses in the suburbs--Riverdale Dunes, Buffalo Run, etc.  Since I live in Denver, with the drive out there, plus 4 1/2 - 5 hour rounds, it's a 6-7 hour time commitment to play golf.  Now, I play more of my golf at Wellshire, a Denver muni, that has some good holes, but not enough to be inspiring.  It's tough to go from playing the courses at Bandon Dunes and Ballyneal to Wellshire (I know, poor me).  For some reason, Denver CC isn't beating down my door to join.  So, I'd love for someone to spruce up Wellshire or City Park and make them more interesting.  I'm certainly not asking for lush conditions and clubhouse renovations--just make the golf course more fun.  

I don't know what, if anything, you can do about slow play.  Because of cost, you're going to have people on munis that don't know much about golf and/or don't play very well.  If you want to play fast, you have to play early.  Something could be done in the way of designated times for juniors, beginners or even groups including women (if you apportioned the times equitably), but that might be too controversial.  As it is, I just have to tee off at Wellshire before 6:00 am.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Kirk,

It appears that monotony is the problem – straight and flat and probably no visible fairway lines due to the « baked as hard as rock » grass cover.

I like the idea of Bob’s grass bunkers – not filling in the old ones, but adding new ones. The grass bunkers placed in interesting places can :-
·  break down the monotony and add aesthetical value
·  add some contours to the flat fairways,
·  present a strategical golf problem without being penal
·  force the greenkeeper to cut round the bunker and avoid a straight parallel fairway cuts
·  with sod cutting can be done with relative little time loss
·  doesn’t require extra materials unless drainage is required.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Kirk,

Great question, timely topic.  I too grew up on the muni's (Maple Moor GC in NY) and my best friend and I always used to dream of what we could do to the course to "polish" it up (btw firm and fast was never an issue there either!).  Here are some of the things that could easily be done and are applicable at a number of muni's including two others I have played a lot of golf at - Cobb's Creek (Philly) and Memorial Park (Houston).

1.  Renovate and replace sand in bunkers.  Couldn't agree more with Phil on this one.
2.  Keep fairway rough at a reasonable height.
3.  Mow grass at fairway level height around green complexes creating chipping areas if suitable with the contours of the land.
4.  Create center fairway hazards.  Many muni's have dead straight holes without hazards... make the golfer have to choose a line.  Pick and choose spots wisely to do this.
5.  Expand green complexes to include interesting new pin positions.
6.  Add back tees where applicable to restore old shot values or create new angles.  While I am not always an advocate of lengthening courses, some holes would benefit from new back tees (or other tees for that matter).
7.  Spend more money on maintaining the greens and less on the overall condition of the fairways.  If you have to set priorities in the budget (and most muni's do), spend it on the greens.  There's nothing worse than playing a good muni design with beat up greens (if you played Maple Moor 15 years ago you know what I am talking about).  Even just having someone go out and fix ball marks makes a big difference.
8.  I'm sure the insurance industry will kill me, but either remove the "safety fences/nets" that are commonplace at city courses or find a better way.  The eye is automatically drawn to them, and it removes any focus on the hole itself.  I don't see 20 foot high fences at Winged Foot or Merion.  Imagine #14 at Merion with a safety net down the left hand side....
9.  Create two holes out of a par 5 (usually a par 3 & short par 4).  This could be a stop-gap so that you can fix another hole in the routing while not losing play or it could be a permanent change if you could create two interesting holes from a bland one (and retire another bland one) and not disrupt the flow of the course.
10.  Not sure how economical, but you could re-route an existing stream or create a man-made creek which could meander through the course.  Nothing too wide (maybe 4-6 feet) but enough to add some strategy.  Even a dry creek bed or barranca would do the same thing.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Re: my #9... the same principle could be used on making a par 4 into par 3 or vice-versa.  This worked well for Hazeltine (#16), and could be applied at other courses.

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Kramer - No worries !

The fact is that this particular course IS watering a lot more now, and the former firm and fast conditions were more a function of benign neglect than intent !

Mr. Chilver-Stainer's comments seem right to me. I've thought for a long time that grass bunkers are an under-utilized hazard. They may lack the aesthetic qualities of sand bunkers, but provide a similar challenge. I think adding ground contours is also a worthy pursuit - especially considering the comments about sod cutting, etc.

As to educating the public about slow play, it would be nice to see a course do something more than just have a ranger drive around and bitch at you. That, added to long waits on tees and approaches and the nonstop fun of having shots hit into your group from those who are behind you makes the long slog even longer. Perhaps a word or three of education. We need a golfing version of the neighborhood watch program to get people to actually be involved in making slow play go away.

I'm going to try and get some information from the City of Denver about just how much red tape would have to be gone through for changes at the munis. I'll let you all know what I find out.........

[Pete Lavallee]

This is a very interesting topic Kirk. One that is very interesting to me since I play all my golf at munis in San Diego. Although I live right next to Balboa Park and belong to the Men's Club there, the City runs the phone in reservation ststem, so I was forced to find another place to play on the weekends. My "Sunday group" has found a home at a 36 hole facility 15 east of downtown called Cottonwood. It has a river running through the middle of the property and because of this is on 20 feet of pure sand; the ideal base for a golf course. It was built by O W Mormon; I suspect that he received no repeat business because of the way these courses turned out. The papa course is called Ivanhoe and has well conditioned greens, little rough, no fairway bunkers  only 11 greenside traps and plays 6500 yards from the middle tees. The strategy is completely shaped by the numerous cottonwood trees that are native to the riparian area. They charge $44 during the week and $47 on weekends. It is slightly better than the average muni condition wise; the super does the best he can with the little resourses he's given.

The other course, called Monte Vista, is much shorter at 6000 yards. It's slightly tighter, has more contoured greens and actally plays tougher because it has a lot of half par holes: long par 3's and 4's that can easily put a bogey on your card. The course has been changed several times in order to make it longer and therefore more desireable to the general public, however each change has only made matters worse; it is less fun to play, the routing is now disjointed (a 400 yard walk between the 17th green and 18th tee) and the tee sheet is never full. In an effort to encourage more play the owners have hired an architect and propose adding  5 lakes to the course to make it more appealing to the general public. They  are even going to make an island green. I just can't see how this will make the course more popular, but I think like most on gca.com do and dislike bodies of fresh water on my golf courses. Rivers and streams are OK in my book, with an occasional cape style carry over a pond on the tee shot barely acceptable. But how else do you add interest to a plce that has no inherehent interest in its' original topography? Adding bunkers would seem to be the answer, but unless the terrain cries out for one they usually just don't work. My suggestion was to improve the quality of the greens; all golfers like smooth and fast putting surfaces; but that takes a continuing financial commitment. The owners believe they're giving the public what it wants. Digging ponds and selling off the excavated sand is probably the cheapest way to go; they can always fill them back in if the project fails. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the golf course was boring to start with there is really very little that can be done to make it more interesting and exciting. I'de certainly like to hear any ideas on how to make a bad situation better.

[Scott Witter]

Kirk:

I think you would be surprised what can actually be done to greatly enhance the golf experience at many muni's.  Often is the case that little input of architectural merit was given to the original design and construction and as such, I find that that there are many opportunities just laying in wait to be uncovered or introduced.  Many muni's never put in or have covered over bunkers.  In many cases, I have played and walked many muni's where the ground is quite interesting and offers a lot of good natural locations to introduce a few key bunkers throughout the course and this alone can offer considerable enjoyment and architectural interest.

Heck, in many areas around the northeast, with such heavy soils, just adding drainage in strategic areas can easily improve playing conditions and for most who patronize the muni's, this is all they are really looking for, just good playiong conditions.  With limited budgets for maintenance, we need to do all we can in other functional areas for improvements and quietly in more design manners to enhance the experience.  It really doesn't take that much, if you are willing to look close enough, but especially when little to no work has been done since many first opened for play.

I can't remember how many times early in my career when I went to many of these venues and simply showed them where they REALLY didn't have to mow the grass anymore.  Many of these courses are municipally operated and even countless mom and pop courses build on fairly large tracts of land never looking back over the years to objectively ask themselves why are we mowing all this grass?  With all of the environmental pressure over the past 20 years, I am doing them a big favor as well and in the end putting more useful money in their pockets to potentially do more improvement projects such you ask.

[Doug Wright]

I hadn't read this thread till just now and was shocked   to see it's about Denver 's City Park. I don't have time now to weigh in fully but I know this course very well and have a few comments.

First, it ain't bad as it is! Yes the routing is like four matchsticks placed parallel but:

--The greens are tiny and challenging to hit
--Some of those tiny greens are VERY sloped, especially the first 3
--The par 3s are really excellent
--There are some other very good golf holes, including the 9th, 10th and 18th.

Second, they have already taken some steps to "polish" this course, including lengthening the par 5 3rd (OK), adding a "water feature" between 6 and 11 (not very effective but better than nothing) and adding cross-bunkers (which my playing partners call "Wright's bunkers" a la "Hinkle's tree"   ) on the short par 5 17th (brilliant!).

Could it be better? Yes, adding some fairway bunkering and redoing the greenside bunkers would work wonders, but it is better than many munies I've played.

The City and County of Denver would be better served spending some dough on Wellshire GC, an 80 year old Ross that could emerge from its slumber like Wilmington (NC) Municipal with a restoration that included massive chainsaw work. Alas a guy who I think "gets it" was just fired from his position of Director of Golf for moonlighting so it isn't happening unless Tom Doak's (or someone else's--paging Rick Phelps!) pro bono project occurs.

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Wright -

You're correct about the work that has been done to polish this course. It is exactly the traits that you mentioned - the occasionally scary, small greens, the pretty good (generally long) par threes, and the memorable holes (to the ones you mentioned I'd add the short par four 15th) - that make me think that this is the kind of course where some architectural intervention, if you will, could make a real impact. And Wellshire as well.

I guess my question isn't so much about just these Denver courses, but the lesser-to-mediocre courses around the country that could be made better bit by bit. Knowing that the money to do large scale renovations probably isn't going to be available, the issue becomes what is the best method to go about slowly realizing improvements that could, down the road, leave the citizens of these towns some courses that they could really be proud of.

Maybe this is a case where individuals who really love these courses have to take the ball and run with it, become "golf activists," if you will. Someone has to CARE.

If a city wanted to bring in an architect to give one of their courses a real "once-over" and provide some advice about possible renovations, or (for the courses originally designed by quality dead guys) plans to bring the courses back to their former glory, what would it cost? Mr. Doak made a comment earlier about not wanting to take business away from younger architects. Is the kind of consulting I'm asking about generally a place where young architects can get some business and some experience?

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:  That depends on who is running the city golf courses.

Sadly, many municipal projects must be awarded through competitive bidding and a big convoluted RFP process.  A young architect can try for such a job, but the proposal process is VERY time-consuming, and at the end of the day the city usually favors someone with a fair amount of experience over someone with a bunch of untested ideas.

[By the way, the American Society of Golf Course Architects has suggested all kinds of guidelines for RFP's, all of which have the effect of making it harder for the little guy to compete.  They have even suggested that RFP's require membership in the ASGCA to submit, to protect the city from finding someone incompetent -- which indeed could be a problem if the city is required to take the low bidder.  But in looking out for the city, they just happen to be looking out for themselves as well.]

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

I agree that the RFP process in an unto itself can be quite challenging for many professionals whether or not it IS for "young golf architects" I am not sure, I guess it depends on your background and experiences, but I suspect this difficulty affects many professionals and not just young golf architects.  And while such a process can be time consuming, I don't follow/understand your statement relating a time-consuming process and "someone with a bunch of untested ideas"  As far as I know, I don't think there is necessarily a relationship between experience with the RFP process and a young architect with untested ideas.  

There is no question and I do agree with you though that the ASGCA has made it conveniently more difficult for the "little guy" to compete by way of their RFP's.  However, I know many architects, and perhaps you are even one of them, who don't belong to the ASGCA club, but are quite competent to complete an RFP,  ;)though I don't think you would be the low bidder

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()