The actual truth about the golden age and trees.

« **on:** January 02, 2008, 11:12:15 PM »

Is the real reason so many golden age courses started without trees because open farm land was cheaper to build on?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:17:38 PM »

John:

Having seen in recent years a number of Midwestern golf course aerials from pre-WWII, I've often wondered the same thing. Lots of courses look like they were laid out on arable land.

Having said that, Lawsonia -- an old farm, which still features its original dairy barn -- was not cheap to build, but that had little to do with taking out trees. It had a lot to do with Langford and Moreau's design preferences and building techniques.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:19:36 PM »

In 1916, a paradigm shift in grocery store science occurred. Clarence Saunders invented the self-service grocery store. The first Piggly Wiggly opened on September 9, 1916 in Memphis, Tennessee. The concept of the "Self-Serving Store" was patented by Saunders in 1917.

Interesting that this coincides with golf's growth. People no longer felt the need to grow their own food so they turned their farm land into golf courses. This must have started the trend toward wooded land being more expensive than massive cleared land. Thus golf was built where trees no longer existed.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:20:23 PM »

I think there is much to be said for that theory. Have often thought so.....Plus they could see the holes and what they were staking w/o much hassle. But then again the theory is just to simple....

« **Reply #4 on:** January 03, 2008, 12:16:25 AM »

The truth about the golden age was that they were practical.
Maybe minimalism should have been called practicalism.

Don Mahaffey is Mr. Practicalism.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2008, 12:31:51 AM »

Well, they were called COUNTRY clubs and I think most were pretty far out of town, which in the midwest at least, meant cornfield.

The wave of golf coincided more or less with the City Beautiful Movement and trees were a big part of that. It was natural to plant trees on golf courses to that generation. Not sure that its not natural for us now either, except for a few golf architecture nuts who somehow think that treeless golf courses were what most Americans wanted.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 03, 2008, 12:33:56 AM »

Given that a lot of early courses were laid out by Scots, it's only natural that they would build courses on open land.

That's where the courses back home were built.

Ken

« **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2008, 12:56:52 AM »

Perhaps its a % thing.

« **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2008, 07:02:58 AM »

In the UK it was very much because it was cheaper and easier to build where there were no trees.

A lot of the heathland courses (which really set the trend for inland golf) resembled links like courses (e.g. Walton Heath Old). The playing characteristics were the same; exposure to wind, fast and firm, far-reaching views, few trees, etc.

I think it was the combination of both the desire to create courses with few trees and the advantage of not having to clear them.

As early US GCA was heavily inspired by this movement it seems obvious that this 'concept' was used there as well.

Later trees started to receive more appreciation and courses were routed fully through forrest (e.g. St. Georges Hill, UK) or trees were introduced (Sunningdale, UK)

« **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2008, 07:14:57 AM »

John:

I think there's some truth to that.

And I think developers today are too dense to notice the same thing. I know of at least one developer in northern Michigan who bought wooded land for the "bargain" price of $2000 per acre instead of paying $3000 for another less wooded piece.

Then he paid $3000 per acre to clear the bargain property for a golf course.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2008, 08:48:00 AM »

Or how about an even simpler and more obvious explanation.

British courses - the models used by the architects working in the Golden Age - didn't have many trees.

Bob

« **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2008, 08:59:17 AM »

I am leaning to the big picture - i.e. the % of farm land and the cost pragmaticism of most Americans in the decision to build many courses on open farm.

I think it was also generally believed (I still here it and it has some truth) that the farm land had better and more soil, as it was the best land cleared for farming. Soil was even more essential then (now, we might be able to import soil, or more easily transport it across a site)

I doubt the romantic explanation of the early Scot designers. Bendelow was a Scottish transplant, but if Spalding or American Park Builders got a contract in the woods (Medinah) or on a farm, he would design either one.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2008, 09:10:35 AM »

There is truth to that – why clear trees when open sites were readily available. Furthermore, the game of golf originated on the open links and the best golf architects to this day are still trying to emulate that kind of experience. It is easier to do that on a rolling wind swept field than in the woods.

There is a site nearby my home that would have become a private golf course in the 90’s but the owner decided not to sell. I walked the site on separate occasions with both Doak and Hanse to get their opinions. I remember distinctly that Gil really liked the portion that was farmland despite the fact farmland often has many of its little nuances plowed away. Other parts of the property were wooded and some were severe but it had potential for some dramatic holes.

That said, I think we too often forget what real golf is all about. We all have seen too many magazine photos and have had our minds conditioned by over zealous architects and developers that great golf has to be dramatic golf. How exhilarating can golf be on farmland

A regular pilgrimage to play some of the true golf links in the British Isles would go along way to reminding us of the more artificial and evolved version of the game that most of us play today.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2008, 09:30:37 AM »

"How dramatic can golf be on farmland?"

It depends on the farm.

Merion East was farmland before it was a golf course. Your own Lehigh CC consists of 206 acres that made up the Kemmerer and Kline farms. Lancaster CC, Rolling Green GC, Bidermann GC, Philadelphia Country and a host of others were farmland before golf courses. One of the most dramatic sites in the country was a tree farm.

Great golf courses exist on links land, flat ground, rolling ground or even dramatically contoured ground.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2008, 09:48:10 AM »

As seen on the colored graphic, the farmland area in the 1920 was a lot bigger than it is now...

In landscape achitecture school, we work on regional landscape evolution and the Sutton township we were studying was fairly hilly (including a mountain) and looking at old aerials, we were amazed how much land was open, even high up on a hill.

We evaluated that farmland (or grazing space) was 75 % or the territory and is now down to about 25 %. In Quebec (and probably all through the american northeast) the transformation of the dairy industry (from local to mass production) is responsible for the reduction of farmland space.

So 75 % of Sutton township was open and that was a township with a small population far from any big towns.

So when seeking land for golf, grazing space was probably great to start.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:09:38 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 03, 2008, 07:14:57 AM

John:

..... I know of at least one developer in northern Michigan who bought wooded land for the "bargain" price of $2000 per acre instead of paying $3000 for another less wooded piece.

Then he paid $3000 per acre to clear the bargain property for a golf course.

Of course, he only cleared perhaps 100 acres, not the entire 160-200, so the net cost may have been as low as $1500 per acre. And, its not out of the question to pay $1500 per acre to plant trees so the net cost may have come out the same, (as it often seems to)

« **Reply #16 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:12:28 AM »

It has been reported (although I cannot cite the source) that there is more wooded area in the US today than there was in 1900. This makes sense given improved farming productivity- getting more from every acre.

It is certainly trure that golden age GCAs had more open area to choose from. This topic has been discussed here before.

It must be equally true that GCAs designed these courses for the open conditions that they found. One would assume that rarely was it the case, if ever, that the developer or gca designed a course with the plan to plant trees all over the place, particularly where they would become hazards and not perform some useful service such as producing shade.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:13:13 AM »

The charter members of American golf clubs chose land for its proximity to railroad stops, for price, availability, fertility, drainage and many other issues. I know of a property that was chosen because it was just across the border from a town where you couldn't drink, play cards, or even play golf on Sunday.

The presence or lack of trees probably had very little to do with any club's choice of land. The cost of clearing trees was probably offset by the value of the lumber.

Probably the very earliest planting of trees was around the tees, for shade to provide a respite from the sun on really hot days between golf holes.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:23:38 AM »

Bradley,

Also good points. I have seen articles by many of the gca's of all eras basically listing "natural features" as one of the lower priorities in selecting a site, with higher ones being utilities, road (or railroad) access, etc. The thought is you can build character into a course less expensively than you can run power for miles and miles and miles. Of course, if you want a truly special golf course, natural features are nearly essential, esp. in the Golden Age.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:29:23 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 03, 2008, 07:14:57 AM

John:

I think there's some truth to that.

And I think developers today are too dense to notice the same thing. I know of at least one developer in northern Michigan who bought wooded land for the "bargain" price of $2000 per acre instead of paying $3000 for another less wooded piece.

Then he paid $3000 per acre to clear the bargain property for a golf course.

I'm not sure how smart the guy clearing the land for $3,000 an acre is either. We paid $3,000 to have 10 trees taken down in New Hampshire last summer. Admittedly they were big trees, but an acre of land would not qualify as 'wooded' without a hundred trees at least. Maybe they have a deal with the guy selling firewood in town, but that sounds like a lot of hard work to me.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:37:26 AM »

Quote from: Mike McGuire on January 03, 2008, 12:56:52 AM

Perhaps its a % thing.

That map pretty much sums it up - there weren't close to the number of trees in the early 1900s east of the Mississippi as there is today. They'd been cut down to build homes, heat homes, removed for farming purposes, build furniture - any number of items. There is a lot more tree cover today than there was then. Most places where large stands of trees remained was not suitable for growing crops, which also meant not suitable for growing grass.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:47:07 AM »

Quote from: Anthony Butler on January 03, 2008, 10:29:23 AM

Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 03, 2008, 07:14:57 AM
John:

I think there's some truth to that.

And I think developers today are too dense to notice the same thing. I know of at least one developer in northern Michigan who bought wooded land for the "bargain" price of $2000 per acre instead of paying $3000 for another less wooded piece.

Then he paid $3000 per acre to clear the bargain property for a golf course.

I'm not sure how smart the guy clearing the land for $3,000 an acre is either. We paid $3,000 to have 10 trees taken down in New Hampshire last summer. Admittedly they were big trees, but an acre of land would not qualify as 'wooded' without a hundred trees at least. Maybe they have a deal with the guy selling firewood in town, but that sounds like a lot of hard work to me.

Anthony,

The economies of scale work that way sometimes. On heavily wooded sites, we often get bids of less than $3000 per acre for 30 or more acres of clearing, and $3000 per tree when only a few go down. There is the same move in expense, and burial, burning, ability to sell the wooed and other factors can affect the cost.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:59:10 AM »

Quote from: Taylor Anderson on January 03, 2008, 10:37:26 AM

That map pretty much sums it up - there weren't close to the number of trees in the early 1900s east of the Mississippi as there is today. They'd been cut down to build homes, heat homes, removed for farming purposes, build furniture - any number of items. There is a lot more tree cover today than there was then. Most places where large stands of trees remained was not suitable for growing crops, which also meant not suitable for growing grass.

Does anyone have a resource for this assertion? I am surprised by the idea that tree cover would have increased in the US because of urban sprawl. I would guess the opposite.

I did a quick google search and only found a site discussing a 30% decline in tree cover in urban areas. It did not address whether a decline in farmland has led to increased tree cover.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 03, 2008, 11:01:10 AM »

Jason,

I don't but I have heard that stat. Like all stats, it may come from anti-environmentalists or be skewed some other way. But I think it has something to do with the decline of farmland, not from urbanization, but due to high production farming which allows farm acreage to be reduced.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 03, 2008, 11:02:16 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 03, 2008, 07:14:57 AM

John:

I think there's some truth to that.

And I think developers today are too dense to notice the same thing. I know of at least one developer in northern Michigan who bought wooded land for the "bargain" price of $2000 per acre instead of paying $3000 for another less wooded piece.

Then he paid $3000 per acre to clear the bargain property for a golf course.

Tom, wouldn't it depend on how much he had to clear? It sounds like he would have had to clear on both properties, since the $3000/acre piece was only "less wooded" not "no woods". If he bought 200 acres:

$2000 X 200 = $400,000

$3000 X 200 = $600,000

$200,000/$3,000 = 67 acres of clearing - he would break even. That is if he didn't have to do any clearing on the more expensive piece. How many acres (ballpark) are typically cleared for a golf course?

News:

John Kavanaugh

Phil McDade

John Kavanaugh

Mike_Young

Mike Nuzzo

Jeff_Brauer

Ken Moum

Mike McGuire

Philip Spogard

Tom_Doak

BCrosby

Jeff_Brauer

Mark_Fine

wsmorrison

Philippe Binette

Jeff_Brauer

Jim Sweeney

Bradley Anderson

Jeff_Brauer

Anthony Butler

TaylorA

Jeff_Brauer

Jason Topp

Jeff_Brauer

TaylorA