[Melvyn Morrow]

Land for a golf course should first be ‘Fit for Purpose’

The Castle Course at St Andrews is the latest. The budget of £2.5million seems reasonable if the land chosen was ‘Fit for Purpose’. However, I do believe the site of the new course was totally incorrect. But I level no criticism at the Design Team or for that matter, The St Andrews Links Trust because I was not privy to the original brief.

I have no knowledge as to why this site was chosen, but knowing St Andrews, I would never have suggested building a course on these fields. In GCA.com - Feature Interview, October 2007 with Scott Gummer - there is an aerial photo looking out to St Andrews in the distance, and a before and after picture of the 3rd Hole. No real features, from memory just fields and a little Church near Boarhills where my younger sister was Christened in the mid 1950’s.

I believe we need to get back to basics. The site should be fit for purpose; the Design Team needs to be given something worth designing. A sloping field site will just swallow up the budget if the idea is to produce a course that will reflect Scottish Golf. The old saying of something about a ‘pig’s ear into a silk purse’ springs to mind. Well, that’s not quite correct; after all it was just farm land.  

I would like to see more thought in the selection process. If the land requires millions of dollars/pounds to be thrown at the site to make it into a golf course, then in my opinion, something has drastically gone wrong and that site should never have been chosen.

There is surely a responsibility on all to be sensible with budgets. Burdening a club with a massive start-up debt is just plain irresponsible. The site is paramount. It needs to
be fit for purpose. Again, perhaps we need to look back at golfing history and see why some of the early Clubs and
Local Councils paid for a Professional Golfer or Green Keeper
to survey the land prior to selection. I expect an initial
survey was undertaken for the Castle Course, but still do
not understand the decision to place a course on this site.
I feel that there is a strong case for naturalism as used by the early designers, particularly if it can reduce construction costs.

Perhaps we need a bit of good old fashion Scottish Prudence brought back into the equation.  

[Brett Hochstein]

I am in some agreement on this.  In seeing the before and after photos of the Castle Course, i found it bizarre that 1. they selected that site and 2. had David Kidd do what he did.  While I would comment that the production was fantastic and as convincing as any faux links, the land was not exactly 'fit for purpose' for what was created.  To me, the uneducated observer, it seems a deviation from the prevailing  attitude of the Links Trust.

[Neil_Crafter]

Melvyn
In an ideal world, one without local councils and planning approvals we would build golf courses on the best sites, fit for purpose as you say. However, many of the best sites, especially those next to or close to the sea, are tied up in coastal and other reserves. Accordingly, it is not always possible to get the best sites, in fact, from an architect's perspective, it is fairly rare. Thus the reason for buiding a course like the Castle course, close to St Andrews but on a site that had an agricultural past use. is that the likelihood of getting a development approval is fairly high as it can be demonstrated that the golf course will be returning areas to native habitat etc etc. That these types of sites, like Kingsbarns, require an expensive, manufactured course, albeit ones that have the appearance of being natural, is the corollary of being able to get approvals to build a course on such a site. The new course for the Links Trust was never going to be just an unshaped layout in a field (I think they have one or two of these already, Strathtyrum?). As a golf course architect working in Australia and Asia, we get a number of sites that are flat and featureless - one project in Vietnam in a river setting goes partially under water at high tide. We have to fill such sites extensively to get the holes above flood level and the course and its holes are a creation - but we try and use nature as an inspiration. Such courses cost more than building one on a site 'fit for purpose', but this is a reality of golf today, and I expect has been ever since the game moved inland - golf has been, and will continue to be played on land that is not ideal.
cheers Neil

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brett

Yes, I have no problem with the final outcome

Neil

The very nature of a true links course is the natural
surroundings, encouraged by the sun, rain and wind.  
I do not disagree with you, nor am I laying any blame
on modern course designers. You work with the tools  
you are provided with and that is now predominately
not really fit for purpose.

My point is that I believe golf is the looser when
inappropriate land is considered. The final costs/budget relates to the depth of the Clients pockets and the
genius of The Design Team resolving the many difficult
site problems at minimal cost. Most problems can be overcome by throwing more money into the equation,
but that just puts more financial pressure on the clubs.

[Bob Jenkins]

Melvyn,

Very interesting topic and thanks!

Having been to the Auld Toon a couple of times, most recently in 2005, I was wondering myself as to why that site was chosen. As I understand your comments, what David Kidd and his gang were given was a farmer's field which happened to have a view of the town. No sand as on the links, but dirt. A golf course on the site had to be fabricated, not found.

I have just begun to read "The Seventh at St Andrews" and there may be some rationale coming out of that but I have my doubts.

From what I have seen in photos, it looks as though the architects and contractors did a great job of coming up with a links style course on a farmer's field and if that is so, all credit to them.

My question to you is, "what land in or about St Andrews would have been preferred?". I think all of the "links" were taken up. Were there options that were considered and rejected in favour of the Castle course site?

[Melvyn Morrow]

The farm land has been turned into a Links Course by David Kidd & Co.

My concern relates to the practicality of undertaking this type of installation when weighted against the heavy financial burden.
 
To change the land because it’s all that left then throwing millions of Dollars at it to create a course is not the way forward. Reports have already been posted about the
the lower coastal path at the Castle Course suffering from water retention, but no pooling (yet) on the fairways. Neal mentioned the new course in Vietnam where filling the holes to keep them above the tidal reaches. Over the last 60 years with the blessing of the Local Authorities the UK house building industry has built homes on land well known as flood plains, effecting tens of thousands of people over the last couple of years with the increased rainfall and flooding.

The land needs to be ‘Fit for Purpose’. Naturalism is still a vital ingredient in selecting the site for a golf course (worldwide). Regrettably, it appears to have become a taboo word over the last 25 years or so.

We may all have to choose soon. Are you just a player or a Golfer?

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

It's a reasonable idea but unfortunately it does not seem to be a reasonable world.

One of the best properties I've ever seen for a golf course is the site adjacent to Muirfield and to The Renaissance Club -- 250 acres of beautiful dunes.  Can't build a golf course there because the mosses growing amongst the dunes are sacrosanct.  Indeed, every piece of linksland left in the British Isles (and possibly Europe) is designated as a "Special Area of Conservation" which pretty much excludes any development, including golf construction.

In the States, golf courses in flood plains are VERY common, because it's one of the few things you can do with a flood plain, and if the houses are out of the flood plain and the golf course is in, property values go up.  If the course gets flooded out, you can just rebuild it.

Where I live in Michigan now, the most well-known course was built at a prominent corner of the two main roads into town.  The soils were heavy and the land pretty flat and the course cost a lot to build.  It baffled me when I moved here, because you could literally go two miles in any compass direction and find a good natural piece of land for a golf course with sandy soils -- they picked the ONE spot which wasn't good because it was at that intersection and that was the right spot for a hotel.

The St. Andrews course is an exception because it was sited entirely with golf in mind.  The REAL problem is that most courses are sited for reasons different than golf.

[Philippe Binette]

Is it the site that is wrong.... or the architect concept that is wrong...

most courses on a ''featureless'' sites are way, way over the top. To me if you were to built a course dominated by a long sloping site, a place like Oakmont should be your reference, not a dunes-looking course

[Philippe Binette]

The thing is also at St. Andrews, no matter how great is your faux links...it won't be as good as the courses down the hill, at least the Old and New.

If you were to built a faux links on a lake in Kentucky, where people don't get a links experience easily, it might work, but when the best of its kind is a 5 minute drive away???

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I take your point. But building a course on the wrong site just because of the hotel location – perhaps proves my point. Alas, we do not live in a reasonable world.

Philippe

Predominately it’s the site vs. money. Not the Architecture, we have some very gifted Designers who can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Also the odd one who seems intent in converting a silk purse into a sow’s ear.

I favour links courses, as I like to believe it was the reason behind developing the game in the early days. The game in the morning will throw up different challenges against the one played in the afternoon. However, that is not to say I don’t enjoy inland courses, but play Askernish and perhaps you will understand my preference for the Links.

[Philippe Binette]

talking of Oakmont, I meant being inspired by the green and bunker configuration, not the parkland setting... I know how great links golf can be...

the thing is they could have built a great course using the dominant slope and keep much of it low-profile

[RJ_Daley]

Melvyn, welcome to the "golfers want to play more, not pay more" wing of the GCA.com party, Tim Weiman - Chairman.  

That said, and realizing that finding much more true links land throughout the world that is accessible and practical to develop natural links golf in an affordable manner has become a search for a very rare opportunity; I think there has to be a reasonable balance between what amount of resources are thrown at a piece of land unsuitable for golf purposes.  I believe that land not suitable for links, ought not fight the land that is given, and not go over the top to provide an unnatural or artificial look, in order to present a faux links atmosphere.  I think the great designers should have a repertoire of design-construction talent to modify the design construction to fit (not fight) the land and still produce a reasonably interesting game of golf.

We have the examples of Whistling Straits (nearby where I live) and your Kingsbarns.  Though I have never had the pleasure to travel to your country and see for myself, I do note that in photos, Kingsbarns seems far more plausible as being part of a links-like atmosphere than Whistling Straits.  Yet, the cost to play either of these public CCFAD courses is astronomical.  Perhaps in part due to the excessive cost to produce the faux links appearances, rather than a more practical design to fit the natural land they are sited upon.  Of course, the more you work any land, to any style, the more the costs go up.  If the developers are paying astronomical prices for prime sites (even plain or unremarkable sites in terms of interesting topography) then the cost game is obviously lost already.  

Look at Friar’s Head, Sebonack, or the Liberty National courses.  They all needed serious construction-design creativity to give a faux links or at least Long Island or heathland sort of look.  These costs are beyond the mainstream golf public.  Only ultra exclusive private club financial organization will work.  But, where are similar land acquisition opportunities of golf suitable land such as those available to provide mainstream priced golf?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Good, So you agree!

A possible links site but close to Cruden Bay

Old Tom according to Rev W W Tulloch in his book ‘The
Life of Tom Morris’ published 1907 designed a ‘golf course
at Collieston – a charming little fishing village, just north of Aberdeen – hard by the famous sands of Towie’. This was undertaken in 1900. Collieston is just south of Cruden Bay and in walking distance of 6 to 7 miles.

I believe I may have found the location of his 9 hole course closed around WW2, near Bennets Love, just south of Collieston. However the local villagers are not aware of
Towie sands. The new Collieston harbour development was also erected in 1900.

Interesting if this sandy area would be ‘ Fit for Purpose’ and could it be converted into a modern course but rather close to Cruden Bay.  I have an aerial photo but have not figured how to download on to GCA yet.  Not very good with computer!!  

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Tom

I take your point. But building a course on the wrong site just because of the hotel location – perhaps proves my point. Alas, we do not live in a reasonable world.

Philippe

Predominately it’s the site vs. money. Not the Architecture, we have some very gifted Designers who can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Also the odd one who seems intent in converting a silk purse into a sow’s ear.

I favour links courses, as I like to believe it was the reason behind developing the game in the early days. The game in the morning will throw up different challenges against the one played in the afternoon. However, that is not to say I don’t enjoy inland courses, but play Askernish and perhaps you will understand my preference for the Links.

Melvyn:
Nice to have you posting on the site.

I really believe the reason many of the early courses (links)
were built on the seaside dunes etc. is because the dunes were worthless for any other purpose, and therefore very reasonable in cost, and perhaps even free.

[Adrian_Stiff]

MELVYN- Golf courses in the UK need to be located roughly to serve every 30,000 people, when you look at urban concentrations of those sorts of figures, there in 90% of cases simply not those pieces of land 'fit for purpose'. We have to use ex- agricultural sites perhaps on heavy clay, sometimes featureless. Some major UK cities just would have no courses.  So realistcally its a non starter we have to work with sub standard land.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dick

Thanks,

Yes, in the early days these areas were usually used for sheep or cattle grazing. The animals kept the grass cropped and nourished and ideal for the game of golf. Inland courses had a very similar start with just a corner of a field or a rough unused plot of land. The early designers worked with nature, squeezing in as many holes as possible hence some courses being 3, 4, 6, 9 holes etc, etc. Many early courses closed or moved to secure more and improved land. Cost of the links course reflected the use to the farmers of that time. The Inland courses are slightly different in that most had short term leases from the Farmer or generally the local Lord/Landed Gentry.

Adrian

I understand your point but perhaps you have missed mine. Can one justify the financial burden placed on modern club because the choice of a site. I accept that finding an ideal natural site is practically impossible these days, but throwing millions and millions is just a recipe for potential financial disaster, so I believe  Fit for Purpose is a very valid question.  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn- Its not millions and millions, I have built 10 courses only 1 has exceeded a £1M budget for the course, none of my courses have got into any financial trouble which against a UK 86% failure rate is pretty good, several have built second courses. We have to work with land that we are given or in some cases explain to the client the land is not suitable. Most cases farmland can be turned into a good course, but it may take time. Those courses, lets say The Belfry are too many people 'a great courses'. Personally i think Kingsbarns was an excelent site and the end result is equally good, what I have seen of the Castle course from pictures looks equally good. Time will prove if these courses are financial goodies.

[Sean_A]

Dick

I can't believe I wasn't made, at the very least, an honorary member of the Play More Pay Less Society.  

Melvyn & Dick

Does it make a difference to you if the course is public or private?  I agree that most of the high profile public courses opening up in GB&I are unbelievably expensive especially considering they have no pedigree.  I am really surprised people pay those green fees when when old, well established clubs are nearby offering excellent golf usually at prices equal or less than the upstarts.  

So far as St Andrews is concerned I think there is a much more fundamental question involved.  Should the Castle Course have been built at all?  The place is already swamped with tourism and essentially devoid of any soul for most of the year.  How much more must St Andrews endure in terms of chasing the imbalance of money relative to preserving a St Andrews culture?  The folks at the Links Trust and anybody else allowing this Disneyfying of St Andrews should be ashamed of themselves.  Don't get me started on the prices they charge - its obscene to think that a Trust would dare to consider charging what they do for any of the courses.  

As a huge fan of simple design taking advantage of the existing features to the point of letting it be THE main focus of the hole, I too don't understand the the preponderance of over-complicating design.  I can only assume that many golfers want to have an overload of features built in to a hole.  It seems to be the trend with culture in general.  A sporting event is turned into an 4 hour tv nightmare with far more analysing than action.  

Ciao



 

[Scott Macpherson]

Hello Folks,

I am intimately aware of the site selected of the Castle course in St Andrews. It was a farm, as was the land adjacent to it where the two courses at St Andrews Bay (aka Fairmont at St Andrews) now sit.

Some readers have mentioned the book about the castle course, I am flummoxed as to the claim that the Castle course is 'the first course in St Andrews for 100 years' because I know for a fact the St Andrews Bay courses are located with the St Andrews Postal code (if they weren't the original owner - Dr Don Panoz - would not have bought the land). Then you may also count the Strathtyrum and the Belgrove courses. That makes 4 others in the last 100 years. (NB 'The Dukes' course is outside the St Andrews postal code). So knowing that large claim on the front was rubbish, made it hard to believe much on the inside of the cover.

As for the site, was is 'fit for purpose?' That is debatable, but it is fit for a golf course, just maybe not a links. After all it is not links land up there on that glacial terrace. Though, I sure, deep down they would have found the odd sand tract- as the terrace was pushed out of the sea at some point.

What few people may also be unaware of is that it can be very windy up on that site- and the prevailing wind is off the land. So with no trees, and the cliffs off to one side, it will be a very difficult to play at certain times. Indeed, with its relatively small and sloping greens, it may be unplayable. It would not surprise me if some greens need to be rebuilt in the next few years- much like what happened at Kingsbarns. (Of course, should this happen, it will be more difficult for the Links Trust to close the Castle course because it is public). If so, this must be considered somewhat of an error for the design team.

My comments are purely speculative, and as always, the 'proof will be in the putting', but designing what is really a caricature of a links course on an old potato field, may, if I may twist the topic, not make the course fit for purpose.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

I am indeed delighted to hear that you have been able to design and build courses for under a million pounds on land that is not ideal. Your reputation is certainly important enough to you, as you have the courage to advise clients that a potential site is not viable. Whilst your sites (which I have no knowledge of) may not be what you call ‘Fit for Purpose’, they would appear to go someway towards that direction if you are able to bring the projects in for under a million.

There are many courses that have cost millions of pounds, The Castle Course being one. I could list many in the $2-4 million mark, but a small example  Refuse, Greystone, Hawks Nest, just in the US.

Knowing the area now called the Castle Course for many years, as my family comes from St Andrews and with friends of my parents owning an adjacent farm. I understand why The Links Trust wanted another course, but I believe it to be the wrong location. Millions (£2.5) had to be spent to convert the land it into its current state. Financially I believe the land selected was not ‘Fit for Purpose’.

Sean also appears to have concerns. He, correctly in my opinion asks the question ‘Should the Castle Course have been built at all?’  
 
Scott also has a concern ‘As for the site, was is 'fit for purpose?' That is debatable, but it is fit for a golf course, just maybe not a links’. Then goes on to wonder if the course is playable in windy conditions.

As previously mentioned I was not privy to the initial or final Brief, therefore I am unable to comment on why this site was chosen or for that matter on the Design.

Old Tom Morris tried to encourage all to take up golf. One way was to keep his fee of £1 per day for some 50 years; another was to use the natural features thus enabling new financially strapped clubs to form and have their own course designed by professionals.  No. This is not intended to be a reflection on the fees of modern designers.

Time, I agree will be the final judge.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Sean:
I believe you missed my point.
What I was trying to point out was that when the early seaside and or links courses were built that they met Melvyn's criteria for the land suiting the project.
That is, the dunes and other sandy areas were not of much use for anything other than grazing sheep and sunbathing if the sun came out AND  therefore became very reasonable land to build a golf course on. I also agree with you in value for the dollar, I pride myself in building courses that have a good return on investment, and like the early courses are (or should be) affordable to play. It is very difficult if using the $10 to $1M rule to spend many millions---in some cases $15-20M which transfers to a green fee of $150 - $200 and compete with reasonable build cost courses (those built on land suited for the use) or cheap enough to offset construction costs (Sand Hills, maybe?)

[Sean_A]

Sean:
I believe you missed my point.
What I was trying to point out was that when the early seaside and or links courses were built that they met Melvyn's criteria for the land suiting the project.
That is, the dunes and other sandy areas were not of much use for anything other than grazing sheep and sunbathing if the sun came out AND  therefore became very reasonable land to build a golf course on. I also agree with you in value for the dollar, I pride myself in building courses that have a good return on investment, and like the early courses are (or should be) affordable to play. It is very difficult if using the $10 to $1M rule to spend many millions---in some cases $15-20M which transfers to a green fee of $150 - $200 and compete with reasonable build cost courses (those built on land suited for the use) or cheap enough to offset construction costs (Sand Hills, maybe?)

Dick

I got yer point and I would take it a step further.  By definition the land was good for golf because golf was only played on links.  Hand in glove stuff.  

I have always been one that believed for the well known places (more or less)  the green fee is a function of what people will pay at least as much as the cost of the project.  The marketing side of the game has the tail wagging the dog far too often.  With that said, there are loads of decisions concerning the facilities and extras for course pizzaz which can boost the cost of a project up into the realm of silliness, but these tend to be private deals.  

In a way, there is no land suited for the use these days.  Archies always want to add something.  Perhaps its all in an effort to show that something was created, not found.  Its the rare course where the archie is restrained to the point of real minimalism anything like it was practiced in the old days.  There always seems to be that extra touch here and there.  It could be that this is what golfers expect, but its difficult to know who leads the trends: the golfers, the developers or the archies.  I suspect its a combination of all three to one degree or another.  Personally, I would like to see archies to make of a lead because I believe back to basics would be a more explored theme.  Of course, like anybody else, the archie has his master and must ultimately deliver what the master thinks will sell - usually a compromise project.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()