I'm convinced that rgkeller must be trying to be facetiously funny. Not too many on here of sort of the purist bent could possibly be as uninformed and naive as he's being on his posts without trying to be facetious!

rg,

You just don't get it, do you?  Every single course on earth has to be cleared of underbrush, even Sand Hills, to be able to plant grass.  No course on earth has underbrush and trees for fairways.  That is required on every course ever built.

Man made lakes are required for most new courses for irrigation issues, and this lake will not be part of the golf course, hence has nothing (again) to do with describing the actual golf course's amount of earth movement.

As far as new topsoil, again, done on just about every course around.  You can't have a golf course on pure sand, (you don't see any trees on the beach, do you?) hence links courses are a mix of sand and soil.  Part of the third course IS on sandy-soil, so it wouldn't be right to have a course partly sand-based, and partly not.  They are putting sand down, but NOT altering the natural rolls of the land -THAT is mimimalism.

My home course had virtually no land moved except for tees, bunkers, and greens.  Fairways are how the land was, yet there is sand-based soil in the fairways.  How'd it get there, when it wasn't there to start with?  It was put in during construction, as sand-based soil drains better and plays better.

Minimalism is not disturbing the natural contours of a site - exactly what C&C are doing.

I don't think rgkeller is an ass.  He does bring up some valid points.

That even the best minimalists such as C&C or Doak or whoever are not as minimlistic as we dream about.  

It all comes down to the definition of the word minimalistic.  

Being minimalistic is not just about the amount of earth you shift there are so many other factors.

From the sounds of it they are not shifting much around but they will be shifting a hell of a lot of sand in....that is not minimalistic at all....it is manufacturing a growing medium that is not there at present.

Brian

rgkeller:

I want to credit you for standing up and expressing a perspective that you had to know would upset people here. That doesn't mean I agree. In fact, I'll be quite surprised if the new course at Bandon doesn't turn out extremely well. But, at least you expressed your view and signed your name.

In contrast, we have this fellow "hp@hc" who saw fit to anonymously make a personal attack. It just goes to show that no matter how many times we make the point that this isn't appropriate, some people still don't get it.

rgkeller, are you just expressing an underlying objection to the perception that many contributors to this site are big fans of Coore and Crenshaw and their teams work and that for the most part, they are viewed as "minimalists"?  Are you trying to call legitimate attention to the difference between their most famous "minimalist" project of SAnd Hills, to most of their other work where that level of minimalist ground work was not (could not) be accomplished?  Perhaps rg, your standard of using the term "minimalist" is only a Sand Hills or Eddie Hacket laying out of the links type of approach.  That is OK.  Just state that as your level of acceptance to what can be called minimalist, and we can move on with better mutual understanding.  

I for one think that Tom Paul's post #20, says it all about the difference in site usage of existing topography and soils, and what a minimalist thinks is the minimumly appropriate level of site manufacturing.  So far in their 15 year career as an entity, it appears that C&C and the boys do only what they must to make the land drain, tie into the natural surrounds, and not appear to be one big earthmoving, containment mounded, artificial landscape type project, yet use what is there to provide interesting golf.  

Let's allow C&C to describe their own work, and their design intentions rather than trying to define it for them, before they even really get started.  If they choose to call it minimalist after they get the thing finished, then critique them all you want on the finished product if it doesn't meet your "minimalist" definition.  But for now, let's cut them some slack and just say they have a work in progress, and it will be what it will be.  I'm pretty confident that it won't be one bit of wasted extraneous earth moving project more than it has to be.

IMHO I have not taken any offense to what rgkeller has said.  He is stating an opinion.  Do I see any stupidity or lack of arch. knowledge...not really.  Do I see the need to label this project 100% minimalist....from what I have read it doesnt really sound truly minimalist...but the site sounds that it doesnt warrant a truly minimalist design....but I am just basing that on what I have read.

I agree with Phillips...I do not place capping of fairways with sand in the category of minimalism.  I understand that clearing is part of the process...have no problem there...but capping the contours with sand will be opposite of minimalism.  I am sure they will try to stay with the contours given but good luck, that is a tough feat even with the talent of C&C.

Becasue once you lift the grade in the fairway you have to feather the slopes to existing grade??  Thus its tough tieing back into the grades and tree lines w/out making the course look lifted or raised with slopes running off or views from fwy grade to the middle of trees.

Although they may be removing the grades then replacing with sand leaving the grades close to exisitng.....but this is a major earthwork project thus eliminating minimalism...plus you have to lose all that stripped soil and if you are to re-create the ex. grades you have to survey all those corridors.  It just keeps pointing away from minimalism.  Just an opinion since I have no real knowledge about the land or project or design.

When reading a few comments on here about rgkeller's comments it read like a group of bias fans protecting their team(kinda like Alabama fans)instead of just reading his text and looking at it for what it was, a comment that had some decent points.

This course may or may not be like the other two.  The site may warrant a course that has to have alot done (which argues that it will not be minimalist) in the construction process to give a "look" like it has been there forever.  I am sure it will be a good course but we all knew(from reading posts on the land) the land was not the same as given the first 2.

Thus the need to "manufacture" is evident.  But I would feel good about getting a "manufactured" C&C course over several other designers.

As far as Palmer for the seventh course??Thats funny.  At least rgkeller has a sense of humor!

Dick -
I'm not saying it is beyond their ability, indeed at this point I think little is. That being said remodeling and building draw on two very different skills.

The problem comes from the fact that C&C has never chosen to build these types of bunkers, and my guess is that it is not because they think they couldn't do it, but rather because it is not their style to. Therefore, when somebody tells you to build something in a particular style it may draw you out of your comfort zone, or how you may conceive of something free from conditions.

Where has RGKeller gone?

Dude, you are wrong!

Laughable, really.

Gentlemen:

IMHO, it is a bit soon to criticize the design of this new course; however, I do realize that most, if not all, of the negative comments are for the sake of sparring and tweaking.  

My husband and I absolutely LOVE Bandon Dunes.  It is hard for me to even imagine that Mike Keiser could go off the deep end to the extent that this new course would project a  "manufactured" image.    

Although we have spoken to Mike Keiser, we do not know him.  That said, the impression I have is that he knows only too well that he owns incredible land.  From this wonderful property he has created a magnificient resort.  To my knowledge, he has always worked collaboratively with every local and state agency, etc.  Wiithout question, Mike Keiser gets it and I seriously doubt that this 3rd course will be a disappointment.  

Everyone who golfs Bandon Dunes has a favorite course and favorite holes, but I have yet to hear that either course looks manufactured.  

Patrick:  I My comments have less to do with thinking that BD is a ...sacred cow... because, if this 3rd course disappoints me, I'll have NO problem criticizing its design.  However, until I either learn more details or actually see the new course, Keiser's track record deserves the benefit of a wait and see of the final product.  However, everyone is entitled to his opinion.  

P.S.  If there were another way to insure that this new course had proper irrigation within reasonable cost, I am sure that they would NOT "build" a lake.  Even so, all constructed lakes do not have to look "constructed" or out of place.

Margaret C,

Where have you been, I've missed you.

I too feel that Mike Keiser clearly gets it, and is building a world class golfing destination.  And, my guess is, that he doesn't want his new courses to mirror the existing courses as it would diminish the attraction.

But, on the issue of lakes, one has to take into account the proximity of the ocean when evaluating how natural they are.

Okay Gentleman,
  I've read most of the posts and am going to give my opinion without knowing if it's been completly said or not. Some of you know that I work at Friar's during it's construction, but also have biult a course with my father closer to my home here in Michigan. Long story short capping of fairways are done for many reasons....including to provide a consistant rootzone for the grass to grow, a soil to allow for drainage without having to put french drains everywhere and also allows for the burrial of some debris that are missed or left behind.(stones, small twigs, wood chips, etc) Most, if not all golf courses are capped for these reasons alone. As for as C&C not being minimalist because of this, I HIGHLY disagree. There are many thins at Friar's that were man made, but given so much attention to detail, that you wouldnt know if unless someone told you. Secondly, I HIGHLY doubt that the bunkers at Bandon #3 will be like that of Royal Melbourne, Met Club, etc....C&C and Jeff Bradley's bunker work in particular is very famous on it's own. Jeff is a master and if he's not the best bunker guy in the buisiness, then I don't want to know who is. Like I commented in an earlier post when the announcement made that C&C were doing the course, "Can you image the bunker work the Jeff could do with another sandy site? Lastly, to comment on Poa spreading, golfers can spread poa from their shoes, so they could track it from one course to another. Poa will come with time, especially if bentgrass is planted and if the goal if for the course to look like it's been there a while, I think that they will just let the greens take their course and turn to poa. I'd be interested to find out if Troy Russell is going to try to get most or Eugene CC plugs for the new greens, that who be a TON of plugs, but would also effect the soil and even give laying, which is unwanted!!

rgkeller

Apologies for my earlier post.  

My original sentiment was that to build ANY golf course you need to move and shape, clear and create.  I look to my own golf clubs, which sit in among the dunes.  We STILL had to clear, reposition sand banks, protect bunker faces, fill collection areas, and dictate playing lines, to a certain degree.  This all involves work, but can still be viewed as minimalist.  While I agree that a course can be "found", to make it playable for the masses a few things have to be tweaked, to make it flow.  I would say that "holes" have been found, but doubt that 18 holes that flow have been "found"

Anyway, upon reading the entire thread again, and those posts since my last one, I do in fact believe you have some validity to your opinions.  Although I am anonomous, due to the fact that I am employed in the golf industry, I will admit when I rush to judgement.  To rg, I say SORRY