"The land doesn't matter"

[ed_getka]

This is a quote I was stunned to read in a Dec. issue of GOLF magazine by an architect of note. He goes on to say "you can build a great golf course anywhere" by "total site manipulation". That last one seems to be a great euphenism for massive earth moving. It must sound impressive to potential clients.

What is interesting to me is the lengths he goes to make his courses aesthetically pleasing while maintaining that "the land doesn't matter".

[Slag_Bandoon]

Ok Ed, Who said it?  A SWAT Team is standing by.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Ed,

I think this will change not due to the architects, but rather environmental constraints and the deveolpers. Moving land cost money, and these days money is tighter and needs to be stretched. Will there still be big earth moving projects? Yes, where the economics can justify it. One of the ways that we hope to "sell" our local town boards is by declaring how we are going to keep the "integrity of the land", ie. little earth moving. Fortunately we have a nice piece of land, now if we can only get Penn Power to bury their electric lines

[ed_getka]

Slag,
 His initials are T.F. Send the team in when ready.

[TEPaul]

If he's got the imagination, creativity and shapers who are as good as the forces of nature and they all really try to mimic the look and "lines" of nature instead of doing a tribute to their own man-made architectural cleverness, by all means let them try--I sure will keep an open mind!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You don't think he making that comment knowing it would get back to us, do you?

Yes, I agree that HE didn't think the land mattered at Merion and Riviera and Inverness and so on and so on. This is why he is King.

Fazio is King.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Land doesn't matter as long as you have a limitless budget and the aquiescence of the creator.  

Does T.F. have the ear of the creator?  If so I may have to be a little more understanding of his creations!

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I for one agree with him.

Now obviously, nothing beats a great site.  And if you have a great site, you don't need "total site manipulation".

But if you want your course to be better than the original site, you gotta move dirt.

An artificial hill is the same as a natural one.  They're both made of the same thing.

[JIm Sweeney]

Certainly the land matters when there is a great piece of property which would be ruined by massive earth moving to force a design upon it.

However, let's not forget that many sites available are either 1) compromised by the need for building lots or 2) reclaimation sites.

IN the Mid-west we're seeing more courses built on landfills. The Pete Dye Club is built on an old strip mine. That new Nicklaus course (Iron Works, or something like that) is built on a brown field. If one can manipulate those sites and get good courses, then no, the land doesn't matter.

And what could be better than to build a golf course on sites like those?

[Lido]

Lido, Lido, Lido...

[Dr Reality]

Jeremy Glenn and Lido

You're both right.

On a bad site, if you don't move dirt you'll get a bad product.

There is nothing wrong with moving massive amounts of dirt if the site cannot yield a good golf course in its original state.

Good sites are costly and more difficult to find while bad sites are less expensive and more plentiful.

It is easier to find better sites in remote areas, but it is doubtful that a private or public club could survive in a remote area.

[JohnV]

Dr. Reality,

I might not understand the realities of land cost, but is it really that much more expensive to buy a better (in terms of a golf course) piece of land than it is to move huge amounts of dirt to create one from scratch?

Finding a good site might be difficult in some places, but I have a hard time believing that a good site would cost that much more than a bad one in terms of $/acre.

[ed_getka]

Jeremy,
 To some extent I would agree with what you are saying. However, I think for someone to come right out and say the land doesn't matter would make me worried that the architect isn't really looking at the land to see what is there in the first place. A great example of this is The Preserve out in Carmel Valley by Fazio. He had such a GREAT piece of land to work with and he built a very nice course, but that piece of land could have had a phenomenal course put on it. I think this is partly because Fazio has an idea in his mind of what he wants to do, rather than figuring out what the land is giving him. Fazio is too busy "framing" his holes sometimes I think.

I disagree with your premise that a hill is a hill is a hill. There are very few shapers that can make natural appearing contours. I don't subscribe to the theory that any dirt being moved is bad, but I do think the maximum should be found in the land that is there first, that is all I am saying.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Jeremy
Maybe your tastes are different than mine.  I would be interested in what you consider a great golf course, that has been built as a result of moving massive amounts of dirt and creating great holes.  There may be a few but how many?

[TEPaul]

"An artificial hill is the same as a natural one.  They're both made of the same thing."

Jeremy:

Frankly, that sure is a true statement. However, it may be a statement that indicates a lot the problem in golf architecture. That's because some architects may just look at it only that way.

But don't you think the look of the arrangement has something to do with it? Afterall the arrangement of the earth is what golfers see for the rest of time--surely not just the fact that whatever was made was just earth.

If that's true there wouldn't be much difference between the chocolate drop mounds of the "geometric" era and some of the best nature mimicing earth movement ever done, would there?

A lot of us say that creating arrangements of earth artifically the way the forces of nature have done it takes a lot of imagination, vision, concentration, dedication, really great nature mimicing detailed shaping etc. And a lot of us say that's extremely important, perhaps ultimately the necessary essential.

It might be better to begin the consideration of this subject of earth moving by rethinking it by first rephrasing your remark to read;

"An artifical hill is the same as a natural one, ONLY in that they're made of the same thing!"

[Joe Hancock]

The title of the thread is addressing the absurdity of the statement that "the land doesn't matter". The reality is the land does matter, totally and absolutely.

Every golf course must move some earth, whether to shape bunkers, creating flat spots for tees, or adding soil for greens top mix. The land matters in how much of this takes place. Sites on lowlands, such as Loxahatchee in FL, or Watchesaw Plantation in SC require much more earth to be moved. My opinion is both of those examples show what TEPaul was refering to in "how" the earth is moved to, in these cases, not blend in with naturally occuring land forms and shapes.

On one of the projects I was involved in, the architect directed those of us doing the shaping to look around the area for the shapes and slope angles that occured on the natural terrain of the area, then perform the shaping of the course with as similar features as we could reproduce. Of course, that wouldn't work in the coastal lowlands where there are no land forms or features, so what's an architect to do? The land does matter....

As absurd as the statement is that "the land doesn't matter", some of the courses shaped on featureless land have outdone it, as is the case in both examples cited above.

Joe

[Jeff Mingay]

For whatever it's worth, I've seen far too many 'hills' on modern-era golf courses that look nothing like real hills, as they appear in nature. Those artifical hills might be made of the same material as the nature ones, but they're terribly offensive in my eyes. Shaping an artificial hill on a golf course to appear natural sounds easier than it is. In fact, there are only a few guys I would entrust to have a go at it.  

Every site, even those that appear at first to be non-descript, has at least a few natural features that should be incorporated into the design of a golf course. But in order to do so successfully, a great deal of time, study, and contemplation is required - efforts that far too many contemporary golf architects just can't seem to find the time for. It seems easier for them to have an 'associate' create plans for 'site manipulation' at a drafting table miles away from the golf course property; which is fine, it's their deal. I'm not trying to challenge how others handle things.

There are, however, several excellent modern-era examples of 'restrained' golf course design on comparatively featureless sites. Talking Stick, Rustic Canyon, Mike DeVries' and Kris Schumaker's courses at Pilgrim's Run and Diamond Springs in Michigan, and Whitman's new course at Blackhawk GC in suburban Edmonton, scheduled to open in July, immediately come to mind. And, of courses, there are others - along with a plethora of massive earthmoving efforts that didn't pay off!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Even reading all the old books, and NGF publications, as I did when I was a kid, you will probably find architects talking about needing site location (ie customers) utilities, roads, etc. first.  Lack of natural golf features can be overcome, with enough money.  That's not all "wasted" earthmoving.  Think drainage in Florida, Rock blasting in the Rocky Mountains, or irrigation in the desert, necessary to make golf possible in a desireable location near you!

So, the fact remains that if an interested party wants to build a course to capture a portion of the golf market in a given locale, the addtional cost of irrigation, drainage, earthmoving is a cost of doing business.  As I have pointed out, the cost of building the course is 1/3 of the total cost.  The cost of earthmoving is not more than 1/4 of the golf construction cost.  Massive discretionary earthmoving could not increase project cost today by more than 8%.  Even allowing another 8% for associated waterfalls or landscaping, your greens fee would rise at most 15%-20%, such as from $50 to $57.5 or $60., and probably less, as often, the cost of course construction is subsidized by housing, a municpality, etc.  

To build a great course, you need a great site.  To build a sucessful course, you need a lot of elements, but not necessarily a great site.  It's even possible to build a great course on a great site, even while ignoring some of its best features.  What, after all, is NGLA?  While CB did pick a site that most closely resembled the Scottish links he was trying to replicate, he did want to impose his design ideas regardless!

The basic concept of fitting a vision to a site is well established.  The money of the 90's simply made that easier, as did the money of the 20's.  Of course, I hate to carry that analogy forward to the 2000's versus the 1930's.........

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Ed,

I've re-read T.F.'s quote, and now realise I disagree with a portion of it.  He states "You can build a great golf course anywhere".  Not true.  To have a great course, you need a great site.  But you can build a pretty damn good golf course anywhere.  Put another way, a 9 or 10 on the Doak scale requires a great site.  But you can build an 8 anywhere.  The land doesn't matter.

TEPaul,

Yes, successful earthwork takes a great deal of skill.  But it can be done, which I believe was T.F.'s point.

It's actually ironic that the biggest problem with making an artificial hill look natural is that, counter-instinctively, it requires a massive amount of earthmoving.  In other words, if you decide to move earth, then for Pete sakes, move earth!Bad results are often due to too little earthmoving, rather than too much.

[TEPaul]

"It's actually ironic that the biggest problem with making an artificial hill look natural is that, counter-instinctively, it requires a massive amount of earthmoving.  In other words, if you decide to move earth, then for Pete sakes, move earth!Bad results are often due to too little earthmoving, rather than too much."

Jeremy:

Couldn't agree more. If one thought about it for a short time, though, I don't know that I'd call it counter-instinctive--and I sure hope architects and shapers don't feel it's counter-instinctive. Afterall if you're going to make something artifical look to be naturally part of a site at the very least you do have to "tie it in" to something natural and that sure will take more earth-moving than if that wasn't done.

[Dr Reality]

JohnV,

Good sites near dense populations are often purchased by home, apartment or mall developers who generally have deep pockets and can get more bang for their invested buck.

Home, apartment and mall developers usually see a quicker return on their money than golf course developers and because of this they can usually raise the ante, outbidding the golf course developer.

When land is valued at $ 100,000 to $ 500,000 per acre, what type of investor can purchase that land and make a profit ?

It's usually not a golf course developer.

Entering a bidding war against developers is usually a losing proposition.