Renovations at Seawane/Holes 7 -9

[blasbe1]

Primarily, I'm interested in the evolution of all this---why some things happened in various times, how and for what reasons.

Tom:

I agree and I think that two major influences on the work we've done at Seawane have been:

1) the work of Dye, and other modern architects, that have inspired an otherwise flatish piece of land (the extreme example being Whistling Straights) in combination with the current membership's perception that we had a flat piece of relatively uninteresting land besides the water influenced holes.  This perception is certainly a product of the impact that the bordering neighborhood had (unfortunately, the club never owned this bordering land).  I think this perception was also exacerbated by the negative impact to the property over time from the tree over growth.  Which, ironically, this perception is the main reason why thousands of trees were planted in the first place.  In retrospect, ideally we would have first removed all 4,000 plus trees and played the course for a season before doing anything else, but we're a club not a GCA experiment .


2) the second major influence is that since we are not the original membership that retained Emmet and since so much time has passed even if we were, only a small percentage of us hold a strong sense of historical value for what Emmet did, and, to a person, we're all actively involved in the current project in some fashion.  In spirit, our membership, including myself, wants a course and club for the future, not one of the past, and so I believe that played a role in deciding to go the renovation route.

I've said before that I would have preferred as detailed a restoration as possible, accounting for gains in distance with bunker placement, but I don't think that would have been any better a product than what's currently on the ground.  Again, however, I think things would have been done differently if we had the same land that Emmet had.

One thing that I've learned through this project is that unless a course has immense historical value, e.g. ANGC, Pine Valley, GCGC, National (no, I have no East Coast bias ) change, even radical change, can be a very good thing.  Not trying to state the obvious, I think that the ultimate architecturial test for a course like Seawane, which I will qualify as having already been radically changed by external forces over time and where substantial restoration can't replicate original playing conditions, is whether you want to head to #1 tee after walking off #18 green.  

We now pass that test with flying colors (IMO).  


 

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Are you a member of this club or part of the architectural team or both?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jason;

Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?

Would you anticipate that the course will be more or less costly to maintain, given the changes?

Thanks!

[blasbe1]

Jason:

Are you a member of this club or part of the architectural team or both?

I am a club member on the greens committee.  My voice has been solicited and heard throughout the project.  I'm also the youngest full member of the club so my prespective has fortunately been sought.

[blasbe1]

Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?

Would you anticipate that the course will be more or less costly to maintain, given the changes?

First answer yes and second answer I dont know.

Maintenance considerations were a factor.  We've installed a new drainage and irrigation system as we've gone so I believe the concept of those mechanical improvements was a long term cost saver.  However, by all the tree removal and land reclaimation we added playable square footage and added a ton of bunkers, so there is more surface to mow and more bunkers to take care of.  Most of the fescued mounds and other fescue areas are, however, low maintenance so in the end I'm not sure what the anticipated costs are relative to before.

[blasbe1]

Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?

Mike,

I will add that overall, the costs of the project have been and are considered a major long term investment in the future of the club, separating ourselves from other area clubs.  Therefore, even if maintenance costs rise significantly it'll be worth it.  We're already seeing an improvement and long term prospects are quite good.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks, Jason...it's interesting and refreshing to hear maintenance costs discussed in a long-term, financial viability of the club  perspective.  I think a lot of clubs tend to be like stockbrokers and only focus on the next quarter's results.  

Since you mentioned bunkers, do you know how many there are (will be) overall once the project is completed?  Roughly how does that compare to what was there before.  

[blasbe1]

Since you mentioned bunkers, do you know how many there are (will be) overall once the project is completed?  Roughly how does that compare to what was there before.  

From the 1940 aerial I just rough counted 136 bunkers, so figure 150.

I know that we've got about 60 on #s 9 and 15 alone.  So while I don't know, it's surely going to be closer to 200 (I'll try a count soon and post results) plus we've added some very large bunkers, down both sides of 12 for instance, so we've drastically increased bunker footage.  Interestly, however, the 1940 aerial shows more sandy washed out areas, which is now rough in many places, so all in all I imagine the sand views (for lack of a better phrase) are probably about the same, this does not include the lost views of the bondary dunes of course.  For instance, down the left side of 16 is a channel and on the other side of the channel are currently a series of waterfront homes.  The 1940 aerial shows a mass of flowing sand dunes where the houses are and these dunes extend ten times the width of the 16th fairway all the way to the Bay/Reynolds Channel.  So while the on course sand may be similar or even greater than original, the open sand washed feeling is significantly less.    
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Can you post the 1940 aerial ?

[blasbe1]

Jason,

Can you post the 1940 aerial ?

Pat:

I don't have an electronic version and I'm not sure if an electronic version exists.    

[T_MacWood]

Pat & Jason
Craig Disher posted a portion of the old aerial on a pervious thread, perhaps he could post it.

[T_MacWood]

I wanted bring this back up to see if Craig D. might have a Seawane aerial in his archive. I'm curious to see what the Emmet course was like.

[blasbe1]

Tom:

If Craig has one that he can post, and if he is willing, that would be great.  However, you can always come out to play next year and we can take a detailed gander at the one I've got AFTER the round

Jason

[T_MacWood]

Jason
I have no immediate plans to be in NY any time soon. I don't think the aerial would prejudice anyone...certainly no more than the pictures you've posted of the new course would prejudice. GCA is about sharing information and I think the aerial might help us learn a little more about Emmet. Did you know Emmet's brother was one of the original investors of the project?

[blasbe1]

Tom:

Relax my friend, as I've stated I don't have a copy of the aerial that I can post.  I'm also not sure if Craig does, he may only have hard copies.  Why don't you IM Craig and ask.    

When you make it to SW I'll let you walk around with the old aerial as you play.  

Cheers,

Jason

[Craig Disher]

Here's the 1940 aerial of Emmet's Seawane.

[blasbe1]

Craig:

Many thanks!!  

Jason

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Is the routing as depicted in Craig's 1940 aerial the exact same routing that Emmett left on opening day ?

[Mike_Cirba]

If you look carefully, from the air, some of that curiously stylistic Emmett bunkering is bold, boisterous, bursting...almost phallic in nature.  

Seriously, that's one cool aerial.  Thanks for sharing, Craig.  

[blasbe1]

Is the routing as depicted in Craig's 1940 aerial the exact same routing that Emmett left on opening day ?

Pat,

While I can't say with absolute certainty, I believe it is and have not heard any information to think otherwise.

The routing shown in the 1940 aerial is what is on the ground today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

What about the land to the right of # 16, between the water and the road ?

[T_MacWood]

Jason and Craig
Thanks for posting the picture. I see what you mean by the site changing over the years....it really was a natural raw site in 1940.

I recall Daniel Wexler making a distinction between Emmet's work pre- and post- his partnership with Alfred Tull. Tull introduced a more irregular bunker style...this course appears to be with Tull.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Could you post some pictures of Emmett's bunkers and Tull's bunkers at Seawane so that we can see the distinction ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You won't find a contrast at Seawane, but during Emmet's career his bunkering became more free form in the late twenties.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
You won't find a contrast at Seawane, but during Emmet's career his bunkering became more free form in the late twenties.

Then how can you say that Seawane appears to be with Tull ?[/color]