[Mike_Young]

How often does clubhouse location become the main issue in routing a golf course and how often is a routing compromised to give the clubhouse a premium site.  How many good routings do you know with weak clubhouse sites and how many great clubhouse sites do you know with weak routings.  

[Forrest Richardson]

One needs to look not much further that A.W., who said,

"In nine instances out of ten the committee already has a preconceived idea of the proper building site, and in as many cases that site is on a little hilltop at the very greatest elevation on the tract."

— A. W. Tillinghast, writing about clubhouse location in The Architectural Forum, March 1925

I would say that clubhouse location accounts for many bad finishing holes. Yet we cannot discount the importance of a good clubhouse. It must have access, decent views, and be serviced. All this, and it must also allow for a routing to come and go. As they say, what goes out must come back...usually.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

Donald Ross had some interesting comments with respect to siting the clubhouse.

Obviously, a critical first step.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

This is one of those things that participants here, especially Tom Doak, rail about, but which I feel rarely happens.  On an "ideal" golf property, it is usually possible to come up with several good alternative routings - not just one - that have 18 potentially solid holes.  Not always, but usually. So, it makes sense to put the clubhouse in a sensible location.

Meanwhile, siting the clubhouse with no regard to entrance road and utility costs, much less sun orientation to golf, may mean that the golf budge is squeezed so much that it actually results in an inferior golf course.

Now, if you classify a long uphill finisher to a perched clubhouse as a ruined routing, then yeah, lots of them.  

Many land planners now put the clubhouse down low and try to build the view for it with landscaping, leaving the ridges for other housing, and putting the golf somewhere below that.  All in all, that approach makes more sense to me than putting it up on a hill, although some views may make it worth it.

[Mike_Young]

Meanwhile, siting the clubhouse with no regard to entrance road and utility costs, much less sun orientation to golf, may mean that the golf budge is squeezed so much that it actually results in an inferior golf course.

Now, if you classify a long uphill finisher to a perched clubhouse as a ruined routing, then yeah, lots of them.  

Many land planners now put the clubhouse down low and try to build the view for it with landscaping, leaving the ridges for other housing, and putting the golf somewhere below that.  All in all, that approach makes more sense to me than putting it up on a hill, although some views may make it worth it.

Jeff,
This is what I was getting to.  I think for years we have chosen the "hill" location and seems to be going away from that in many cases.
I can think of many very good courses where the clubhouse was not in the "high" position but in a more of a "made to fit for the routing sake"  
position.

[Phil_the_Author]

Forrest, that single sentence quote is a bit misleading as it seems to imply that Tilly favored locating the clubhouse on a highpoint. Actually the opposite is true.

Note what immediately follows that sentence, "It is not the intent to question the wisdom of this choice except as it relates to the golf course itself.  When club houses are built on unusual elevations it makes it difficult to construct true holes to and from them.  Either there is a tendency to get away with a hole, which rather suggests driving off the roof, or the last hole presents blindness; and only too frequently there is also involved that great abomination--an arduous trudge uphill, which brings the players home blowing like porpoises in a state of exhaustion.  Personally, I incline to sites at lower levels.  I recall discussing the point with two of the leading landscape architects in America--A.D. Taylor of Cleveland and Charles W. Leavitt of New York, who both agreed with me.  Mr. Leavitt was developing a tract of some 400 acres for the Philadelphia Cricket Club.  It was my work to plan 36 holes there, but before any plans could be attempted it was vital that the club house site be fixed.  The committee strongly considered a hilltop, but Mr. Leavitt urged a much lower level.  It was his idea to build the entrance roads along the higher levels, so that really the first view of the club house might be had by looking down into a small, sheltered valley, very much after the old English manner.  He finally demonstrated that there was more breeze down there than on the hilltop.  To be sure, the scenic beauty of any site must be considered to some extent, but golf values are of even greater importance."

Balance in choice based upon the best golf holes the site could offer as dictating the final answer was his belief.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Oh, another Tom Fazio thread........

[Adam Clayman]

Pinion Hills is a place that really suffered because of the decision to place the clubhouse where it is. Especially now, that the config is ruined, causing walkers to make an arduous trek never intended. But I bet it gaurantees a few more cart rentals. 85% just isn't enough sometimes.

[Forrest Richardson]

Phillip — A quick check of your library copy of Routing the Golf Course will yield...(oh, you do have a library copy, don;t you...?) ...that the A.W. quote was conatined with material that would cause the reader to decide the quote was A.W.'s sarcastic wit at play.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tommy — What is the point of your post?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest, I think you can figure it out.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
Remember when you showed me for the first time, the plans for Las Palomas?

Remember my shock to see perfect dunelands for golf go to high-rise condos? Yes, this doesn't make sense in the busines world of things and I'm sure the client had no intentions ever of having golf take the best part of the land. But I think this is the problem, Condos taking the forefront to the Golf because they bring in the most money, not because it's to better the quality of the product that is going to get them down there.

Instead you lose ocean front property which has been historically better for golf holes then being placed behind the condos.  And while this may be a routing compromise for the sake of the condos, I still think the best way to get people down to Puerto Penasco is to give them golf on the water, not behind the condos. and what for? So you have an ocean view from a high-rise condo with no golf to look at?

Sounds lovely, but I'll be willing to bet that Mike Kasier never had  a single intention of placing the lodge in front of the course. I'll have to read about it though in Goodwin's book, which I'm just getting around to starting. I'll report back my findings.

[Forrest Richardson]

OK, now I see the point of your post.

[JMorgan]

Sounds lovely, but I'll be willing to bet that Mike Kasier never had  a single intention of placing the lodge in front of the course. I'll have to read about it though in Goodwin's book, which I'm just getting around to starting. I'll report back my findings.

Tommy, If I recall correctly, the lodge was initially planned for the site of BD #16, a sweet slice of the property.

[Steve Curry]

Tillie, from letter to Berkshire Hills CC 1925

"   First, it was necessary to fix definitely the site for the clubhouse, for this is our dominant.  In my opinion there is but one location for it – on the high plateau with an entrance from the public road, which bounds the property on the West. Proper tree-planting and future landscaping will insure privacy from the thoroughfare.  The clubhouse should face over the course to the Northeast, East and Southwest.  If you do not think it advisable to construct the entire clubhouse at present, I suggest you have plans for the whole, and erect at the start an ample locker room, which afterward may become part of the main building."


Steve

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I guess I see the point of your post, but like Forrest, wondered about your first one. Someone told me you were a moderator on this forum now. If thats the case, I can't see how you could post something that would possibly take a very specific architecture oriented thread into yet another Fazio bash!  

BTW, Kieser is a Golf Developer, and the other is a housing developer, easily explaining the difference in approaches. You can't compare apples and oranges.

Statistically, I think water draws more people than golf, which makes your supposition that ocean front holes would be better for a housing development untrue, as much as we all would like it to be.  If there were to be no direct condo to beach access for some reason, then I don't see why setting some mid to high rise condos back a hundred yards from the ocean would affect the view they are selling, though.

Going back to the topic, Steve Curry's post shows Tillie does consider the clubhouse first, as do most gca's for reasons I stated above.  Perhaps its just the seldom questioned concept of a clubhouse up on a hill that is faulty, at least on many sites, rather than the idea of setting in the clubhouse location first, or near the first thing.

Even with a clubhouse set, its possible to think outside the box and start and finish the course a bit away from it, rather than right in front of it, or slide holes by, like Olympic or NGLA, rather than approach it directly to get better holes.  

[Adam Clayman]

It's great to see Tommy sticking-up for Spanish bay in this way.

Maybe Paul can be moderator next?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Adam,
go back and look in all my posts. You'll see me always claiming how Spanish Bay is a missed opportunity as far as the clubhouse.

Jeff Brauer,
You and I have had said some mighty strong things about Fazio in private comments. I just choose to state my true beliefs in public, and I can assure you it doesn't affect moderating this forum in anyway which BTW, I've been doing for well over two years. You just didn't know about it.

With that, what is so wrong with me stating that Fazio spends more time figuring the best place for the golf course is usually where the clubhouse and two bathrooms are situated. I've heard that crtique from many for years on courses I've played and haven't played. It's valid. But the point is, and I state this to you because I hope it shows you how to be a better architect. I guess the difference is do you want to be "GREAT" or do you want to be "great?" Do you want to really design stuff that is going to respected in 80 years? to dot hat, I think it requires designing golf courses that the clubhouse comes second to the course.

My critque of Fazio is because he and his associate are destroying the last remaining works of George C. Thomas and has set a precedence on how expensive courses can get to be developed, let alone maintained, thus eliminating the possibility with the banks and lending institutions to properly fund the courses that should be getting built--affordable public muni's.

But then again, he is widely perceived as the most successful, predominate architect of his time. It just so happens he has other architects that compete with him that are far better that don't ride the same wave of hubris, whose works will far exceed the truest meaning of the Sport and why we play it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I'm sorry, and there may be smarter guys than me, but I didn't get all that from, "Oh, another Tom Fazio thread........ "

You are right that I didn't know about you moderating the threads for two years.  At least not from your posts! (Of course, I presume the role of a moderator is to keep things civil, and I could be wrong about that. Please enlighten.

Once again, my apologies for not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier.......

Regarding Fazio - I think he is what he is. He does many, many things better than the rest of us.  His budgets and philosphy do make for some holes that most of us could do a lot cheaper, and on a case by case basis, IMHO (and yours) better, specifically the holes where he clears the trees, shapes and plants back at mega bucks, when working around the existing trees would have been better, cheaper, faster.  But, I have always maintained that his work has far more diversity than most here give him credit for.  He doesn't do that on every hole or course by any means.

I can find nothing in his writings or work that suggests that he overly considers the clubhouse and think you are stretching that point a bit.  I think you also stretch the point to think your posts on this thread can make me a better gca.  

And, once again, please enlighten as to how Fazio remodeling Thomas work (unless he is relocating the clubhouse and reouting the course) ties into this specific thread?  Again, I must be as dense as lead because I just don't see a connection in remodeling and clubhouse location in routing......For that matter, Morrish redit Ojai, on the other thread you are participating on this AM, and I wonder how your dislike for his work there translates into Fazio ruining Thomas work.  Are you speaking of Riviera without mentioning it, or is Fazio redoing some other Thomas work I am not aware of? (That is a serious question, BTW, among some other admittedly sarcastic comments )

In routing, I consider the clubhouse and land and holes together in routing to get to a solution.  Every site has a unique set of factors.  I think most of my courses have the best routing the land will yield in using that process, and balancing the needs of the clubhouse (which is a part of the facility) with the quality of golf.  

To make a point, the Quarry is a real world example of how a clubhouse sometimes must be located first.  The only place it could be safely located on the site was on an outside curve of a major highway, to provide vision to the turn lanes.  If it went somewhere else it might have been a better golf course, but twenty cars a year might crash.  Perhaps you would consider me a GREAT architect, but I couldn't sleep at night.  And the course turned out okay.  

The bigger impacts were actually environmental and budget, and the Owner's desire for a walking course.  But, you make it sound like locating a clubhouse first almost gurantees a bad course.  In real life, I just don't see it happen that often, but am on the lookout for cases where it might be the overriding factor.  

Tommy,

I really don't mean to be hard on you, but I really don't see the connections to some of your thoughts this morning.  Perhaps you touched a live wire?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
The thread is a good one, and my humor, while not on the par of own humor quite obviously didn't go over well with you and Forrest.

I'll continue to believe that my thoughts on Fazio dumbing-down golf architecture then pushing the envelope and taking it to the level which guys like Coore, Doak, Hanse, DeVries and other that aspire to take to the next level. I look at the way they route their golf courses and see the efforts that go into it, when compared to the "we'll move mass land forms to create you the perfect golf course, no matter what the cost."

If your talking about Fazio's Q of LQ, well, it was obviously not the easiist of properties which to build on. I've heard mu;tiple times that the quarry wasn't really all that much of a quarry either, which would explain the fake rock walls constructed in the obvious locations--to make you feel like your in a quarry. He also used these same rock walls at Pelican Hills Ocean-south course, on the holes which are sitting right above the Pacific Ocean. They look like they cost a lot to build  or manufacture or however it is they build them. I don't know of a Top rated courses that uses these types of features in it's routing. Funny thing is, those two par threes are the best thing about the course.

Jeff, If you want tot talk about a good Fazio routing, then talk about Oak Creek. That's the best Fazio routing I've been on to date. the holes go in a myriad of directions, many of them coming back to the clubhouse, making it unusual for any Fazio routing you've ever been on. There is creative use made of the old lines of yucalyptus trees that used to protect groves of oranges that used to abound on the property and guard them from the breezey frost-filled nights of the old Irvine Ranch which is now a shadow of its former self. Sadly, the holes themselves are just so-so boring that this great routing is lost with-in itself.

The clubhouse and its location is spectacular. It's something you wish he would do repetitvely. Instead, the only repetition we are gifted with are the same holes, green complexes and bunker schemes we see at every course after course after course after course with high-cost maintenance items that make it impossible to really ever show a modicum of profit when compared to the cost which an owner has to charge for the ultimate Fazio experience @ $130.00 a round.

Come on Jeff. tell them EXACTLY what you feel about Fazio.

[Forrest Richardson]

Regarding Fazio's work relative to clubhouse sites, I think Tommy speaks beyond his knowledge. Which is OK, but maybe not ideal. Since I work with a former Fazio designer, I can share that many of their projects were blank canvasses with no pre-determined clubhouse site. According to my firsthand sources, the Fazio team took the decent approach: Find the best sites for holes and greens, all the while considering how people would get to the course, and taking into account the needs for the clubhouse.

At a recent project we are designing, but not our course within the project, the clubhosue site was all but set aside — with the 18 holes taking 100% priority. This proved to be an error, as the clubhouse was eventually sited in a location that required significant earthwork that went against a few holes and views.

I think it is best when the golf course architect considers the clubhouse along with the golf, setting goals for the entire experience, not just one part of it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
I'll be ther first to admit that I 'm speaking beyond my knowledge. I just think that there are many architects out there that are routing golf courses that are beyond theirs too. Don't get  me wrong, I think they ultimately do work and all, but as your book states that routing is the journey, then on some of these courses I've seen with the missed opportunities, I hope its a short one.

It's like scratching one's fingernails across a chalkboard.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, In case you missed it, I was poking fun. However, Spanish Bay did leave most of the course on the ocean side of the resrt/housing. Just as you were arguing should be done.

You also made a comment about the money Condos pull-in.

Do they actuall pull in more money long-term?

I would bet that a cash machine in perpetuity, would out revenue a one time sale.

If mybet is right, the people who choose the best land for the condos, are being short sighted and IMO, dumb. Fiduciarily speaking, of course.

[Forrest Richardson]

Regarding the journey being a short one...that plays into my rating system for golf courses: 1-18...where the final rating represents the hole at which you might be O.K. with leaving.  

[Brent Hutto]

I would bet that a cash machine in perpetuity, would out revenue a one time sale.

If mybet is right, the people who choose the best land for the condos, are being short sighted and IMO, dumb. Fiduciarily speaking, of course.

I guess that depends on whether the same people are banking the "one time" revenue and the "perpetuity" money.

Around here, the guy making money by selling houses and condos ain't gonna be around ten or twenty years later running the golf course. Nowadays probably not even five years later.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()