Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues

[PThomas]

Paul T,

That's 3 courses out of thousands in the last twenty or so years.

And, look where they are.

In remote areas.

And, with jurisdictional agencies that are aware of the economic benefits of development.

To site them as a typical example is disengenuous.

fair enough Patrick

but in the last 10 years there have been thousands of courses built.....

Paul Cowley's last post makes a lot of sense..

some places should not have courses built on them

but it they are designed and maintained properly they can coexist with the environment

some courses actually rehab poor sites, like Harborside in Chicago

I think the future of golf course architecture is fine.....

I do worry about the lack of growth in the number of players, the USGA's failure to counteract technology, etc...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...I agree that the Naational could probably not be built today, along with probably 40 out of the top 50 of the true classic courses.....but I still think GCA is very alive and will stay very well.

Paul,

I'd agree that it's alive and well, but, that it's under such tight, if not unreasonable, constraints.

We, Golf Designers and developers, have become smarter than in years past......and have learned how to adapt to survive.

Adapt or perish ?

I consul clients and design with AVOIDENCE [or minimal impacts] to wetlands as the prudent way to go....primarily for ease of permitting, lower costs to construct and playability [ enhancing ones enjoyment].....all vital to the overall success of a project.

But, how much does this compromise the quality of the product ?

That was at the core of my initial post.
That environmental restrictions, especially where disconnects between greens and tees exist, compromise the quality of the product.

A smart developer and planner factors in decreased yields and doesn't push the limits in a proforma.....and if it works the project moves ahead......but I have also advised pulling the plug on many a project before it got out of the conceptual planning stages.

I can understand your feelings and decisions in that area, but, it's hard for a developer, who's acquired the property, who has a vision/dream to abandon ship, and write off his loss.

You just cannot approach a piece of dirt expecting to apply the older methodology....and if you do, be prepared for a frustrating and more than likely a costly experience.

I understand that, but, there are reasonable constraints and unreasonable constraints.

I know that the former can be dealt with, but, once you're into a project, the latter can have devastating consequences, financially, and with the quality of the final product.
 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Some questions of Patrick Mucci to be answered...

If a field can be converted to wetlands, what's the net loss? Or, are you stating that farms and pastures should never have been created ?  Or, that those fields should be returned to their natural state ?

Ecologically the best thing is in most cases to just leave it alone. A Golf course developer cannot improve on nature itself, he will destroy it to some degree.

Now, if the options are: either build a Golf course or build a residential area or build a nuclear dump, then the ecological balance in most cases favors the Golf course. Therefore environmentally valuable areas should be off-limits in general, not just for Golf course construction.

Remediation is unrealistic. To be effective it would mean that an area with supermarkets, housing or corn fields would have to be renatured (given back to nature). It does not make ecological sense if you take a wetlands area and make it a field and then take a field and make it a wetland area. You have taken two areas from nature and gave nothing back.

Should man be obligated to cede land to mosquitos ?

Have NGLA, Lido, Yale, Shinnecock, Southampton or Maidstone harmed the environment ?

Yes on all counts, except I'm not quite sure what you mean with the first question. As for the classic courses, they are here and we all love them. They were built in a time of little ecological awareness, just as there were times of little social awareness, where pyramids were being built by slaves. We are not going to tear down any of it, but we should be more responsible today with new projects.

Shouldn't the goal be to build a golf course ?

I don't think so. Golf courses are one of the very few large scale building projects, which can involve nature and turn a profit. Therefore, building a Golf course is an opportunity to do something for nature, which is sustainable, because it pays for itself. Parks and other ecological efforts are costly and sometimes not sustainable in the long run. Then, when the money runs out, somebody jumps up and builds housing - not good.

If something has to be built, then from an ecological point of view it is often best to build a Golf course. But that is still far inferior to just leave it alone. And there are some areas, which simply have to be protected from any human intervention, because we are running out of them. This being the case with Links land, for example. And building Golf courses in the desert is just so horrible that it should be punishable with jail. Don't get me started ;-)

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a field can be converted to wetlands, what's the net loss? Or, are you stating that farms and pastures should never have been created ?  Or, that those fields should be returned to their natural state ?

Ecologically the best thing is in most cases to just leave it alone.

Ecology doesn't take priority over man or man's needs.

Man must have housing, feed himself and work, and he can't do that by commuting to Mars, he has to do it here, on the planet Earth.  Hence, nature's interests have to yield to man's needs.

A Golf course developer cannot improve on nature itself, he will destroy it to some degree.

Nonsense, the incremental loss is negligble in most cases.

Now, if the options are: either build a Golf course or build a residential area or build a nuclear dump, then the ecological balance in most cases favors the Golf course.

Environmentalists like to use extreme examples.
To equate and to quantify as equals, residences with nuclear dumps is disengenuous.

Many golf courses were working farms, and those farms did far more damage to the environment than a golf course, yet, when golf courses are proposed for farmland sites, the environmentalists go unreasonably ballistic, opposing the golf course and prefering to let the more harmful farm remain.

I wonder how much the politics of envy factors in ?

Therefore environmentally valuable areas should be off-limits in general, not just for Golf course construction.

Who determines that, and in what context ?

Remediation is unrealistic. To be effective it would mean that an area with supermarkets, housing or corn fields would have to be renatured (given back to nature).

No it doesn't.

It means that if an area deemed to be a wetland was proposed as the site of an entity, that an equal amount, or a multiple of the amount of land taken, would be returned as wetlands.

It does work.

It does not make ecological sense if you take a wetlands area and make it a field and then take a field and make it a wetland area. You have taken two areas from nature and gave nothing back.

Using that logic man should just go away and leave the planet to nature's way.

What you and others miss is that the world population is growing, development is ongoing, and man will develop entities for his needs, be it housing, farming or commercial use.  And as such, land MUST be taken.  To imply that land has to be taken somewhere else is unreasonable.  Man has to be where commerce/farming exist, not at the North or South poles.

Should man be obligated to cede land to mosquitos ?

Have NGLA, Lido, Yale, Shinnecock, Southampton or Maidstone harmed the environment ?

Yes on all counts,

How ?
And, to what extent.

Has man enjoyed the use of those sites ?  Have they served him well.   CBM's discription of the property at NGLA doesn't paint a powerful portrait of land with great environmental value.

except I'm not quite sure what you mean with the first question.

Whose needs should be served, man's or the mosquitos ?

As for the classic courses, they are here and we all love them. They were built in a time of little ecological awareness, just as there were times of little social awareness, where pyramids were being built by slaves. We are not going to tear down any of it, but we should be more responsible today with new projects.

How were they irresponsible ?

Is it responsible to allow a malaria generating swamp to exist ?  

Or, are man's needs better served by eliminating the swamp that creates an environment that harms man ?

Shouldn't the goal be to build a golf course ?

I don't think so. Golf courses are one of the very few large scale building projects, which can involve nature and turn a profit.

Most clubs don't turn a profit.

Therefore, building a Golf course is an opportunity to do something for nature, which is sustainable, because it pays for itself. Parks and other ecological efforts are costly and sometimes not sustainable in the long run. Then, when the money runs out, somebody jumps up and builds housing - not good.

Not good for who, the citizens and their families who need affordable housing ?

You may want to cede the land to ants, mice and the birds, but, I'd rather see families use the land for their homes.

If something has to be built, then from an ecological point of view it is often best to build a Golf course. But that is still far inferior to just leave it alone.

Leave it alone ?

So man should have no pursuits, no schools, hospitals, houses of worship, sports facilities or homes ?

This nonsensical idea that man is unimportant and should be relegated to a cave man like existance is comical.

And there are some areas, which simply have to be protected from any human intervention, because we are running out of them.

I'd agree.
Some areas should be protected, but, I don't see us running out of them.

This being the case with Links land, for example.

And building Golf courses in the desert is just so horrible that it should be punishable with jail.

That's an extremist position.

Should the Pueblo's have been wiped from the face of the earth for building their homes in the cliffs and canyons ?

Should the ancients have been punished for bringing water to the desert, enabling them to grow food and live ?

And now, you want those that build golf courses in the desert to go to jail.

That's typical of the extemists.
They just don't get it

For whom shall we keep the deserts barren, empty of life ?

Don't get me started ;-)

Ditto  

[Ulrich Mayring]

Not sure if we're going off-topic here. Ecological awareness is at an all-time high, although, I must concede, apparently not in your neck of the woods ;-)

Any land that we de-naturalize today will be gone for our children. And if they think the same way, then pretty soon the whole planet will go down the drain. Sorry to sound apocalyptic, but we probably cannot survive without nature. We are currently destroying it at an alarming rate.

Granted, you and me will not be affected - there is enough nature to go around for us and most likely our children. But there is a limit. I feel responsible for the planet more than for the people, simply because the people won't be around much longer. The planet has to support many more future people than those, who live today.

And do you really think the deserts are barren and empty of life? That would be incorrect information. Building Golf courses there is an ecological disaster because of the massive amounts of water wasted. We are running out of fresh water. If Golf courses start to use sewage water, then we can talk again about the desert.

Ulrich

[Phil McDade]

"...yet, when golf courses are proposed for farmland sites, the environmentalists go unreasonably ballistic, opposing the golf course and prefering to let the more harmful farm remain."

Mr. Mucci:

Please cite examples of this. Several would be helpful, to buttress your argument.

I can cite numerous examples of just the opposite from out here in the Midwest, where farming actually still exists as a significant portion of the economy (compared to, say, Massachusetts). Wisconsin has many, many more (and larger, e.g. 9 holes expanded to 18 or 18 to 27) golf courses than it did, say, 60 years ago (to peg golf course development to the post-WWII population boom), and many, many of them were built on farmland.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ulrich,
It's the LAW in Arizona that golf courses must use treated sewer (effluent, recycled...whatever you wish to call it) water if it is available. And in the two largest cities, Tucson and Phoenix, it's available and almost all the courses use it...some for over a decade now.

Las Vegas, Palm Springs, other parts of So Cal are all using treated water on some golf courses.

[paul cowley]

Phil...trust me...Patrick is right.

Generally golf is not considered a agricultural enterprise as far as zoning and permitting is concerned and it is wrongfully held to an altogether alien standard.....usually having to meet the requirements that are the same for residential and or  commercial development.

Most farmers growing crops and turning over soil twice a year [without having to employ erosion control techniques and silt fencing], and all the while dispensing a loosely regulated application of fertilizers and pesticides....could start a sod farm at any time .....and use exactly the same agronomic methods that a golf course does....and all the while without having to get a permit or be held to the scrutiny of governmental and private review.

....maybe the answer is to be a sod farm that never harvests, but instead just has short term recreational leases [similar to hunting leases ] that allow for a person to utilize the property with clubs instead of guns.

Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!....see Patrick....this is why I can't go here...I warned you...but no ...like a moth to a flame that you held in front of me ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

...but I know you mean no harm....i forget how to spell qualude....help please....forth floor thank you .  

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

Well, I certainly agree with your characterization of how farms pollute relative to other kinds of development, and how that development is held to different, arguably tougher, standards than many farms.

But that's not Patrick's point, relative to the quote I cribbed. Where I live (lots of farmland AND lots of development pressure, due to recession-proof local economy...), I'd guess that well over a thousand acres of farmland have been turned over to golf course development in the past 25 years, with barely a hackle raised (I know of only one golf course project in the area stopped due to anything remotely resembling environmental pressures, and that was due more to the funding mechanism proposed for it -- state environmental funds -- than anything else). Development, broadly speaking (mainly housing, although big-box development comes in for its share, as well as highways), comes under far more scrutiny relative to the farmland turnover debate than golf courses around here (second-largest county in Wisconsin, fastest-growing county -- by some measures -- in the state, one of the largest per capita farm income counties in the state).

I am quite familiar with a situation just the opposite of what Mucci cites -- a modest golf course now laying fallow (nine holes, succumbed to better golf courses built nearby) that the owners want to turn into housing, and the local residents are adamantly opposed to it. They want it to stay a golf course, or at least undeveloped.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not sure if we're going off-topic here. Ecological awareness is at an all-time high, although, I must concede, apparently not in your neck of the woods ;-)

I think you'll find that the ecological awareness in my neck of the woods is as astute as anywhere.

What you and others can't comprehend is the issue of the quality of life for the emerging demographic.

Any land that we de-naturalize today will be gone for our children.

So where are our children to live ?
Where will there children go to school, pursue recreational activities ?  The land must be used for our growing population, just as it was 300 years ago.

Should we haver preserved the island of Manhattan as a State Park ?

And if they think the same way, then pretty soon the whole planet will go down the drain.

No it won't.
The increasing populations has needs, needs for housing, education, commerce, health providers, elderly care facilities and recreation, and those needs must be filled by using our natural resources, our land.

Sorry to sound apocalyptic, but we probably cannot survive without nature. We are currently destroying it at an alarming rate.

Nonsense.

Raw land is being put to good use for housing, education, commerce, health and elderly care, and recreation.

As 400,000 people a year move to Florida, where are they supposed to live ?  On boats anchored offshore ?
Or, on the land ?

Granted, you and me will not be affected - there is enough nature to go around for us and most likely our children. But there is a limit. I feel responsible for the planet more than for the people, simply because the people won't be around much longer. The planet has to support many more future people than those, who live today.

That's my point, and as such, the natural resources, the land amongst them, must be put to good use, man's use.

Are we any worse off because the dinosaurs are extinct ?

And do you really think the deserts are barren and empty of life?

Pretty much so.
Few animals roam the deserts, but, perhaps there's an unknown civilization populating the Sahara

That would be incorrect information. Building Golf courses there is an ecological disaster because of the massive amounts of water wasted.

How is it wasted ?

It's applied to the golf course where evaporation returns much of it to the natural cycle.

We are running out of fresh water.

Where ?

If Golf courses start to use sewage water, then we can talk again about the desert.

Effluent water is being used by more and more golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"...yet, when golf courses are proposed for farmland sites, the environmentalists go unreasonably ballistic, opposing the golf course and prefering to let the more harmful farm remain."

Mr. Mucci:

Please cite examples of this. Several would be helpful, to buttress your argument.

Of what, farmland being converted to golf courses or the chemical applications to both entities ?

I can cite numerous examples of just the opposite from out here in the Midwest,

The opposite of what ?

where farming actually still exists as a significant portion of the economy (compared to, say, Massachusetts). Wisconsin has many, many more (and larger, e.g. 9 holes expanded to 18 or 18 to 27) golf courses than it did, say, 60 years ago (to peg golf course development to the post-WWII population boom), and many, many of them were built on farmland.

Are you saying that there are no impediments to converting a farm to a golf course ?

[Ryan Farrow]

Ecology doesn't take priority over man or man's needs.

Man must have housing, feed himself and work, and he can't do that by commuting to Mars, he has to do it here, on the planet Earth.  Hence, nature's interests have to yield to man's needs.[/b]

If natures interest yields to man’s need there will eventually come a time where mans need’s will not be met by nature. Have you ever heard of carrying capacity? It sounds as though you have a very poor attitude about how important the issues of sustainability and environmental responsibility are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If natures interest yields to man’s need there will eventually come a time where mans need’s will not be met by nature.

Why not ?

And when is that time ?

Have you ever heard of carrying capacity?

If, by restricting growth, there's not enough land to farm or graze, and you can't fish, you won't have to worry about capacity, the populations will starve to death.  And, if you restrict the use of land, AFFORDABLE housing becomes a rarity.

It sounds as though you have a very poor attitude about how important the issues of sustainability and environmental responsibility are.

It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

In the ultimate, man has a responsibility to perpetuate himself, and not bring about his own extinction by failing to utilize the earths resources.

[Ryan Farrow]

If natures interest yields to man’s need there will eventually come a time where mans need’s will not be met by nature.

Why not ?

Over consumption

And when is that time?

Of course that all depends on what needs are not being met and there will be different timeframes for that.



Have you ever heard of carrying capacity?

If, by restricting growth, there's not enough land to farm or graze, and you can't fish, you won't have to worry about capacity, the populations will starve to death.  And, if you restrict the use of land, AFFORDABLE housing becomes a rarity.

What are you talking about here?

The point I am trying to make is if people are not conscious of what they are doing they may over consume and not allow nature to replenish itself. A great example of this is the extinction of the Atlantic salmon from the great lakes and other areas of the Atlantic where over fishing almost completely wiped out the entire population. We need to be conscious on what we take from the environment so these resources will be around for future generations.






It sounds as though you have a very poor attitude about how important the issues of sustainability and environmental responsibility are.

It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

In the ultimate, man has a responsibility to perpetuate himself, and not bring about his own extinction by failing to utilize the earths resources.


If I don’t know what I am talking about I guess the people who practice environmental planning for a living don’t know what they are talking about.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

The correct spelling is QUAALUDE.  Really.  You're welcome.  Otherwise I am avoiding this thread.

[paul cowley]

Tom ...thanks.
And if I can ever return the favor.........

[Phil McDade]

"...yet, when golf courses are proposed for farmland sites, the environmentalists go unreasonably ballistic, opposing the golf course and prefering to let the more harmful farm remain."

Mr. Mucci:

Please cite examples of this. Several would be helpful, to buttress your argument.

Of what, farmland being converted to golf courses or the chemical applications to both entities ?

I can cite numerous examples of just the opposite from out here in the Midwest,

The opposite of what ?

where farming actually still exists as a significant portion of the economy (compared to, say, Massachusetts). Wisconsin has many, many more (and larger, e.g. 9 holes expanded to 18 or 18 to 27) golf courses than it did, say, 60 years ago (to peg golf course development to the post-WWII population boom), and many, many of them were built on farmland.

Are you saying that there are no impediments to converting a farm to a golf course ?

Patrick:

Examples of: envirornmentalists going unreasonably ballistic when farmland is converted to golf courses.

I know of numerous farms, totaling well into thousands of acres, being converted into golf courses here in Wisconsin, specifically, that have been met with little or no resistance from environmentalists. I'm using "little or no resistance" in this instance as the opposite of "unreasonably ballistic."

I'm not saying there are no impediments in converting farmland into a golf course. I am saying that, in the county where I live, which has both a substantial farm economy and a healthy economy, I've seen little resistance or impediments when farms are converted to golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

examples of: envirornmentalists going unreasonably ballistic when farmland is converted to golf courses.

I know of numerous farms, totaling well into thousands of acres, being converted into golf courses here in Wisconsin, specifically, that have been met with little or no resistance from environmentalists. I'm using "little or no resistance" in this instance as the opposite of "unreasonably ballistic."

Then they haven't discovered your area in Wisconsin.

If they're opposed, in principle, to the conversion of a farm to a golf course, its situs doesn't matter.

Logically, if it's bad in Baiting Hollow, NY, it's bad in Wisconsin.


I'm not saying there are no impediments in converting farmland into a golf course. I am saying that, in the county where I live, which has both a substantial farm economy and a healthy economy, I've seen little resistance or impediments when farms are converted to golf courses.

How many farms have been converted to 18 hole private golf courses in your area ?

Are you near Menominee (sp?) or Barren County  ?

[Ulrich Mayring]

So you have no examples of environmentalists going unreasonably ballistic on converting farmland to Golf courses?

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

I do.

Let's start with Friar's Head.

[Tom_Doak]

Let's all be realistic here.

The majority of environmental opposition to golf courses in the USA is NOT really about "environmental issues" per se.  It comes from groups of people who are opposed to "growth" and use environmental arguments to oppose that growth.

The east end of Long Island is very anti-growth ... not to mention that they have a shallow aquifer to worry about.  Thus you have everyone from both parts of the opposition at the meeting talking about the aquifer.  The people who are actually concerned about the aquifer would be at the same meeting, arguing about the same thing, if Ken Bakst was trying to get a permit to operate a farm on the property ... but the farm is already permitted to exist.

People in Wisconsin (with the exception of Door County) aren't so anti-growth.  Erin Hills used to be a farm, and I'm not aware that they encountered any serious opposition.

[Mike_Sweeney]

People in Wisconsin (with the exception of Door County) aren't so anti-growth.  Erin Hills used to be a farm, and I'm not aware that they encountered any serious opposition.

Patrick & Tom,

People in Wisconsin don't sit in traffic all day long either. I first started going to Southampton in 1988, and it was magical. The towns had New England flavor, the farms were farms and you could get a parking spot at the beaches on July 4th weekend. I was perfectly fine with walking up to Montauk Downs and waiting 30 minutes to tee off.

Every year another farm(s) disappeared replaced by 30-40 houses, and country roads out by Atlantic (a farm) now have traffic circles to deal with all the cars. Unlike the Jersey Shore (where I grew up summers) and Westhampton where houses and the community have always been packed up against the ocean on a finger island with small lots and now huge homes, Southampton and East Hampton still appear beautiful in many spots because the growth has been spread out over farms and land that is spread out in basically 1 to 3 acre zoning from Atlantic Ocean to Peconic Bay. However the beaches and roads are basically the same, and IMHO the anti-growth guys sitting with their envioronmental hats actually lost the battle.

By posting on a Sunday morning, I think we can safely say that I am a golf junkie, but if I could choose to take The Hamptons back to around 1990 without Sebonack, I would. I am playing out there a day this week, and I am now going out the night before just so I can avoid "The Crawl" going into Southampton every morning, which is filled with the trades people who flipped their houses and moved "up Island". Unfortunaely with an economy based largely on second homes, there is no real solution because the town boards are made up of locals who rightly value paying for the kids tuition over long term planning.

We now love Martha's Vineyard and the growth people up there are basically Nazis in a good way, but it is not a place that I would want the kids to grow up (and the courses are not as good!). Southampton was, and we almost made the move like others after 9/11, but now I would need a summer place if I lived in Southampton to "get away" from Southampton. Maybe we can sleep on Michael's Moore's spare wing in Maine during the summer!

PS. My wife is never moving from Manhattan, so ignore all of the above abouting moving to the perfect life. My best shot is if Tom Doak remodels Pelham/Split Rock!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney, Tom & Ulrich,

There was some opposition to Sebonack from locals.

Some claimed that building Sebonack might disturb land that may have been indian burial grounds.

It's interesting to note that when they were building their homes, they never brought up the subject of disturbing the land.

Mike Sweeney,

There's no way around that traffic until you get to Rutland Rd (?)
I also go out the night before.
Had Rt 27 been continued as a four lane road, this wouldn't have happened.  But, I would imagine that the Lobster Inn has benefited from the traffic.

It will be interesting to see what happens on the North Fork which is experiencing new popularity.

[paul cowley]

Mike its interesting that you should enjoy the Vineyard....I grew up there and boycott it now except to visit family....I just can't tolerate the restrictions that have crept in steadily since the island was discovered about the same time an illustrious senator left his date to drown in his car and they filmed a movie about a man eating fish [using family and friends as extras]......but then again, that was when I would play the old Island Club course barefoot [now the Farm Neck course] with fairways that were so rock hard that seagulls would drop quahogs from high up in the air down on the 3rd fairway to break the shells and then land to eat them....both the shells and the thumping created an interesting play condition....I guess the gulls have gone as I doubt the firm conditions exist anymore since irrigation was added .
Playing barefoot was not unusual because most Vineyard boys would forsake shoes all summer.

I guess they got all the water they needed for Sebonac....but for just a few memberships more they could have built a Desalination plant and then disguised it......maybe as a windmill!

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike its interesting that you should enjoy the Vineyard....I grew up there and boycott it now except to visit family....I just can't tolerate the restrictions that have crept in steadily since the island was discovered about the same time an illustrious senator left his date to drown in his car and they filmed a movie about a man eating fish [using family and friends as extras

Paul,

I have the same view of Avalon, NJ and have a friend who has the same view of Sea Island. Maybe we should all switch back!!

We stay at West Chop Club (next to Mink Meadows), and we often have breakfast there with an older women who has been coming to The Vineyard and West Chop for sixty some years. She too felt the Kennedy saga was what changed the island.

On another thread I threw out the concept that almost all replacement courses are better than their predecessors. Is that true of Farm Neck? My first exposure to The Vineyard was 1982, so I am still a rookie. I know one thing for sure, if your family had bought 1000 or so acres in Chilmark and had gotten permitting for a golf course before Kennedy, I would be your best buddy.   There are alot of golf holes out there.