Erin Hills to add 2nd course

[Phil McDade]

This from the Milwaukee paper; note particularly the last line...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/golf/52476292.html

[Adam Clayman]

"Extensive enhancement" ain't a bad line either.

[Jay Flemma]

Guys, Brian Silva once said to me "moving 250,000 cubic yards of earthy is nothing" and Mike Strantz routinely moved 250-300,000 CYs in all his course.  He probably moved much more at Bulls Bay.  Lets not build a castle of suspicion upon a single sentence.  My guess is they'll be just as wise and judicious in building the second course as they were the first...even if it's not a race to boast about how little earth they moved.

Remember, Doak moved 880,000 to build the Rawls course, and that course is really good and really fun.  I'd say it's more impoertant WHO they choose to build rather than how much earth they move.

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

I'm actually really interested in finding out who builds/designs it. Haven't heard yet, though. Mr. Lang does own a ton of land out there, and my guess is that the best portions -- in terms of natural lay of land, interesting and notable land forms, and such -- were used for the original EHills course.

[George Pazin]

Jay:

I'm actually really interested in finding out who builds/designs it. Haven't heard yet, though. Mr. Lang does own a ton of land out there, and my guess is that the best portions -- in terms of natural lay of land, interesting and notable land forms, and such -- were used for the original EHills course.

David Kidd might disagree with your guess...

[Adam Clayman]

  My guess is they'll be just as wise and judicious in building the second course as they were the first...even if it's not a race to boast about how little earth they moved.
.

Jay, Was this in jest?

It is not important how much anyone moves. What is? Making it look like it belongs. 

[Phil McDade]

  My guess is they'll be just as wise and judicious in building the second course as they were the first...even if it's not a race to boast about how little earth they moved.
.

Jay, Was this in jest?

It is not important how much anyone moves. What is? Making it look like it belongs. 

Adam:

Well, it sort of was. EHills got a lot of initial publicity in these parts (and in the golf architecture world generally) in part because it was promoted as a piece of property in which the land itself lent itself to a minimalist approach to architecture, i.e., not a lot of earth moving. That has always been a central feature of the marketing of the course, and its none-too-subtle ambitions for landing big tournaments.

[Jim Colton]

Aren't they on their third course?

Sorry that was bad, but I couldn't resist.  Seriously, I'm anxiously waiting more details on the second course and am rooting for EH to be all that it can be.

When I was there last year, Mr. Lang was working a bulldozer and clearing trees for what the starter said was going to be the second course.  He said it was the land near the entrance, but there doesn't appear to be enough room there.  I know Mr. Doak said his routing had holes on the other side of the marsh from the current 1st hole, so maybe that provides us some clues.  Remember, Mr. Land bought up all the surrounding properties to ensure that there would be nothing obtrusive adjacent to the course.

[Joel_Stewart]

"He said a preliminary routing had been completed for the second course."

Doesn't that mean an architect has been choosen?


I have some issues with this guy anyway.  Erin Hills was supposed to be all about public golf and affordable golf.  The original course was built for about $2.5 million.   When he got wind of how great it was going to be and started talking with the USGA, he built a multi million dollar clubhouse.  All of a sudden the affordable green fees went to over $100.

Now he has made extensive changes to the course as the article states and he is looking for an equity partner for the 2nd course.  This guy is in it for the money and publicity.

[Phil McDade]

"He said a preliminary routing had been completed for the second course."

Doesn't that mean an architect has been choosen?


I have some issues with this guy anyway.  Erin Hills was supposed to be all about public golf and affordable golf.  The original course was built for about $2.5 million.   When he got wind of how great it was going to be and started talking with the USGA, he built a multi million dollar clubhouse.  All of a sudden the affordable green fees went to over $100.

Now he has made extensive changes to the course as the article states and he is looking for an equity partner for the 2nd course.  This guy is in it for the money and publicity.

Joel:

I'm not sure that's really the case. Mr. Lang is a golf fan, and a quite successful businessman. He saw an opportunity to buy a bunch of land with some really unique topographical features (that he thought would make for an interesting golf course) -- the kettles, kames, and other glacial leftover features in what is broadly known as the Kettle Moraine area of Wisconsin:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/specific/kmscenicdrive/forestgeology.html

I think Lang has been ambitious about landing big-name tournaments to EHills. But I'm not sure EHills was ever about "affordable" golf, regardless of how one defines that word. Fees for 18 holes have always been around $150 -- and in these parts, that's an expensive round of golf. It is priced well below the Kohler courses in Kohler proper and esp. the WStraits course, but either in line or above most anything else in the state. And I don't know that the clubhouse -- which does offer some lodging -- is all that elaborate, compared to others I've seen. I really don't think the clubhouse was built at the behest of, or in response to, the USGA. He has extensively reworked the course from its original routing and design, but those changes have been discussed at length here on GCA.

I've always thought Lang wanted a public, high-end, daily-fee course that could compete with the likes of the Kohler courses and a few others for golfers who want that experience, and in addition could lure some big tournaments.

[Adam Clayman]

A preliminary routing does not always mean the one who did it gets the final job.

I agree with Joel that something about this project has never passed the sniff test.

Phil, I can't speak for Joel, but I believe he was referring to the earliest reports about the project. There's no question that building the monster clubhouse added all the bling to the cha ching.

[Phil McDade]

Seriously, what's with the criticism of the clubhouse?

Is the clubhouse at Erin Hills any more onstentatious, even larger perhaps, than those at Olympia Fields, Medinah, or Winged Foot? Our own Peter Herried, interestingly, has a bunch of photos of clubhouses posted on this website: http://www.pbase.com/

Having seen each of them, I'd suggest the clubhouse at Milwaukee CC -- a wonderful old course -- is larger than the one at EHills.

I don't think EHills was ever marketed as "affordable," or in any way close to what most people would associate with that word. And Lang, regardless of what one thinks of the course and the alterations he's putting it through, has always seemed much more concerned with the course than the clubhouse (and I can cite well-regarded courses in Wisconsin where the exact opposite is true --millions spent on clubhouses without corresponding attention to the course.)

[Will Peterson]

I agree with Phil about the clubhouse.  It was not very large, and fits well on the property.  It is much more reserved than many others that I have seen around middle of the road courses.  I would even venture a guess that it is almost too small for what would be needed for hosting a major.

[Tim_Cronin]

I've never thought the Erin Hills clubhouse was anything but quaint. I was there when it was under construction, and it didn't look overdone. I've been there after completion, and I thought it fit in. Yes, there are a handful of sleeping rooms upstairs, but I've seen bigger houses on golf courses than the EH clubhouse.

Erin Hills is a project that, like Tospy, just grew. It was going to be a nine-hole course for employees. Then Bob Lang's architects noted the possibilities to him, and 19 holes appeared. Now, here come 18 more, for which hurrah. If I had the money, I'd call Bob Lang and tell him he had his partner.

[Mark Smolens]

Where will the USGA put the trailers for the players' locker rooms when the Open comes??? There certainly isn't enough room in the clubhouse's locker room for a full field of players -- tho the rooms upstairs will probably accommodate nicely the members of the Executive Committee!

Will be interesting to see how opinions about Mr. Lang and his property change on this Board if an architect favored here is chosen for the second course. . .

[Chip Gaskins]

The clubhouse is fine.  Tasteful, comfortable, appropriate....

[Dan Moore]

The clubhouse is understated and in good taste.  I once questioned its location, down low instead of on a bluff with a view of the overall property.  I was told they might build another manor house on the bluff.  They have over 400 acres. 

[Adam Clayman]

Adam:

Well, it sort of was. EHills got a lot of initial publicity in these parts (and in the golf architecture world generally) in part because it was promoted as a piece of property in which the land itself lent itself to a minimalist approach to architecture, i.e., not a lot of earth moving. That has always been a central feature of the marketing of the course, and its none-too-subtle ambitions for landing big tournaments.

Minimalist design has clearly been a mis-understood concept. Look at two, EH and Dismal River. Both projects, obviously didn't have a clue what it meant. Otherwise the extensive "fixing" would not have been needed.

My bad. I meant to imply 'monster' as being about the cost of clubhouse. Adding significantly to the cost of the golf. The USGA should consider NOT rewarding this type of bad behavior. Using the USGA's interest as an excuse to turn it into a profit center.

Let's see at 2.5 mil, using the formula $10 for every million. That's a $25 dollar green fee.  tsk tsk. 

[Chip Gaskins]

Minimalist design has clearly been a mis-understood concept. Look at two, EH

Very very well said....bulldozers are not always bad things when working such extreme terrain. Minimalism for minimalism sake misses the point.

[Link Walsh]

I still don't understand why the major perception in most posts about Erin Hills is so negative.  I enjoyed playing the course last summer, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it even more when I go back (probably next summer). 

Who cares if they did extensive renovations on several holes?  They have been working with the USGA from the beginning.  After the initial USGA event last year (I think it was the girls junior), the USGA had some suggestions.  If one of the major goals of the course is to bring big time golf to this part of Wisconsin on a consistent long term basis, why wouldn't they at least listen to the USGA?  Sure, they had the 2011 Amateur locked up, but I'm sure it was implied that they probably needed to fix some things before anything else came around.

I say, good for them that they took the initiative to spend the money and make some alterations early on.  Think about it.  If a club you belonged to had a new course that you thought was pretty good, but could use a few tweaks, wouldn't you want them to fix it now instead of wait 20 years for the inevitable redesign?  And in reality, most of the renovations involve adding some bunkers, extending a few greens, and softening a few slopes here and there.  I'm totally fine with them ditching the Dell hole, because the old "bye hole" was a great little par 3.  I'm not sure why they are going to a par 73 really, but oh well.     

Look at all the great courses that are talked about on this website that underwent major renovations early on and often over the course of their history.  How many times has Augusta National been revamped?  How about Nicklaus with the Memorial?  Heck, I think he's totally changed the 17th hole at least 3 times alone.  What about Pinehurst #2 or Kiawah?  Pebble added a new hole last decade.  The Dunes course at Monterey is basically totally new.  Even the new write-up on the California Golf Club looks like major changes occurred there.  I'm sure there are some other courses you all could add to this list to help me make my point.   

All I'm saying is this:  stop bashing the guy for having the balls to spend his own money and make some changes early in order to keep a good relationship with the USGA after the Amateur leaves town.  If for example one of Mike Keiser's goals for the Bandon property was to continue to bring major events to the resort and the USGA made some suggestions, don't you think he would at least listen and consider the changes? 

   

[Adam Clayman]

Forgive me for my frank commentary about a new course. You see it as well done, and I'm calling Bullshit. I know if I were footing the bill I'd be pissed off about having to spend even more money. All of the changes should've been done before a single blade was planted.

Link,
 The majority of examples you cite should not be held up as a high standard, save for the Strantz  @ MPCC.

[Link Walsh]

But if he has the money, and he wants to make changes to to continue to have the ear of the USGA, it's his choice and I say more power to him. 

Adam, your version of what is a high standard in architecture is your own and that's fine.  When I played there, I played Lawsonia the next day, and I just thought Lawsonia was awesome.  But you at least have to agree that the courses I mentioned are pretty famous, and that they have undergone major changes since they're initial opening.  Right?   

[Greg Clark]

I agree that as an owner I would be not be the happiest of campers if I needed to spend a few million only a couple years after opening on a fairly substantial renovation.  That being said, when I played the course 2 weeks ago I was very impressed with the potential of Erin Hills.  Loved playing there.  I think it will put on a great show during the Amateur in 2011.

[Adam Clayman]

Yes Link, those are all highly visible courses that were altered.

Now, the trick is whether one feels they were good changes.

Angc- I'd be much more interested in seeing the Mackenzie/Jones version then the Maxwell/Jones/Fazio.
Pebble- The new fifth and other recent alterations illustrate a desire to improve but fail miserably.
Muirfield V.- Can't really comment other than somewhere in the archives are countless stories about it's original.
Pinehurst- Recent changes appear to be conducted by someone without any knowledge of strategic architecture. Playing angles etc.
Kiawah- Pete Dye does and get special dispensation. His alterations are usually well thought out and done on his own designs. Versus, most disfigurements by a committee of fad following ego stampers.

Medinah #3 comes to mind as another example of highly visible course that just can't make up their mind on exactly what is good. Yet they let, and keep paying, the same team to do the work. Go figure?

 

[Link Walsh]

Adam,

I totally agree with you that some of the changes they are having to make should have been figured out beforehand.  When I stood on the first tee, the first thing I said to myself was that they needed to lower the hill leading up to the 2nd landing area so the average golfer could handle it.  And how they thought a green as small as #2 would help them land a U.S. Open is beyond me.  They tried to get too cute with the Dell hole and forced a biaritz on a blind uphill par 5 also.  But like I said, I would rather they fix these issues now rather than later.  I'm not so sure about moving the green back on #4.  I liked it where it was.

Also, Mackenzie and Jones made some weird decisions upon designing Augusta National that have been fixed IMO to make a few of the holes much better.  For example, #7 used to be about 315 yards long- just a short, boring, semi-flat hole with the green at the bottom of the hill.  They realized they needed to change it when you had guys like Sam Snead routinely drive the green without any problems whatsoever.  How they didn't see the current green site benched into the hill confuses me?   

Also, we all know that the green for #10 used to be at the bottom of the hill next to the huge fairway bunker.  If the tee box for 11 was over the hill (remember the tee was basically behind the current 10th green near 15 tee.  So golfers would have had to walk over that hill anyway.  Again, the greensite now is much better and more logical to eliminate a fairly long uphill walk to the next tee. 

#11 used to be a quirky dogleg right of about 350 yards with just a creek to the left of the green.  I don't agree with all of the recent changes to this hole, but you have to admit that making the golfers stand on the top of the hill about 180-200 yards out with that pond lurking makes the hole much more interesting. 

Finally, you have #16, which was basically a pitching wedge over Rae's Creek that really nobody liked.  Sam Snead had his ball clang off the pin one time and go back into the water...  It's a much better hole now and more commiserate with something you would like to see as the 70th hole in a tournament of any sort. 

With all of this being said, I would be surprised if the owner of Erin Hills goes with the same designers for the possible 2nd course.  As far as I know, this is his first foray into the golf business.  I would think that he has learned a few lessons over the past 5 years that he won't want to repeat. 

I agree with you on Medinah, but you really think the old #5 hole at Pebble was better than the one they have now?  I don't know much about the history of the changes at Pinehurst over the years, but I was mostly thinking about the times that Ross altered his own course over the years.  I know Trent Jones redid #7, which I think is a little too much of a dogleg for the average golfer.