Following on from the Florida bashing......

[Dean Stokes]

This is something I have wondered for a while, the Florida threads have revived my thinking and now something a friend said the other day brought me to ask for your opinions.

I was playing an average course here in Florida last week with a friend from England who is a member at a very good course over there. We had played about thirteen holes when we got to a tee box that was on the boundary of the course. As we looked over the hedge/fence all we could see was swamp! Water, tree stumps, birds, alligators and dirt for as far as we could see. My friend said "you know what, you really have to give it the course designers who can take that (pointing at the swamp), and turn it into a golf course. You've got nothing to work with and you can build a course that is very playable, maybe not brilliant but not bad".

So, does it take more skill and vision to design a course out of nothing or is it harder to take a great piece of land, full of elevation change, rolling terrain etc. and find a routing then 'lay' a golf course on top of it?

Maybe the architects can chime in. Is it more pressure to find a great routing then design a masterpiece on what is perceived to be a great piece of land or is it easier to take a nothing piece of flat swampland and design an average/good course?

[Alex Miller]

I've given my opinion on this, though I'm not a GCA.


Check out Melvyn's thread entitled "The original lie....." It's on the second page.

[George Pazin]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one experiencing deja vu...

[Alex Miller]

I like how this one was posed though. Not so..... presumptuous.

[Tim Nugent]

I can't speak for others but dead flat is hard, you have to manufacture everything and drainage becomes an overriding factor.  Flipside is very mountainous is also very difficult.  On flat and uphill, vision is problematic.  Ideally, you look to the ground for features to incorporate, sometimes accentuating them sometimes softening them.  Most architects can handle both, but economics begin to rear their ugly head.
The problem with a site like you discribe is the only way you can go is up, and that material needs to come from somewhere.  Digging in saturated or wet ground is difficult and expensive.  Plus when you are done, all you have to show for all that excavation is a lake - again dead flat.

Given the choice of flat or mountain, I'd rather have flat (as long as I could drain it and the water table was at least 6 feet down).  If you follow the 1m rule (only dig down or fill 1m from existing), you can still  get enough elevation change to keep things interesting, just look at Hoylake.

[Dean Stokes]

I like how this one was posed though. Not so..... presumptuous.

Thank you I had not even looked at that thread - my apologies.

[Chris Flamion]

While this is the same question just stated in a different way...I will bite on this one.

The amount of skill required to do anything, on flat, hilly or even mountainous land, is simply astounding (this is something that I have come to realize in the past 6 months on here).  While the course that is laid on a beautiful piece of land requires a fine eye and the skill to not do anything, or just the ability to see that something is already good and too only enhance it's beauty. The mountain course takes someone with the imagination to find a playable course, and then the skill to make sure it is followed thru to be enjoyable.  The flat course requires more technical know-how than I could ever possibly imagine just to make it drain, play, and otherwise something that can even be produced onto the land.

I guess my summation is this, any architect, or supervisor, or tractor man who has a job for more than a couple of months in this industry is extremely intelligent, gifted, and worth everything they earn even when the course isn't a Doak 10, because after all not everything is given that perfect opportunity.

[David_Tepper]

Dean S. -

This thread raises a very valid point. Not all golf courses can be built on "land fit for purpose," unless one considers swamps, lava beds, desert washes, played out quarries, mountain hillsides and capped garbage dumps "land fit for purpose."

If the construction of golf courses in Florida was restricted to "land fit for purpose," how many fewer courses would there be in the state? 20%? 40%?

DT

[Mac Plumart]

Just a question...not a statement.

Shouldn't golf courses only be built on land that is suitable for golf?

I've read some threads, articles, etc on this topic and when combined with other threads that talk about the costs of golf courses I am wondering if we only built golf courses on land that is suitable for golf then wouldn't construction costs be lower and perhaps maintenance costs as well.

And if so, would Florida golf get a better reputation?

Thoughts?

[David_Tepper]

Mac P. -

In a perfect world, there would be plenty of inexpensive property of gently rolling hills, valleys and streams on well draining soils (land "fit for golf"), near enough to populations large enough to support the enterprise of constructing and operating a golf course.

For a variety of reasons, that is simply not the case and has not been for several decades. In many cases, the only land available at a reasonable price near to a population large enough to support a golf course is land that has been degraded in some way.

Fortunately, there are resources now available to GCAs that enable them to mitigate the problems of these properties and enable them to produce a serviceable (and often times superior) golf course.

No doubt the quality ratio of golf courses in Florida would be reduced if those courses built on land unfit for golf were plowed under.  But where would all those people currently playing on (and likely enjoying) those plowed under golf courses go?

DT       

[Melvyn Morrow]

So Land Fit For Purpose is a joke, you are happy for a fortune to be spent on a golf course so only private members can afford it or are you willing to pay higher Green Fees for the privilege of playing these course.

Why do you moan about high Green Fees yet seem to want well manicured and super green courses in areas which under normal circumstances Nature could not naturally provide let alone sustain.

Land Fit For Purpose is quite simply land that can maintain its green appearance without the aid of man. My point being had more consideration for the game of golf gone into selecting the sites perhaps we would have better courses and the cost of building and maintaining them may have been less a burden on the course owners, reflecting through to lower Green Fees and their ability to survive the current financial storm.

Mock my comment by all means but don’t then complain about the cost of playing some of these courses or the shock of seeing course close.

Just because we can build courses in unnatural locations does not mean we should. Money is and should not be the only criteria, the suitability of land and climate should come into the equation and yes I am saying that there are areas in the world where we should not build a golf course.

I care about the game of golf and the suitability of the land to sustain a golf course. I am questioning cost of building courses and the on going maintenance costs incurred due to questionable locations and sites.

Don’t agree with me, fine but stop moaning about the Green Fees and others associated Club House costs. Apart from just playing golf what are you doing for the game of golf?

Yet we all have the right to our opinions and on GCA.com the ability to voice our concerns regards GCA.

Melvyn

[Mike Sweeney]

yes I am saying that there are areas in the world where we should not build a golf course.

Mel,

Can you name us 3 courses that you have played that should not have been built and why?

[Gary Slatter]

Dean, excellent contribution. 
There are some excellent courses in Florida (and Georgia and ..) that had to be built on reclaimed land or swamp.  Altho they won't be appreciated by many on this site, they are enjoyed by millions of golfers who don't have any idea who Doak or Coore are.
I feel converting swamps to golf courses is special, and we should appreciate the talent of the pioneers.  Often there is no land fit for golf, and aren't we lucky that people still went ahead and built courses there!

[Sean_A]

So Land Fit For Purpose is a joke, you are happy for a fortune to be spent on a golf course so only private members can afford it or are you willing to pay higher Green Fees for the privilege of playing these course.

Why do you moan about high Green Fees yet seem to want well manicured and super green courses in areas which under normal circumstances Nature could not naturally provide let alone sustain.

Land Fit For Purpose is quite simply land that can maintain its green appearance without the aid of man. My point being had more consideration for the game of golf gone into selecting the sites perhaps we would have better courses and the cost of building and maintaining them may have been less a burden on the course owners, reflecting through to lower Green Fees and their ability to survive the current financial storm.

Mock my comment by all means but don’t then complain about the cost of playing some of these courses or the shock of seeing course close.

Just because we can build courses in unnatural locations does not mean we should. Money is and should not be the only criteria, the suitability of land and climate should come into the equation and yes I am saying that there are areas in the world where we should not build a golf course.

I care about the game of golf and the suitability of the land to sustain a golf course. I am questioning cost of building courses and the on going maintenance costs incurred due to questionable locations and sites.

Don’t agree with me, fine but stop moaning about the Green Fees and others associated Club House costs. Apart from just playing golf what are you doing for the game of golf?

Yet we all have the right to our opinions and on GCA.com the ability to voice our concerns regards GCA.

Melvyn

Melvyn

While in the main I agree with you (with some tweaks) philosophically, however, your strict ideas of right and wrong almost completely ignore the concept of business - you know, trying to make a buck?  Golf is no different.  If we are gonna continue to have good, and bad courses built or patronized, somebody has to put up the money.  Not many of these guys are in it for the love of the game, or at least their love stops with taking a bath. These guys need a return on their money just as yoiu would expect return on your money when you hand it over to the bank.  Unfortunately, in a system like this, we have to take the good with the bad.  Fortunately, in a system like this we can choose where and how to spend are money - at least the bit the tax man doesn't snatch.  You gotta live and let live.

Ciao 

[David_Madison]

A few years ago I asked Tom Fazio pretty much that question. I asked him if he'd rather have a perfect piece of land, rolling and with great views, or something like he had to work with in creating Shadow Creek. His response was that his perfect piece of land would be the parking lot at Mall of the Americas, i.e., a dead flat nothing site where he could create 100% of the course and the playing experience.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Now I understand, we do not have designers anymore they are for the most part sculptors preferring to mould the land to their shape instead of working with the natural beauty of the land.

Sorry guys, I understand now, it’s so much easier with a blank canvas, so the easy virus has now
Infected the design process too.

If there are no real limitations apart from money on building a course, I wonder if we will soon be heading back to the early days when money was tight forcing the purchase of smaller plots which would only allow 6 hole course.

Its always easier working with a blank canvas and a pot of money, where is the skill or test in that for a designer, - no do not tell me, let me work it out in my own way. Ye, I see the concept, Castle Courses clones worldwide, the new concept equals the same course layout, the same bumps, dells and Greens. Wherever you play it’s the same, brilliant idea, one design, with hundreds or thousands of design fees. May not do much for the golfer in the end but boy good for making money, however I wonder if the developers would get much of a return on their investment.

Think after a few years it will be a rush to get back to basics, to seek land that you work with, not remould. Gentlemen, for me the land is part, a serious part of the enjoyment of the game, I do not want fake, a Disneyland constructed course, I want a course that exudes feeling and character, that’s worthy of playing upon. While I am certain the sculptured course will convey its self well, I prefer the natural. Yet I know that many like their women with implants to extend their character, but not for me, I know its not real, its fake and it has left scares, but it that floats your boat, hard luck, perhaps your women deserves a little bit more respect. Give me a natural women every time, so I would like the same with my golf courses, be they in Florida or the Lowlands of Scotland.

We all have different tastes and I am told that some prefer blow up rubber dolls to the real thing, well I suppose it takes all sorts, but I must say I have never seen a blow up doll carrying clubs. Then I suppose they don’t insist on having the last word either, perhaps I am starting to warm to the idea, no only joking, like fake courses they have no soul to fire my spirit.   

Nevertheless each to his own

Melvyn
 

[Tom_Doak]

David Madison:

When I was working on the initial plan for the Stadium Course at PGA West, the developer Joe Walser told me he thought that site was the perfect site for Pete Dye.  He said, "If there was a stream, or a hill, Pete might have to compromise what he wanted to do, but on this site he can do ANYTHING he wants to do."  [He should have finished it with, "as long as there are houses lining one side of every hole."]

I got a good laugh out of that line.  It's hard for me to imagine an architect saying it.

[Jud_T]

David,

Kind of a sad, albeit telling,  commentary on Fazio.  However, given a blank slate, i.e. Shadow Creek or the Glen Club, he's the man....

[Mac Plumart]

So...isn't Melvyn totally correct?

Sean makes a comment that Melvyn is correct, but he is not factoring in the business side of the equation.  But it wasn't meant to be a business, it is entertainment/sport.  Mike Young had a thread on here that questioned whether golf was ever meant to make money...and I think the conclusion was no.  CB MacDonald wrote/said that he never wanted to make money off of golf.  So, if you take the oppostie approach on golf (that is to make money off of it) perhaps it is difficult. 

Jeff Brauer had a post on the "Architect vs Prodcution house" thread (I think that was the thread) that detailed all of the work that needs to be done to the land to make it into a golf course.  All I can say is "WOW".  Being ignorant to that process I was stunned.  That is a lot of work and a lot of money...I assume.  And that drives up costs and the need for revenue...hence more expensive for golfers to play.

So, if we go down the road of putting golf courses wherever we want regardless of whether the land is suitable or not...we can't complain about the cost of golf, right? 

I frankly, am neutral on this.  I like playing golf wherever I can and I don't care too much about the cost.  I am paying $500 to play Shadow Creek in March...and I am not complaining one bit. 

I played in Florida at Sawgrass, BDR Quarry, and WW Pine Barrnes in November...my only complaint was the slow play at Sawgrass.  But playing in a rock quarry at BDR was cool...expensive to build I am sure...but I liked it and didn't complain about the cost.  And Pine Barrens was great and inexpensive...no clubhouse to speak of, no resort located there, and the land looked suitable for golf...but I am not an expert.

[David_Madison]

Tom Doak,

I swear it's exactly what Tom Fazio said. We were at a cocktail party as part of the first Golf Digest course rating panelist gathering down in Orlando. We were discussing the differences in how he'd approach a Sand Hills versus a Shadow Creek situation, and I asked him which he preferred, in the context of "would you rather find holes or create them. I was surprised at the time, but after some reflection his response made total sense within the context my experience with his work.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I wasn't saying I didn't believe you.  In fact, I know it's true.  Fifteen years ago an acquaintance of mine was the #2 developer on a project [which never happened] on a really beautiful piece of property.  The #1 developer wanted to hire Fazio and they spent several days with him, all the while trying to get him to express some admiration for the nice property they had.  He would never say it; in fact, when they asked him leading questions about the property, his responses would be something like "Well, in the modern era that really doesn't matter anymore, we can create anything we want; what matters most is the owner's commitment to quality."

It just amazes me that an architect would have that perspective, that's all.


Jud:

What makes you think Tom Fazio is the only architect capable of spending $30 million well?  It's hard to make a realistic judgment about that since so few other designers have ever been given the chance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Kind of a sad, albeit telling,  commentary on Fazio.  However, given a blank slate, i.e. Shadow Creek or the Glen Club, he's the man....

Jud,

On a bland site, with a blank slate, it's got nothing to do with the site or the architect, it's all about the BUDGET

[Dean Stokes]

I personally would have thought it easier to take a piece of land with elevation and rolling terrain that you could make holes fit into than the flat option. I play The Dye Preserve on a fairly regular basis and wonder how they took a totally flat piece and made such a good golf course out of it. Quite often you can be on the short grass at the Dye but have little or no view of the target - very clever I think. You get lured into not focusing on position then you get to your ball and wonder why you hit it down the wrong half of the fairway because it looked easier to hit it there!

Perhaps the two types of architecture require a different eye. The one who wants the blank canvas to create whatever he/she wants, and the one whose eye sees the land as the canvas to fit holes into?

Maybe this is why I dropped art in school as early as I did. The blank canvas never appealed to me

[Jud_T]

Tom & Pat,

Point well taken...However, will anyone ever get the chance to spend that kind of dough again? And frankly what's the point? How many Talking Stick Norths or Rawls courses could be built for that kind of dough? I guess I'll pony up once to play Shadow Creek and I guess that's the point....

[JESII]

David,

Kind of a sad, albeit telling,  commentary on Fazio.  However, given a blank slate, i.e. Shadow Creek or the Glen Club, he's the man....

Jud,

On a bland site, with a blank slate, it's got nothing to do with the site or the architect, it's all about the BUDGET

Pat,

As a member of Hidden Creek I would have thought you'd have a different perspective...did Mr. Hansen give C&C an exorbitant budget?