Is the question "who" moved the earth not "whether" earth was moved?

[JC Jones]

With the official announcement of the new Doak/C&C project in Florida I guess it is now appropriate to discuss.  As most know, this area of Florida is completely flat.  In fact if you look at the pictures of the surrounding landscape, it is very flat.  Yet, this particular piece of property has been mined for phosphates and the result is a bunch of random, sandy landforms left by the mining process.

Both Doak and C&C have commented on the great dunes and sandy landforms that make up the site.  They are, however, completely unnatural and entirely created by man.  So, a lot of earth has been moved.  Does this matter?  Is earth moving by man OK if it is not done so with the intent to build a golf course?  Is it ok so long as the golf course architects who come in afterwards move as little as possible to create the golf course?

Or, is there really no difference between these courses and Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, etc.?

[Adam Clayman]

Its ok if it makes for interesting golf. The standard repetitive 1980's mounding did little to enhance the golf. Especially since it was almost always covered in rough. Victory Nat'l is another such site where the dirt was previously piled and used effectively for golf.

[Eric Smith]

JC,

I think the most important difference is that huge amounts of $$ will not be spent in creating the interesting features. They are already there.  It's a positively good thing and should prove to be an exciting golf experience.

[JESII]

In my opinion, all that matters is how it plays and feels.

[JC Jones]

JC,

I think the most important difference is that huge amounts of $$ will not be spent in creating the interesting features. They are already there.  It's a positively good thing and should prove to be an exciting golf experience.

Why is the cost to create the features relevant to their architectural or design merit?  No doubt Yale was expensive to build, but that doesn't mean it has less architectural merit than, say, some other Raynor.

[Eric Smith]

My answer is in reply to your last question comparing Whistling Straits. I'm in full budget mode JC!

[Melvyn Morrow]

One just has to ask is this going to be Tom's version of The Castle Course?

Melvyn

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - This is what I think:

If one wants the appearance of randomness and naturalness on a golf course, there are two ways to get it: you either create it, or you find it.  If you create it, human 'intentionality' will be hard pressed to forget/ignore the true end goal, i.e. a golf course; and the created randomness will always betray that intentionality in one way or another.  If you find it, either occuring naturally or because someone else blew up the land without intention (i.e. in this case, with no thought or care about a future golf course), you at least stand a chance of routing a course through the land such that it appears that the golf holes were found there and not put there.

Peter   

[Jay Flemma]

Its ok if it makes for interesting golf. The standard repetitive 1980's mounding did little to enhance the golf. Especially since it was almost always covered in rough. Victory Nat'l is another such site where the dirt was previously piled and used effectively for golf.

I agree with Adam.  For example, Faz sometimes moves over a million cubic yards of earth to get nothing special - Turning Stone for example - but when Doak moved over 800,000 at the Rawls Course we got some really interesting terrain,  he also built a berm to hide all the power lines and squat buildings in the neighborhood.  So I guess the question isn't who moved it or whether it was moved, biut what you ended up with when they got done.

[Jeff_Mingay]

JC,

Alister Mackenzie inferred that if you want to construct a really good green, get the village idiot (who, presumably, knows nothing about golf and course architecture) to build it and tell him to make it flat.

I do know that the Mosaic mining operation there, in Florida, haphazardly tossing waste sand around the site does bode well for Coore and Crenshaw and Renaissance Golf Design. Clearly, this operation has left some unique dunes-like features that no one was likely to have thought of designing in, say, a Whistling Straits scenario by comparison.

This situation in Florida is actually not dissimilar to Cabot Links. Many of the key features at Cabot Links are capped coal mining tailings which couldn't be disturbed in the process of course construction. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Its a mining site that needs reclamation. I like the idea of two very cool golf courses vs flattening it all out to make it look natural.
Reality is these two firms building golf courses will probably move less earth then just about any other sort of reclamation.

As far as nothing being natural, some of those man made dunes have been there for many, many years. The initial earth moving may not have been natural but mother nature has left her mark.

ps...JC I believe there is a big difference between these courses and WS and SC. IMO, no matter how creative, no matter how hard you try, you simply can not plan out and construct the randomness, abruptness, and radical features you find on this site. Or maybe better said, no one yet has had the courage to do something that radical. Everyone who tries always ends up building something too "golfy". There was nothing "golfy" about how they threw that sand around when they were mining and that is why its going to turn out so good.

[Bill_McBride]

JC,

Alister Mackenzie inferred that if you want to construct a really good green, get the village idiot (who, presumably, knows nothing about golf and course architecture) to build it and tell him to make it flat.

I do know that the Mosaic mining operation there, in Florida, haphazardly tossing waste sand around the site does bode well for Coore and Crenshaw and Renaissance Golf Design. Clearly, this operation has left some unique dunes-like features that no one was likely to have thought of designing in, say, a Whistling Straits scenario by comparison.

This situation in Florida is actually not dissimilar to Cabot Links. Many of the key features at Cabot Links are capped coal mining tailings which couldn't be disturbed in the process of course construction. 

A great example of random and wild features left by long-concluded quarrying operations is that GCA poster child of quirk, Painswick.  It's all grassed over for generations but it's still random and wild and creates some dynamic playing situations.

Not to mention the Iron Age fortifications left from God knows when!

Is it a coincidence that Tom Doak and a couple of his top guys were there for the Buda Cup in 2004?  Maybe not!

[Tom_Doak]

JC,

I guess it is a fair question, as long as you aren't implying that it is all about who are the favored architects.

As for the Mosaic site, it was indeed all very flat to start, but the scale of the earthmoving they did here was off the charts ... I would guess it is on the order of 15,000,000 or 20,000,000 cubic yards.  The main lake near the clubhouse is 400 yards long by 40 feet deep, with a 100 foot tall dune along one side and 30 to 50 foot elevations on the golf side.  So the scale is just not like anything Pete Dye could build in his dreams.  There are also a lot of smaller, random, man made features that are pretty cool in their own right.  Put it all together, and it is really no different than what God used to build on an everyday basis.

However, to Jeff M's last post, I would like to clarify that everything on site is sand and there is nothing we HAVE to leave untouched for environmental reasons.  It is just common sense not to disturb some of the features we have been given.

[JC Jones]

JC,

I guess it is a fair question, as long as you aren't implying that it is all about who are the favored architects.

The "who" is any golf course architect vs a non golf course architect moving dirt for non golf course architecture purposes.

I don't doubt the awesomeness of the site or the features or whether the golf courses were great.  My question was a philosophical one.  I think Peter Pallotta, Don Mahaffey and Tom Doak are likely spot on.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

As I'm sure you know, all I meant to say is there are some capped tailings features at Cabot that might not have been build as part of golf course construction that made good sense not to disturb (even if it was possible). Glad you guys aren't under any restriction there, in Florida.

Have fun. This Mosaic project looks really, really interesting.

Best,

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

Up in Minnesota, I did two courses at Giants Ridge - one on gently rolling natural terrain and the other on reclaimed mine site.  When a reporter asked the differences, I explained it in terms of long gentle elevation changes vs abrubt ones, but in many ways the routing process is the same.

In general, while we revere gently rolling sites, Pete Dye, Langford and Raynor have taught us that the sharp abrupt slopes can be used to good advantage.  And, when they are already there and incorporated by the gca, the seem to have the best advantages of both using what God and the mining companies gave you and building some really cool features that the golfer won't likely see at his home course.

[Roger Wolfe]

I imagine this has been posted many times... but when I hear these "earth moving" comments... especially in discussions regarding Ross courses...  would you agree?

"Ross did not move the earth because he COULDN'T move the earth?"

[Randy Thompson]

Not even mother nature is perfect, I have really been paying attention to her works over the years and recently have seen some outstanding works that have golf written all over them. In the contrary, I have seen other sites with great natural surrounding and movement and then out of no where, the site turns artificial and you would swear man came in and messed things up but it is 100% her work. One begins to see what she does well and what she does so-so and we look for ways these specific areas can be improved on. She does the same with man, we destroy some of her natural work but give her a little time and she begins to create her magic. Tom has spoken and written harshly on Florida through the years but he has shown in the past that when he takes a hard stand with words, he follows up with action, I have no doubt these two courses will be the best two courses in Florida, the question is whiich will be number one and which will be number two! Both will no doubt look and feel natural! 

[JC Jones]

the question is whiich will be number one and which will be number two! 

It will be a butt-boy battle royale.  Lines in the proverbial sand will be drawn.  Friends will turn against friends.  It won't be pretty.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tee hee -- yes, and then some bland consensus of opinion will form around some thin, middle-of-the-road rationalizations and we will continue on our merry way until a newbie joins and asks the pointed question...

P

[Jeff_Brauer]

Randy,

It doesn't have to be the No. 1 and No. 2 courses.  They could use colors, like Doral.  How about the Brown and Yellow courses?

[Randy Thompson]

Jeff,
I like it, the start of the new, Brown is Beautiful campaign!! Goes with the times!

[Ronald Montesano]

brown and yellow?  makes me think of a bathroom break.

jay flemma on turning stone again?  come on, Jay, there's nothing interesting at Atunyote...NOTHING?

cost efficacy has nothing to do whatsoever with course value.  it has to do with other things.  it has been argued here time and again (before I arrived on the scene, for sure) that fewer and fewer great sites for golf means that today's architects must do more at times with the land that they are given.  therefore, let us not be hypocrites  (erik smith) and suggest that this arbitrary measuring device (the almighty and alweakly dollar) matters a fig in the assessment of the course.

JC, no, it does not matter who moved the earth.  it matters that the earth is viable for golf when all is planted and mowed.

[Adam Clayman]

it has been argued here time and again (before I arrived on the scene, for sure) that fewer and fewer great sites for golf means that today's architects must do more at times with the land that they are given. 

That argument was made long before this site became an idea. IMO, It has been proven wrong over the last 15 years and everyday I drive out of my driveway, I see the ridiculousness of the position.

Just because these sites are not near the consumer, does not mean they do not exist.

The statement illustrated just how lazy the modern architect had become.

[Randy Thompson]

it has been argued here time and again (before I arrived on the scene, for sure) that fewer and fewer great sites for golf means that today's architects must do more at times with the land that they are given. 

That argument was made long before this site became an idea. IMO, It has been proven wrong over the last 15 years and everyday I drive out of my driveway, I see the ridiculousness of the position.
Just because these sites are not near the consumer, does not mean they do not exist.

The statement illustrated just how lazy the modern architect had become.

OUCH! We don`t pick the sites, our clients do and then we do the best we can withiin the 100 retraints that are also set by the client or the enviromental agencies or...or...or