Dream Arena by Ron Garl

[Mike Nuzzo]

Eric
This website isn't devoted to golf, it is devoted to golf architecture.
I like Ron - he is a nice guy.
I do not like those pictures.

This site is about whether Don Mahaffey and I would have done a better job by saving the client millions while building a better golf course.
Better golf course = the people who play the course would enjoy it a whole lot more and spend more for the business.
They may not know why, they just would.

[Doug Siebert]

How many people in Thailand could even get on ANGC if they even managed to travel the great distance to get there?

Are you implying their odds are even lower than those of us who live in the US but outside the immediate Augusta area (where I suppose those who grow up there "know someone" who gets them on at some point, or they can at least sneak on as a kid)

[Eric Smith]

I've seen a lot of pics of golf courses on this site that don't appeal to me either, Mike. I save them. It's good to know what you don't like as well as what you do.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
In an idealistic world, you and Dick are of course right.

but with that logic, why hire an architect for a restoration?
I have a feeling more than a few architects shudder when that conclusion can be drawn for from your comments above.

Jeff:

I always wonder why clubs want to spend $30,000 on a master plan to do a restoration.  If you really want to restore what was there before, there's nothing to draw; you just need to get old photos and go from there.  The master plan is strictly sales info for the membership.  [Of course, the truth is that few clubs really do want to restore things exactly; the master plan is also cover for planned changes to tees, bunkers, etc.]

Actually getting a restoration accomplished, however, is another thing.  You could hire a contractor to do it all, but you'd have to trust that they really wanted to get all of the details right, instead of just getting finished as quickly as possible.  The architect is really quality control in that case -- and if he brings along great shapers who want to get the details just right, so much the better.  You could argue that Mr. Garl is the quality control person on this project as well.

[JC Jones]

Eric
This website isn't devoted to golf, it is devoted to golf architecture.
I like Ron - he is a nice guy.
I do not like those pictures.

This site is about whether Don Mahaffey and I would have done a better job by saving the client millions while building a better golf course.
Better golf course = the people who play the course would enjoy it a whole lot more and spend more for the business.
They may not know why, they just would.

I thought this website was about Tom Doak?

[Philippe Binette]

well after looking at the pictures..

we just saw the reason why no great courses were built only from a plan...

the only place to built a great course, is in the real world, on the ground

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
In an idealistic world, you and Dick are of course right.

but with that logic, why hire an architect for a restoration?
I have a feeling more than a few architects shudder when that conclusion can be drawn for from your comments above.

Jeff:

I always wonder why clubs want to spend $30,000 on a master plan to do a restoration.  If you really want to restore what was there before, there's nothing to draw; you just need to get old photos and go from there.  The master plan is strictly sales info for the membership.  [Of course, the truth is that few clubs really do want to restore things exactly; the master plan is also cover for planned changes to tees, bunkers, etc.]

Actually getting a restoration accomplished, however, is another thing.  You could hire a contractor to do it all, but you'd have to trust that they really wanted to get all of the details right, instead of just getting finished as quickly as possible.  The architect is really quality control in that case -- and if he brings along great shapers who want to get the details just right, so much the better.  You could argue that Mr. Garl is the quality control person on this project as well.

Tom,
That is what I'm arguing.
I'm in full agreement with the above.

[Don_Mahaffey]

...get paid for it by clients who want to build new golf courses, maybe certain kinds of golf courses and I am imagining how happy the clients must be to see their golf course dreams become reality...

Eric,
You think the client's dreams in this case was to have a poor replication of a famous golf course? Do those holes look anything like the real thing to you? I guess the island green might be close, but the rest? Seriously? How long do you think it will be before the paying customer realizes that its not anywhere close to the real thing. Great golf courses at great golf clubs are great for a lot of reasons. The feeling you get when you play at a storied and famous club is of course impossible to replicate, throw in the fact that the course itself hardly resembles the real thing and how long before the "dream" wears off?

The aerial was bad enough, what's in the ground looks even worse. But expect more as the trend in golf moves from minimalism to courses "inspired" by the masters. And here I was hoping the downturn in the global economy might actually bring some sense to golf.

[Jud_T]

Tom,
In an idealistic world, you and Dick are of course right.

but with that logic, why hire an architect for a restoration?
I have a feeling more than a few architects shudder when that conclusion can be drawn for from your comments above.

Actually getting a restoration accomplished, however, is another thing.  You could hire a contractor to do it all, but you'd have to trust that they really wanted to get all of the details right, instead of just getting finished as quickly as possible.  The architect is really quality control in that case -- and if he brings along great shapers who want to get the details just right, so much the better.  You could argue that Mr. Garl is the quality control person on this project as well.

This is a great point.  From the building architect side of things, I've seen a number of renovation projects where the client tried to save some money by just getting plans and cutting the architect out of the quality control function end horribly.  They inevitably either take longer, cost more, end up with an inferior product or all of the above.  If you can't afford to do the project properly, you probably shouldn't be doing it at all IMHO...

[archie_struthers]

Ron did a renovation at Greate Bay in the early 80's , ostensibly to free up some space for a practice facility by the clubhouse. For whatever reason , he built three new holes that had no link architecturally to the Willie Park Jr course that existed.

Why an established successful architect would not pay attention to maintaining the same genre in a renovatio is completely bizarre.

[Eric Smith]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/35613/royal-gems-plans-three-new-golf-courses-in-pathum-thani

Here you'll meet the man behind the vision.

Judging from the pictures that Brian put up, it is likely that the look and feel of ANGC is lost in this attempt, but the Doral, Sawgrass feel will likely live up to the expectation. I wonder if they considered Indian Creek?

[Wade Whitehead]

We ate take out from Great Wall this week.  It's a small local place.  I have no delusions that food in China tastes just like this, but I can't get to China at the moment, so I had some beef with broccoli.

It was actually very good.

WW

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,
In an idealistic world, you and Dick are of course right.

but with that logic, why hire an architect for a restoration?
I have a feeling more than a few architects shudder when that conclusion can be drawn for from your comments above.

Jeff:

I always wonder why clubs want to spend $30,000 on a master plan to do a restoration.  If you really want to restore what was there before, there's nothing to draw; you just need to get old photos and go from there.  The master plan is strictly sales info for the membership.  [Of course, the truth is that few clubs really do want to restore things exactly; the master plan is also cover for planned changes to tees, bunkers, etc.]

Actually getting a restoration accomplished, however, is another thing.  You could hire a contractor to do it all, but you'd have to trust that they really wanted to get all of the details right, instead of just getting finished as quickly as possible.  The architect is really quality control in that case -- and if he brings along great shapers who want to get the details just right, so much the better.  You could argue that Mr. Garl is the quality control person on this project as well.

It’s because there is always more going on than that. I’ve never worked at a course where agronomics, tee space, drainage etc. are not also part of a broader plan to restore. It’s never “just a restoration.”

You guys may not need the process, but I find I do, because most of my clients take more than a decade to get to the end and the document is what keeps everyone focused. I also use the whole process to educate, not only that board, but the dozens of boards that follow. Since each gets the booklet as they enter the board, they are quickly brought up to speed on what as much as what.

Not only that but to get the work done, you often have to create long term financial plans to help continue the progress and this helps them generate a planning documents for a comprehensive club plan where golf remains the focus. Without a Master Plan, I would watch a lot more dinning room renovations take place instead of golf projects.

[Roger Wolfe]

Tom,
In an idealistic world, you and Dick are of course right.

but with that logic, why hire an architect for a restoration?
I have a feeling more than a few architects shudder when that conclusion can be drawn for from your comments above.

Jeff:

I always wonder why clubs want to spend $30,000 on a master plan to do a restoration.  If you really want to restore what was there before, there's nothing to draw; you just need to get old photos and go from there.  The master plan is strictly sales info for the membership.  [Of course, the truth is that few clubs really do want to restore things exactly; the master plan is also cover for planned changes to tees, bunkers, etc.]

Actually getting a restoration accomplished, however, is another thing.  You could hire a contractor to do it all, but you'd have to trust that they really wanted to get all of the details right, instead of just getting finished as quickly as possible.  The architect is really quality control in that case -- and if he brings along great shapers who want to get the details just right, so much the better.  You could argue that Mr. Garl is the quality control person on this project as well.

Hi Tom,

This is not meant to be critical.  i am a poor writer and want to make sure I get the right point across.  We went through a major renovation of a 1929 Donald Ross original that had never been touched back in 2007-2008.  I learned a few things about the value of having a master plan from a GM's perspective.

1.  It provides a plan that can be approved by the owners (board/membership) that serves as a benchmark for the work that will be done.
2.  Its a great promotional piece for private clubs who seek member approval.
3.  Changes can be recommended, then signed off by the owners.
4.  The final master plan can be used to make sure noone (greens committee/board/super) can make
unauthorized changes without approval.

If I were an architect I would insist on a master plan mainly to cover my own a-s!  I wonder how many redo's and lawsuits might have been avoided had the master plan been treated like the construction documents for a non-golf project.

Plus... the one's that show the old course faintly drawn in B&W under the new design is just about the coolest thing in the world!

Quick question... of all the "restorations" you've seen is there a particular one that stayed truest to the original plan?  I know we made changes only for agronomic reasons (growing bentgrass instead of .25" bermuda) and to accomodate the modern equipment (6300 to 7030 yards).  We also had to relocate two holes to make room for great practice facility... something I know was not considered that important just a few years ago... but means everything now.

Quick aside... thanks for your contributions to this site.  Your participation really makes it special and this member really appreciates it!

[Brian_Ewen]

I cant figure out why someone would try and replicate Augusta's 18th (considering I am repeatedly told its much more hilly than it looks on TV) on a flat site ?

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/35613/royal-gems-plans-three-new-golf-courses-in-pathum-thani

"The next phase will be Moon Walker, an 18-hole night course for women who want to stay out of the sun"

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Tom,

This is not meant to be critical.  i am a poor writer and want to make sure I get the right point across.  We went through a major renovation of a 1929 Donald Ross original that had never been touched back in 2007-2008.  I learned a few things about the value of having a master plan from a GM's perspective.

1.  It provides a plan that can be approved by the owners (board/membership) that serves as a benchmark for the work that will be done.
2.  Its a great promotional piece for private clubs who seek member approval.
3.  Changes can be recommended, then signed off by the owners.
4.  The final master plan can be used to make sure noone (greens committee/board/super) can make
unauthorized changes without approval.

If I were an architect I would insist on a master plan mainly to cover my own a-s!  I wonder how many redo's and lawsuits might have been avoided had the master plan been treated like the construction documents for a non-golf project.

Plus... the one's that show the old course faintly drawn in B&W under the new design is just about the coolest thing in the world!

Quick question... of all the "restorations" you've seen is there a particular one that stayed truest to the original plan?  I know we made changes only for agronomic reasons (growing bentgrass instead of .25" bermuda) and to accomodate the modern equipment (6300 to 7030 yards).  We also had to relocate two holes to make room for great practice facility... something I know was not considered that important just a few years ago... but means everything now.

Quick aside... thanks for your contributions to this site.  Your participation really makes it special and this member really appreciates it!reciated!!

Roger:

No offense taken.  You and Ian have both pointed out some good reasons why a restoration could justify a master plan.

My own experience is very different, and I'm probably spoiled by the trust some clients have placed in us.

For the most part, we are called into clubs after someone else has done a master plan, gotten halfway through it, and it's found to be wanting.  I don't know if those master plans were really worth the $30k or not, but I tell clients that I don't know why they would want to do another one right away.  We just offer to fix the parts of the course that need fixing, as needed.

Of course, I have a different perspective than a club manager would; or, indeed, than most architects.  To me, most of the value in a restoration project comes at the tail end  -- who is doing the actual work, and how carefully are they being overseen?  Indeed, I've seen courses where the master plan probably said all the right things, but they just had no one on site who cared about any of them, so the restoration was nothing of the sort.

To get back on topic:  maybe they should hire Tom Fazio to restore the Augusta holes in Thailand! 

[Carl Rogers]

Tom & all the rest of the GCA's,
I think you sometimes forget are operating 15 levels higher than the golfing public or those that might hire you.  You are going from step one to step ten in one leap.  They can't.

Isn't the real objection to this thread is that there is a limit to the mixing and matching of styles and templates?  Did MacDonald - Raynor - Banks have more of an innate sense of the limitations of the templates?

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Best one liner of the year award candidate by Tom Doak:

To get back on topic:  maybe they should hire Tom Fazio to restore the Augusta holes in Thailand! 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Oddly enough the tour 18 course in Houston is a success. the only difference is Ron being so augusta heavy and in thailand. i am guess full service female caddies with rest areas will make this place a winner.

[Brian_Ewen]

Oddly enough the tour 18 course in Houston is a success. the only difference is Ron being so augusta heavy and in thailand. i am guess full service female caddies with rest areas will make this place a winner.

Places like this in Thailand nowadays, are mandatory carts, and mandatory caddies .

Calling it caddying is a bit of a push IMO.

[Jason Connor]

Garland's comment gets to the point of my criticism.  Who needs an architect to do this?  Why not just take the topo maps and a GPS and cut out the guy with the Rolex?  If you did manage to get it right, that would be a feat of construction, or engineering.  But not of design.

I can't believe I'm about to disagree with Mr. Doak.  I feel like this is a coming of age moment.

But *I* would still need an architect to do this.  Sure, I could take the topo maps, a GPS, and a bulldozer and do this.  And my course might look good the first day the grass comes in.  But would it drain well?  Would it hold up?

Mr. Dye said something like "GCA is 95% making drainage look good."  [I might have the % wrong]. Well I know nothing about draining and would require an expert like Mr. Garl to run the pipe in the write places, build the drains, etc.

So it seems reasonable to me to hire an architect to do this.

And that while it might not be the most 'artistic' thing one can do, one needs to pay the bills these days.  

Best one liner of the year award candidate by Tom Doak:

To get back on topic:  maybe they should hire Tom Fazio to restore the Augusta holes in Thailand! 

But that's funny!

[Matthew Petersen]

...get paid for it by clients who want to build new golf courses, maybe certain kinds of golf courses and I am imagining how happy the clients must be to see their golf course dreams become reality...

Eric,
You think the client's dreams in this case was to have a poor replication of a famous golf course? Do those holes look anything like the real thing to you? I guess the island green might be close, but the rest? Seriously? How long do you think it will be before the paying customer realizes that its not anywhere close to the real thing. Great golf courses at great golf clubs are great for a lot of reasons. The feeling you get when you play at a storied and famous club is of course impossible to replicate, throw in the fact that the course itself hardly resembles the real thing and how long before the "dream" wears off?

The aerial was bad enough, what's in the ground looks even worse. But expect more as the trend in golf moves from minimalism to courses "inspired" by the masters. And here I was hoping the downturn in the global economy might actually bring some sense to golf.

That seems like a bit of a dramatic reaction.

Tour 18 in Houston opened in the early 90s, and the one in Dallas came shortly thereafter. Sand Hills opened the same year as Tour 18-Dallas did. Sand Hills has had a much greater effect of golf architecture over the past 15 years than the Tour 18 concept.

[Ian Andrew]

I played Ron's Canadian version at Wooden Sticks "inspired" by the originals.
My biggest criticism is the copies is they are completely out of touch with the originals - and often the hole missed the point of what made the original great. I found the work lazy and uninspired. But then again, so is the concept....

[Tom_Doak]

Garland's comment gets to the point of my criticism.  Who needs an architect to do this?  Why not just take the topo maps and a GPS and cut out the guy with the Rolex?  If you did manage to get it right, that would be a feat of construction, or engineering.  But not of design.

I can't believe I'm about to disagree with Mr. Doak.  I feel like this is a coming of age moment.

But *I* would still need an architect to do this.  Sure, I could take the topo maps, a GPS, and a bulldozer and do this.  And my course might look good the first day the grass comes in.  But would it drain well?  Would it hold up?

Mr. Dye said something like "GCA is 95% making drainage look good."  [I might have the % wrong]. Well I know nothing about draining and would require an expert like Mr. Garl to run the pipe in the write places, build the drains, etc.

So it seems reasonable to me to hire an architect to do this.

And that while it might not be the most 'artistic' thing one can do, one needs to pay the bills these days.  

[\quote]

Jason:

I'm glad you got a thrill disagreeing with me.  But I think you're wrong.  If you really copied the topo from a great course precisely, it would probably drain very well, since most of the originals do.  There are probably a few catch basins somewhere at Augusta National, but I have yet to notice one.

Also, that argument about needing to pay the bills is generally used by people to justify something they know isn't really proper.  I guess it's starting to be unrealistic to expect professionals to have a strong ethical compass in today's world, since so many of the people in the spotlight today obviously do not.  But it's still sad.