What happens after they leave ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The NGLA thread/s got me thinking about changes to golf courses, and in particular, on the Eastern End of Long Island.

In recent years about seven new courses have been built;
Easthampton
The Bridge
Atlantic
Sebonack
Friars Head
Laurel Links
Long Island National

Two of them, Atlantic and Sebonack have memorialized their creation vis a vis, "The Miracle on Breeze Hill" and "Building Sebonack"
Brad Klein was instrumental in structuring and producing both books.
Both books give fairly detailed accounts as to the genesis, creation, construction and completion of both courses.
But, like any account, they don't tell the entire story.  But, for purposes of this thread, let's assume that they do.

A number of talented architects worked on these courses.

But, the day after they opened, those architects went on to other pursuits, other projects.
While I'm sure they retained an interest, even a consulting interest, almost immediately after the courses opened, change was in the air.

Examples might be the addition of a back tee on # 11 at Friars Head, changes in the routing and/or features at Atlantic or changes to the 16th hole at Sebonack.

One of the questions is:

How valid are architectural changes based on play/experience ?

And, would you define these types of change as fine tuning, rather than corrective ?

How many of the changes are instigated by:
1   The owner
2   The members
3   The Pro
4   The Superintendent
5   The original architect
6   A combination of the above.

When the quest for change is inititated by all but # 5, How resistant to change are the original architects ?

In the ultimate, what drives the change on a relatively new course.

Understanding that the seven courses listed have different forms of governance, is there a central theme that drives change ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I will just tell you about Sebonack.

The changes to #16 green location, and more recently to #14, were initiated by the client.  You can call them fine-tuning if you want; I might call them something else.  But it was clear he was bound and determined to make changes, so the only question I had to consider was whether I wanted to be involved in making those changes, or leave them to others.

How resistant was I to those changes?  Well, the entire project was built on the premise that we would keep working on the holes until both Jack and I were happy, and if one of us wasn't happy, then it wasn't done.  And, say what you will about the process, we got it finished that way ... only for the client to start making changes whether we both agreed with him or not.

It's going to be different in other places; Mr. Pascucci is in a rare position in that he still owns the course personally, instead of it being member-owned, so he doesn't have to listen to anybody who disagrees with him.  Most such courses get turned over to the membership at some point.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Although I'm not familiar with the particular changes you're referring to, IMHO changes instigated by owners/members within the first 10 years that aren't related to very specific maintenance/playability issues and don't defer to the opinion of the original GCA have got to raise a red flag on some level.

[bstark]

"And, would you define these types of change as fine tuning, rather than corrective ?"

I would think the changes I've seen are a combination of fine tuning and "correcting" some mistakes.

For example, the front left part of the 18th green complex at Friar's Head has a sharp drop off. A decent shot may catch the front edge of the green and roll ever so slowly into the rough on the bluff and become an unplayable ball. The drop off is fairly steep and there is nothing to stop the ball from rolling into the bramble. This severe consquence is completely unfair in most all members' minds. A ledge, a second level, a swath of rough, even pruning the bushes would alleivate this situation and not penalize a slight mis-hit the same as it would a pull, hook or really bad shot. In my opinion this type of correction/fine tuning is an obvious change to make, and the hole becomes fairer without detracting from the original intent of the architecture....in addition I believe Mr. Coore is "correcting".

[Mike Nuzzo]

bstark
If the shot falls into the bluff it wasn't decent.
Maybe there is a better place to aim or miss.
A ledge may look artificial.
Cheers


"Life's not fair, get used to it."
     -- Bob Huntley

[Lynn_Shackelford]

bstark:  I guess using the word unfair will always evoke some comments on this site, as it should.

Does anyone know other than the construction plans, as-builts, etc. where a designer created some document describing the intended strategy, fairway mowing lines, collar sizes, green sizes, intended tees, future expansion tees, limits to trees, and left this document in the hands of the facility's management?

[JESII]

Pat,

I've said a few times on here, although not in over a year, that if and when I have the responsibility to hire an architect to build a course it will be a long term contract. Putting the money to the sidelines for now, I can't imagine any reason this isn't an ideal scenario. The money is obviously an issue, but I believe it's a far superior model, the proof is in the pudding...

[David Harshbarger]

bstark:  I guess using the word unfair will always evoke some comments on this site, as it should.

Does anyone know other than the construction plans, as-builts, etc. where a designer created some document describing the intended strategy, fairway mowing lines, collar sizes, green sizes, intended tees, future expansion tees, limits to trees, and left this document in the hands of the facility's management?

Lynn,

I put a post together about personalizing the golf course, the crux of which revolves around the idea that player is is sent out onto the course to face the strategic challenges the architect envisioned, in a way such that the strategies are experienced by golfers of all abilities.  In this concept, not only are architects strategies left behind, they would be tied to the operations of the course.  The pro at the shop is told to effectively put each player at the Tee on 1 where they'd hit driver to pot bunker, the tee on 2 where they hit 7 iron to the center of the green, the tee on 3 where driver reaches the baranca, etc.  (the basic concept is in part inspired the course within a course described at LACC).

My example is fanciful, but I'd have to think in the real world, the architect and the course, both, are well served with the intent documented.  The members choose the tees they are playing from, but surely the architect placed them where they are for a reason, like the average scratch man will see a 290 yd par 4 as drivable.   On short par 4's the basic strategy is likely clear, at least as far as tee box, but things like maintenance issues may well be invisible strategic elements essential to the ongoing integrity of the layout. If this information is documented, do not the members have a reference to protect their investment, and the architect likewise, especially as environmental forces, from more explosive equipment to land use laws force changes on the course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That's interesting.

From my own perspective, I never understood the changes to # 16.

Some years ago I commented that I liked the concept of having a number of fairly wide tee shots, and then a narrow one.
This theme seemed to be in effect on the front nine and then again on # 16.

I thought it was a hard hole in it's original form, a hole requiring a very accurate drive to an uphill DZ, to a green elevated above the angled DZ.

So, again, I thought the hole was more than adequate/challenging in its original form.

Moving that green back about 40 yards seemed to take the hole from "challenging" to "extremely challenging", and I didn't understand the rationale.  Especially when # 17 can be so difficult.

I guess, like most golfers, I don't like being beaten up as I finish the round, even if I'm thrown a bone on # 18.

The other thing I NEVER understood about Sebonack was the siting of the parking lot and cottages.
That land seemed like the best land for golf.

The cars jus sit there and at night, every thing is pitch black from the cottages, and during the day, golfers are out playing golf.

Why was that land forfeited to static structures instead of the golf course ?
T

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick (and others):

An article that might fit your area of interest, it was written in 1933 by Dr. Mackenzie and it's called "Problems in Remodeling Courses". The link to the entire article is below, but here are some snippets:

"The mere fact that a course is considered to require alteration should be a warning that unless the [greens] committee is very careful, the
club may make the same mistakes again, and every precaution should be taken to ensure that any changes to be made shall
be of a permanent and lasting character."

"The so-called improvements of golf courses usually consist in making holes longer and in riddling the place with sand bunkers. If a hole is uninteresting to start with, it can only be made more so by lengthening it, and most golf courses have too many sand traps already."
 
"The majority of greens committees consist of men averaging from four to twelve handicap and they are usually subconsciously influenced against any handicap or hazard which will penalize themselves, but are unanimous in agreeing to the introduction of new hazards which will make the life of the long-handicapper a living purgatory".

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1933/ag368q.pdf 
 

[Mike Sweeney]

In recent years about seven new courses have been built;
Easthampton
The Bridge
Atlantic
Sebonack
Friars Head
Laurel Links
Long Island National

Patrick,

I believe the architecture on this list is a direct INVERSE relationship to profitability.

[Tom_Doak]

The other thing I NEVER understood about Sebonack was the siting of the parking lot and cottages.
That land seemed like the best land for golf.

The cars jus sit there and at night, every thing is pitch black from the cottages, and during the day, golfers are out playing golf.

Why was that land forfeited to static structures instead of the golf course ?

Patrick:

I think the clubhouse at Sebonack is in the right place [obviously].  The hill you play up to on #9 just flattened off there and it was too close to National on one side and to the bluff on the other to have anything more than a downhill par-3 hole from there.

Also, the cars being up on top of the hill puts them out of sight and out of mind.  If the clubhouse had stayed where the old mansion was, then the parking would have all been down there (by today's second tee or fairway), and all the golf above there would have had to look over the parking lot to see the water.  Plus, there wasn't enough room between the mansion and the bluff to run the eighteenth hole up as far as it does now.

Regarding #16, the simplest explanation is that Mr. Pascucci just wanted the finish to be even stronger.  Originally, he had reserved space to build a house between #10 green and #16, right where today's 16th green is -- that was part of the zoning for the project.  But, by the time we were done with the course, he and his wife decided they didn't want to live out there -- so, suddenly, there was some extra space which we could use to make the course longer.  Michael insisted that we would have planned the green there from the beginning had the space been available to us, but I do not think so ... after all, I'd done the original routing without having heard that Michael planned to build a house.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I'd agree that the clubhouse is properly sited and I understand the desire to remove the cars from view as you play the course.

I just wonder, if the parking lot could have been offset, like at NLGA, and the cottages more remotely located, like Metedeconk.

I know that concessions had to be made to the town and college, but, with all of that land at his disposal, were you restricted in siting the golf course ?  Had the concessions been made such that you only had the remaining land to work with, as  opposed to a blank slate ?

My recollection is that the land for the golf course was the land left AFTER the concessions/donations were made in order to get approvals.

IF you had the entire property at your disposal, would you have used more of the land to the west, down by Cold Spring Pond ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

We used all of the dry land that was available.  The areas closer to the roads all had wetlands with 125-foot setback buffers.  In Macdonald's day, there would have been a good par-3 across a little wetland going from #8 tee in the opposite direction, toward the entrance and the maintenance building ... but not in today's world.  The maintenance facility is on a nice little neck of land, but it was impossible to employ as part of the golf course because of all the setbacks.  In fact, if there hadn't been an existing trail through that area -- a service driveway for the mansion -- then that parcel would have been land-locked and unusable for anything at all, because the only dry access to it would have been from #5 green at National!

The cottage locations were not set in stone, but Mr. Pascucci wanted them to have a view, so they weren't going to be down by #5 green or even #14.

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Lynn,

In Madrid, when Tom Simpson finished redesigning Puerta de Hierro (1948, the design was originally Colt 1912-14) he produced a beautiful set of watercolors with descriptions of each hole, their strategy and how they should be played. What happened after that?
 - Simpson left Spain, never to return (he was quite old by then)
 - The watercolors were hung in an obscure corner. No one ever paid any attention to them.
 - Another architect (Arana) was called to "judge" Simpson's work. He said it was perfect. After that, minor changes were done all the time (at members'/green commitee suggestions) and eventually most of the course's original character was lost.

I think the reason behind usually relies with budgets. If the club has the money to spare, things will get changed over time, unless there is a very strong club ethos about the course, the designer, etc. (which is not the norm, at least in Spain).

[Cristian]

Lynn,

In Madrid, when Tom Simpson finished redesigning Puerta de Hierro (1948, the design was originally Colt 1912-14) he produced a beautiful set of watercolors with descriptions of each hole, their strategy and how they should be played. What happened after that?
 - Simpson left Spain, never to return (he was quite old by then)
 - The watercolors were hung in an obscure corner. No one ever paid any attention to them.
 - Another architect (Arana) was called to "judge" Simpson's work. He said it was perfect. After that, minor changes were done all the time (at members'/green commitee suggestions) and eventually most of the course's original character was lost.

I think the reason behind usually relies with budgets. If the club has the money to spare, things will get changed over time, unless there is a very strong club ethos about the course, the designer, etc. (which is not the norm, at least in Spain).

If the Simpson water coulours are still there, and the club still has some money to spare, then what is stopping the membership to restore the course to its full glory?

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Cristian,

Good question but complex answer (at least in our case). There has been little or no attention paid to the historical background of the course in the past and the changes have been many. Plus, in Spain we have some sort of third-world mentality and we always find that "new" must be better than "old."

The definition of "former glory" is not evident to most members, who don't really care about who the designer is/was, and many of which prefer the new style compared to the older one. Some even ask for ponds!!!

The bottom line is that it is hard to argue with the membership that you are going to spend xxx amount of money to put back the course to its original state when 10 years ago it underwent a remodelling to "make it better" and more "modern" and now you want to go back to the beginning.

[Cristian]

Are there any pictures of the water colours online? Are they still hung in an obscure place in the clubhouse?

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Cristian,

The watercolors have been restored and are now hanged in one of the dining rooms. They are not available online, but I can send you a PM with a link to them, if you want.

Regards

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do courses remain more static when the original architect is retained as a consultant ?

Or, do ownership/membership fads determine a course's fate ?