How do you make a new course feel old?

[Ed Oden]

Old courses just feel different than new courses.  They have a je ne sais quoi that is hard to recreate.  Most modern courses that try to design in an old time feel can't pull it off.  But which ones succeed?  More importantly, how do they do it?

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Ed,

Ok I'll bite on this...

What do you mean by "old time feel"?

For a real old time feel perhaps we should tee off on seaside sheep meadows upon which we have sunken cans into the ground to serve as cups and marked them with sticks.

Not sure I would pay an "architect" for this experience, but je ne sais quoi in spades!

[Mac Plumart]

I think Sand Hills succeeds in this regard.  The Dormie Club in its current configuration.  Palmetto, oh wait that one is old.  But I think you see what I am driving at. 

[Jay Cox]

Should the question instead be "what is it about new courses that makes them look new?"  I agree that there are very few new courses that don't look new, but I think it's hard to those courses have much in common except the avoidance of things that stick out as new. 

Two things that seem to make looking old almost impossible are --
- Mounding: yes, there were mounds occasionally on classic courses, but there is no analogy in history or nature to the look of most modern "framing" mounds
- Building on forested land:  unless you build through natural clearings, it's very hard to get the new edges between treed land and cut land to look like they weren't just created

But there must be many more.

[Ed Oden]

Malcolm, I can't really describe what I mean by "old time feel".  You just...feel it.  The very essence of je ne sais quoi is the elusiveness of the appeal.

Mac, Sand Hills succeeds on many levels.  But, in my opinion, capturing an older feel isn't one of them.  I don't think it is trying to do that.  Rather, I see Sand Hills as a modern minimalist course with a classic heritage.  That's different for me.  I never felt like the course was designed 100 years ago.  Dormie?  Maybe.  A better example in my eyes would be Chechessee Creek.  That place "feels" old as much as any modern course I have played.  Interesting that they are all C&C courses.

Jay, I'm not sure approaching the question from that angle works.  Identifying the common traits of modern courses does not necessarily mean their polar opposites will result in a classic feel.

[Mike Nuzzo]

modern courses overdo everything - including
smoothing out everywhere to make them perfect - for playability and maintenance
especially at the green end
irrigation with hard edges
detailed maintenance
built up greens
sterile bunkers (or now overly done bunker that don't fit their surroundings)
too much shaping - especially mounding
non-native vegetation

old courses did the opposite

[Kalen Braley]

In my experience,

The biggest differences I can think of are:

Unconventional routing -  Whether its non returning 9s, or back to back par 5s, or no par 5s on the back 9.
Greens - The ODGs weren't afraid to build wild greens compared to today.  This could be mostly due to current mowing heights, but still you see very tame greens on almost all new courses.  Who would have huevos to build something like #16 at Pasa these days?
Green to tee transitions - Very rarely a "long walk" between holes, and if there was, it was actually worth it to get to some nice property.
Undulation - As already mentioned in a prior post, leaving all those micro undulations in place to add spice/variety.

[Jim Nelson]

Tear up the cart paths (course with long green to tee walks need not apply), get rid of the beverage cart and cart girls, no push carts (trolleys for those in the UK), build a caddie shack, tear down the spa, then...

get the greens rolling about 6-8, better yet, have greens roll at different speeds, speaking of rolling, never do it,  spread a variety of grass types about, start mowing the fairways by hand, let the goats handle the rough and presto, Francis Quimet would feel right at home.   

[John Shimony]

What I notice on modern courses is wave upon wave of symetrical, rolling, unnatural looking mounds that just assault the eye.  I would reckon that simple designs are timeless.

[Melvyn Morrow]

There is a great deal of difference between synthetic and Natural, problem is that synthetic items tend to age quickly, so why worry.

Melvyn

[Terry Lavin]

In a related vein, I was having a discussion with several golfers recently about Old Tabby Links, the Palmer-Seay design in Beaufort, SC.  To me, that little gem of a lowcountry course is a perfect example of a relatively new golf course that looks like it's been there for 100 years.  It has the look and feel of a course that was built at a time when course builders didn't have the type of equipment to move a lot of dirt and create elevations and exaggerated mounding.  It seems that Ed Seay just cut down trees, dredged a few ponds and laid out the course in a way that just accepted the land as it had been for centuries.  It's a simple, straightforward and beguiling golf course that looks anything but modern.  In that way, it is the polar opposite of the nearby Long Cove Club, one of Dye's masterpieces of modern golf course architecture.

This thread also reminded me of my recent round at Calusa Pines, in Naples, Florida.  Calusa is a dramatic and bold modern design by Hurdzan/Fry, with a lot of elevation changes in a dead-flat area of the country.  The construction work was extremely skillful, as was the shaping of the course itself, because the overall experience is to be tricked into believing that the course is entirely natural.  You can be lulled into believing that the architect just went with the lay of the land, when they actually blew up the land with dynamite, created ponds and hills and valleys.  They achieved the natural look in a most unnatural way.

I'm sure there are countless examples of architects doing similar work, but I'm personally very impressed with each of these courses, despite the very different ways that they were built.

[Sean_A]

In short use less land
This may lead to those odd charming hiccups which modern qrchies strive to hammer out of designs
It also usually makes the house the centre of the design as it should be
There are few things worse than divorcing the house from the course

Ciao

[SL_Solow]

Small touchs can make a difference.  At Hidden Creek the greens were planted with a mixture of grasses to avoid the uniform look of a monostand.  Aside from aiding in disease prevention, the thought was that if grasses with some contrast were selected, the appearance would more closely resemble courses that had been around for a long time.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts.

Here's one trick: plant trees such that it looks like a renovation has just been completed, one aimed at cutting down trees to open up the original playing corriders. 

In other words, use trees to frame the "vistas" instead of the "golf holes".

Peter

[Dan Kelly]

A compact clubhouse (I was going to say humble, but that's not quite right), with a simple pro shop.

Ditto on the mounding comments.

[David Kelly]

A compact clubhouse (I was going to say humble, but that's not quite right), with a simple pro shop.

You mean like these?

[Dan Kelly]

A compact clubhouse (I was going to say humble, but that's not quite right), with a simple pro shop.

You mean like these?

Exactly!

Very funny, David -- but I will press on.

I have never been to any of those places, so I couldn't say if they have that "je ne sais quoi" that says "old time feel."

But they might -- even though they are neither humble nor compact.

Be that as it may: Show me some modern gargantuan clubhouses, and then tell me: Does any of them give you (or anyone) that "old time feel"?

The modern clubhouse behemoths are to the classics as the McMansion is to the Newport "cottage."

That's how they look to me, anyway.

(One example: The Interlachen clubhouse -- never humble -- looked SO much better before they made it overgrow its setting. IMO.)_

[Tim Nugent]

For me it's the "tie-ins".   Old courses seem to have rougher tie-ins where newer courses have more smooth, blended transitions.  This is a factor of the equipment used for finishing and seed-bed preparation.  Today we can use dozens of pieces to chop, grind,spread, drag, rake, remove rock etc. that just didn't exist. Plus everything is motorized today, allowing for those pieces to be at least 5-6' wide at a minimum.
Look at the picture in Mile N's reply.  Noticve how the shaping o the tees extend down the tee banks all the way to the water.  That attention to tie-in detail just isn't round on old courses,  they didn't have the time or the money for it. 
This also extends to the shaping.  Old courses niether had the equipment or the desire to strip the land of topsoil just to alter the underlying subgrade.  Hence, the fairways and roughs are natural grades for the most part.

[RSLivingston_III]

I thought it had something to do with an abundance of overgrown, mature trees. Well, at least in the US.

[Sean Leary]

Frilly bunkers with hairy faces.

[Carl Johnson]

In short use less land
This may lead to those odd charming hiccups which modern qrchies strive to hammer out of designs
It also usually makes the house the centre of the design as it should be
There are few things worse than divorcing the house from the course

Ciao

Agreed.  The word I was thinking of was "tight."  A compact course, with close green-to-next-tee configuration.  As a result, although not absolutely necessary, one or two really funky holes that have been squeezed into the space alloted to make the 18 holes.  I like the "house" idea, but don't have the experience to appreciate that like Sean does.  Not a resort, not a real estate subdivision course, and not far from "the city."  Sorry I can't come up with any examples. 

[David Lott]

Don't irrigate anything except the greens and near surrounds. Keep that light. Give the greens some slope and then don't over stimp them. Rake the bunkers twice a week. Change the hole location every other day, whether you need to or not. No electric carts. No pull or push carts. No electronic devices (penalty: destruction.) No shoes with logos. Metal spikes permitted. Have a big Coke cooler with large blocks of ice at the halfway house. Serve peanut butter, crackers and slightly spoiled deviled eggs. No plastic cups. No cart girls. Permit cigarettes. Have a smokers only day once a week. No one may say "play away." Or "Minimalist, Heroic or Classic." Bring back the stymie by local rule. No yardage markers except at 150. If you really want to go all out, a few goats or sheep should do the trick. No vodka. Gin, scotch or bourbon only. No discussion whatsoever of golf architecture (Penalty: destruction.)

[Brad Isaacs]

Tear up the cart paths (course with long green to tee walks need not apply), get rid of the beverage cart and cart girls, no push carts (trolleys for those in the UK), build a caddie shack, tear down the spa, then...

get the greens rolling about 6-8, better yet, have greens roll at different speeds, speaking of rolling, never do it,  spread a variety of grass types about, start mowing the fairways by hand, let the goats handle the rough and presto, Francis Quimet would feel right at home.   

Exactly which breed of sheep would be used? Are some more appropriate than others? Still not sure about the cart girls.

[Mike Hendren]

Start with square tees - the bees knees.

[Mike Hendren]

In my experience,

The biggest differences I can think of are:

Greens - The ODGs weren't afraid to build wild greens compared to today.  This could be mostly due to current mowing heights, but still you see very tame greens on almost all new courses.  Who would have huevos to build something like #16 at Pasa these days?

Very thought provoking.  Off the top of my head I'm not sure your generalization holds true for Ross and Flynn, among others.  Certainly Mackenzie's work was bold as was the work of Macdonald and his progeny.   My sense is there were two schools then and two schools now with respect to the wild greens options.  Interested in what others think.

Mike