There must be a reason- so I'll just shut up

[Peter Pallotta]

I played my first full round of the season today at a course I like, and like for sentimental reasons - an inexpensive municipal course, built atop an old garbage dump/landfill, that sits high up (about 100 feet) above the surrounding urban sprawl so it's often windy, about 6,500 yards from the back, with artificial dunes that work/look okay (they don't look or feel like containment mounds), and with bunkers sprinkled throughout seemingly at random but (after the first play) for pretty clear and vaguely strategic reasons. BUT I'd say that about 80-90% of the greens are perched up high from fairway level and designed so that you can't run a ball up to the green, even on the longer holes; and even though the whole course and all the features were created from scratch, there is not even one instance where the next tee is within sight of or sensible walking distance from the previous green, and most of the time the walks involve long circling hikes and re-tracing of steps. So, in short - 15 or so perched greens and an inelegant and charmless routing. Go figure. But I guess there must be a reason(s). And since I don't feel like complaining or bashing architects, I'll just shut up.

Peter 

[Bill_McBride]

I played my first full round of the season today at a course I like, and like for sentimental reasons - an inexpensive municipal course, built atop an old garbage dump/landfill, that sits high up (about 100 feet) above the surrounding urban sprawl so it's often windy, about 6,500 yards from the back, with artificial dunes that work/look okay (they don't look or feel like containment mounds), and with bunkers sprinkled throughout seemingly at random but (after the first play) for pretty clear and vaguely strategic reasons. BUT I'd say that about 80-90% of the greens are perched up high from fairway level and designed so that you can't run a ball up to the green, even on the longer holes; and even though the whole course and all the features were created from scratch, there is not even one instance where the next tee is within sight of or sensible walking distance from the previous green, and most of the time the walks involve long circling hikes and re-tracing of steps. So, in short - 15 or so perched greens and an inelegant and charmless routing. Go figure. But I guess there must be a reason(s). And since I don't feel like complaining or bashing architects, I'll just shut up.

It's a good thing you didn't do any complaining or (anonymous) architect bashing!   

But is does sound like one of the middle levels of the Inferno!

[Norbert P]

  The perching of the greens is probably because of the dump-cap methane sealing practice.  But I'll back you up on the "why perch them all up and be stupid with routing" questions.  I don't know what the budget was at this "Dante's" GC, but perched greens can have gradual enough slopes if they're fanned to a gentle grade. That's a design gripe of mine that I'm sure I've overspoken here.   It also requires that greens be more watered for ball reception, which perpetuates the dart game.

  Gotta go find a goofy hat and pick up some mint leaves at the store . . .  something wild is going on in Kentucky today.
   $6 box bet !!!
 

[Adam Clayman]

Cart revenue is likely their justification for charmless. I'd pass on the gas. Ty

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

You need some imagination to design a golf "links" a few hundred feet above the surrounding countryside. It is a prerequisite for windy conditions and therefore taking the wind into consideration such as Coore and Crenshaw did in Hawaii which would have made this course much more fun and playable.
Considering that the designer used to work for an associate of Stanley Thompson, it is hard to figure why he left one of Stanleys' trademarks out of the playability of the course, that is the option for the golfer to bump and run the shot onto the green.
Perhaps the reason for this is that Stanley never built a "links" course and for that matter, not even a faux links.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.

Dick - ha! I guess the old dump/landfill gave it away, huh? That's the strange thing: the course promotes the fact that it is always windy, and the architect promotes his association with S Thompson...yet somehow the two elements don't come together at all.  (Maybe part of it is caused by what Slag explains...but not all of it).  I still don't understand the routing on a made from scratch site, but Adam is probably right...as the green fee is affordable, but the club sure makes a lot on carts.  Looking forward to meeting you soon...on a very different course! 

Peter

[Jim Hoak]

Because it is built on an old dump, and because it is a municipal course, I'm guessing it is not a golf course/housing development.  So, why are there long hikes from greens to the next tees?  That is my biggest gripe in modern design.  I guess I can accept it when the prime objective is to create and sell more lots.  But, why when give a choice would anyone else do that?  I guess someone would say it's to take advantage of unique topography that may be spread out, but I don't accept that as valid.  It has so many drawbacks in terms of enjoyment of the round, cost of maintenance, inappropriate use of the land, etc., that I just think it is stupidity.

[Bryan Izatt]

PP,

I think you are being kind of harsh here. My impressions from a couple of plays of the course are that it was a significant architectural achievement given where it is, what it is, and what it sits on.  It is a credible golf course; better than some of the more expensive nearby CCFADs created by its architect.

The routing I thought was pretty good in the way he spiraled up the "mesa" on the front nine.  The back nine routing, especially the last three holes,  seems a little odd, but then it is a cramped plot of land, plus they have the par 3 course occupying one end.  The individual holes were generally good, with the exception of the par 5 16th.  The right angle to the green seems contrived.  Might have been better as a par 4.

It didn't occur to me that the greens were generally perched above the fairways.  I do remember it as an aerial course, but that is very common these days.  Although the look is faux links, there is too much elevation change on the property to enable a lot of bump and run approaches to greens.  Most links are built on relatively flat tracts with a lot of mini-undulation.  It would have been difficult to create that landscape on the dump.  Perhaps vertical walls to a flat mesa, but how would that have looked to the neighbours?

Your complaint about the green to tee distances also didn't strike me when I was there.  The course is a difficult walk to be sure with the elevation change. But apart from the 9th to 10th transition past the clubhouse, I don't recall any really long walks.  Many tees are reasonably close to the preceding green given current design practices.  Being hidden from the preceding green is a good thing, no?



 

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

As usual, we don't see eye to eye. I don't know the course or the architect (so what happened to frank discussion here), but I can see from the graphic posted the green to tee distances are made for cartball, and not reasonable for walking.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bryan - yes, I was being a bit harsh and I knew it (and so I didn't name the course or the architect, and I also intended -- in part -- to just shut up).  I've played the course several times, and liked it for reasons beyond the ones I mentioned.  But this time, maybe because I played in the rain and with the wind up, I did start wondering why, on a course created from scratch, so few (of the relatively small) greens allowed for any kind of run-up shot and why I often felt I was walking up and down and around so much.  Aren't the 'scottish links' courses much more friendly on all 3 counts, i.e. green to tee walks, size of greens, and run up shots?  It just seemed to me that the course didn't have to be what it was -- but that there must've been a reason. 
Peter

[Jason Topp]

I'm guessing Arthur Hills from the aerial.  My only hesitation is that the cart paths do not cross the fairways. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

I didn't realize we didn't usually see eye to eye.  Are you really, really tall?  Or, left handed?  

The course is Braeben in Mississauga, ON designed by Ted Baker.  I don't suppose you've heard of Ted.  

I am impressed with your ability to discern that the green to tee distances are designed for cartball, based on an aerial.    Just to look at one such transition, the first hole is a par 5 that runs north to south on the east side of the property.  It's an uphill hole.  The most commonly used second tee for the par 3 second is directly east from the front edge of the green and across the cart path.  It is a gargantuan 40 yards away from the green.  The walker goes up the middle (hopefully) of the first fairway to the green, exits left and goes 40 yards to the second tee. The poor cartballer has to walk the 20 yards sideways up to the green, then back down 40 yards to the tee and then back up the 20 yards to the cart.  Yup, definitely designed for the cartballer.  

Just funning you Garland.  But, seriously, the walk is difficult for the elevation changes brought on by literally having to go up and down a hundred foot high mountain of garbage.  The elevation changes obviously make it an easier trek on a cart.  But I don't think the routing is specifically designed to cater to the carts.  It's a relatively low price muni course and many of the people who play there don't shell out the extra for the carts.

Peter,

I suspected you actually liked the course.  It is a likeable course.  The times I've played it were in late, late fall or earlt, early spring, when conditions were such that other courses were closed.  In those kind of conditions it is easy to find things to be unhappy about.  Maybe your day was similar.  Certainly spring has been late getting here this year.

If you think those greens are small, go to Lionhead Legends, another of Mr Baker's designs.  Now there are some small bizarre greens there.  But it costs twice as much and carts are mandatory.

Yes, real links courses, of which arguably there are none in North America are more likely to have openings for running shots.  Size of greens is dependent on the course.  Not all links have huge greens like St Andrews Old.  Green to tee walks are also course dependent - Royal Dornoch, Castle Stuart, and Cruden Bay come to mind of courses with some daunting green to tee walks.  If you get to play real links courses, you won't think that Braeben is supposed to be a links course.  It may have a bit of the look, and some of the bunkers, but otherwise it is a North American course.  Arguably, you can't create a real links inland on a mountain of garbage no matter how you design it and build it.  It's just not the same.  The closest we can come in Southern Ontario would be Osprey Valley Heathlands and Tarandowah.  But, after you've seen real links, you won't think of either of these as true links either.

Jason,

Nope, not Arthur Hills.  It's Ted Baker.

  

[Garland Bayley]

... It is a gargantuan 40 yards away from the green. ...

Congratulations for giving the example of what may be the shortest walk on the course. I measure the walk at 57 yards as the crow flies. Using google earth to do measurements, I am pretty confident you have an average about 100 yards for each green to tee. At least twice as long as reasonable.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

It was the first one and it went to my point.  I assume you measured from middle of green to middle of tee.  I count 8 holes where the green to second to the back tee distance is 90 yards or less. If it was middle of green to back tee, there would be more.   I'm curious about your "reasonable" green to tee distance of 50 yards.  Is that from middle of the green to the nearest tee?  Do any modern courses in your neighborhood meet that criteria?  Seems dangerously close to me.  I wonder if any architects have a rule of thumb they could give us on desirable yet safe proximity.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

It was the first one and it went to my point.  I assume you measured from middle of green to middle of tee.  I count 8 holes where the green to second to the back tee distance is 90 yards or less. If it was middle of green to back tee, there would be more.   I'm curious about your "reasonable" green to tee distance of 50 yards.  Is that from middle of the green to the nearest tee?  Do any modern courses in your neighborhood meet that criteria?  Seems dangerously close to me.  I wonder if any architects have a rule of thumb they could give us on desirable yet safe proximity.

You've got two long walks going around the driving range of 150 yards. You have the 9 to 10 of 320 yards. Others over 100 yards.

I measure middle of green to middle tee (the one that will get used the most). That is as the crow flies. Notice that the 1 to 2 walk would take you "as the crow flies" through the bunker. Probably not going to happen.

The 50 yards is used as a metric by modern architects that judge armchair contests on this website.

Define "modern". The RTJ II course I most recently played in my area easily meets that standard.

[Tim Nugent]

If this was a North Carolina mountan course, would you be crying about the green to tee proximity? Any small piece of property with 100' of elevation is going to present some challange.  Especially when one cannot cut dirt to solve problem topography.  Everything is fill.  Which means longer slopes to catch existing grade.

Not being familar with the property, I can't comment on the airchair architecture but having built a fair number of Landfill courses, let me enter the followng parameters nto the calculus.

1st, because No Cutting is allowed, a green complex has to start at the lowest native point and work up from there.  Fill costs money - even if the dirt is free, one must place and shape it.
If you want a bunker, the sand floor level will be about 1.5' above the grade you start from (6" of sand plus a minimum of 8" for drainage).  Now, how deep do want that bunker? 3'? 4'?  So now the green surface is 4.5'-5.5' above the native grade (unless you raise the face above the green surface). Let's say that the green is built on a cross slope and the bunker is on the low side.  On the high side, the green will have to be almost a min of 16" above grade.  The less cross slope, the greater this depth (to account for drainage pipe).
So one can leave the high side elevated to deflect water from running on or fill the swale..  Filling the front approach would require a larger amount of fill to tapper the transition. especially on the low side.  Plus one has to be wary not to block vision into the bunker.

So, as you can see, there are minimum starting point elevations that dictate what you can do.  Plus, you never can be sure where settlement will occur, so by having the green perched, it allows water to be drained off the surface in just about any direction without the need to completely rebuild the entire green complex.

I realize that the average golfer neither knows or cares about such things, it's just much easier to bash things bashed on their limited knowledge.  Hopefully, now that everyone here is more educated, you won't fall into the same trap.

[Garland Bayley]

If this was a North Carolina mountan course, would you be crying about the green to tee proximity? Any small piece of property with 100' of elevation is going to present some challange.  Especially when one cannot cut dirt to solve problem topography.  Everything is fill.  Which means longer slopes to catch existing grade.

Not being familar with the property, I can't comment on the airchair architecture but having built a fair number of Landfill courses, let me enter the followng parameters nto the calculus.

1st, because No Cutting is allowed, a green complex has to start at the lowest native point and work up from there.  Fill costs money - even if the dirt is free, one must place and shape it.
If you want a bunker, the sand floor level will be about 1.5' above the grade you start from (6" of sand plus a minimum of 8" for drainage).  Now, how deep do want that bunker? 3'? 4'?  So now the green surface is 4.5'-5.5' above the native grade (unless you raise the face above the green surface). Let's say that the green is built on a cross slope and the bunker is on the low side.  On the high side, the green will have to be almost a min of 16" above grade.  The less cross slope, the greater this depth (to account for drainage pipe).
So one can leave the high side elevated to deflect water from running on or fill the swale..  Filling the front approach would require a larger amount of fill to tapper the transition. especially on the low side.  Plus one has to be wary not to block vision into the bunker.

So, as you can see, there are minimum starting point elevations that dictate what you can do.  Plus, you never can be sure where settlement will occur, so by having the green perched, it allows water to be drained off the surface in just about any direction without the need to completely rebuild the entire green complex.

I realize that the average golfer neither knows or cares about such things, it's just much easier to bash things bashed on their limited knowledge.  Hopefully, now that everyone here is more educated, you won't fall into the same trap.

If Egan could do it at Indian Canyon without "cutting", I have to wonder why Baker couldn't do it. Just another sign of the golf cart crutch that the modern architect seems to use these days I suppose.

EDIT: According to Ran's review, Capilano sits on a 300 ft hill. But yet, I measure many of the green to tee walks to be in the range of 60 yards, instead of the predominant 90 yards for Braeben. It would appear the longer walks are when the green on a downhill hole is next to a green on an uphill hole. To continue downhill you have to walk past the other green, and likewise continuing uphill. No such situation exists at Braeben causing a need for such a longer walk.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tim,

Thanks for the insights.  I think what you've said helps explain why some of the greens appear perched.  As I understand it, the thing about Braeben that was perhaps unique was that the architect was able to have the garbage "shaped" to his design before any capping took place.  Nevertheless, I also understand they had some issues with some of the bunkers interacting with the garbage.


Garland,

I don't understand your "golf cart crutch" statement.  Are you suggesting that architects would rather assume players will cart around and therefore who cares about elevation changes or perched greens?  Are you suggesting that they ought to adjust the topography to create a more level playing field and enable more running shots?  I'm not sure how it applies to Braeben.  

I'm sure there are many courses with shorter green to tee walks on average.  Look at NGLA - 30 to 40 yards seems to be about it.  But I expect it would be a lawsuit heaven if it were a muni course.  Nevertheless the walks at Braeben vary and are not egregious by any means.  Personally I doubt that the routing is as it is because the architect was using carts as a crutch.  Given the shape of the site, both horizontally and vertically there are only so many ways to deal with having a 100 foot high plateau site and given you had to site the clubhouse on the edge where it is.

Here's a picture of the routing, just in case you didn't figure it out.  And, then some pictures from my Blackberry in very early spring a couple of years ago.  The 5th green, the 13th and looking down to the 9th green.

[Garland Bayley]

That's almost the routing I had figured. It actually looks like the actual routing adds green to tee yardage to what I figured.
Why would they make 15 green closer to the club house than 9 green? Are you sure the routing hasn't been changed by the people running the place from what the architect intended?

The ODGs had to make the green to tee distance short. There were no carts. When you have more severe land than Braeben at Capilano and Indian Canyon, with much shorter green to tee walks, then either the GCA is stupid, or he is depending on the golf cart crutch to carry most people green to tee and let the few remaining looneys like Peter take a hike.

Also, speaking of routing changing, since they use a lot of carts at Indian Canyon now they changed the routing to a less walker friendly routing.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

It's only been open for 5 years and has been in this configuration the couple of times I played it.  It's a tight property when you add in the driving range and the par 3 course.  As a muni course I guess they were trying to be all things golf to all the citizens.  I'm not sure what other routings you would see for this property.  This one looks not too bad.  It spirals up to and over the highest spot -the 13th.  It changes direction frequently.  As you might imagine from the pictures it is completely exposed to the wind.  I doubt that the architect or the city thought that everybody was going to take carts - this is after all a low cost green fee course in this neighborhood.  I guess that leaves the architect as stupid in your view.  As long as you're comparing it to other courses, how about Pacific Dunes - there are some long inter-hole walks there too.  There are no carts.  Does that make Tom stupid?

[Kalen Braley]

Also, speaking of routing changing, since they use a lot of carts at Indian Canyon now they changed the routing to a less walker friendly routing.

While I agree that most take carts at IC, thats not why they changed it.  It was due to the original #1 and 2 playing as back to back opening short par 5s. In addition they are both two of the narrowest holes on the course so there is lots of ball searching and punch outs as well.  All of that led to a very slow start to the round which wasn't uncommon to take 40-45 minutes just to play just those first two holes.

Since they've switched the 9s, the pace of play has been much improved, even though I prefer the original routing myself.

[Garland Bayley]

...As long as you're comparing it to other courses, how about Pacific Dunes - there are some long inter-hole walks there too.  There are no carts.  Does that make Tom stupid?

Well I'm going to pull a Bryan Izatt on this and say I measured the 1st green to 2nd tee at 42 yards (and you don't have to walk through a sand trap to get there).
So what's your evidence?

[Kalen Braley]

...As long as you're comparing it to other courses, how about Pacific Dunes - there are some long inter-hole walks there too.  There are no carts.  Does that make Tom stupid?

Well I'm going to pull a Bryan Izatt on this and say I measured the 1st green to 2nd tee at 42 yards (and you don't have to walk through a sand trap to get there).
So what's your evidence?

The only long trek I can recall is 11 green to 12 tee.  But its my understanding that was only so because of a late minute routing change.  

The only other "longer than most" walks I can recall is from 3 green to 4 tee, and 13 green to 14 tee.

Edit:

After pulling out Google Earth, I found 4 walks all over 100 yards on PD. 

3 to 4 - ~ 130 yards
11 to 12 - ~175 yards
13 to 14 - ~ 175 yards
17 to 18 - ~100-150 yards depending on if the tees are up or down.

[Garland Bayley]

...As long as you're comparing it to other courses, how about Pacific Dunes - there are some long inter-hole walks there too.  There are no carts.  Does that make Tom stupid?

Well I'm going to pull a Bryan Izatt on this and say I measured the 1st green to 2nd tee at 42 yards (and you don't have to walk through a sand trap to get there).
So what's your evidence?

The only long trek I can recall is 11 green to 12 tee.  But its my understanding that was only so because of a late minute routing change.  

The only other "longer than most" walks I can recall is from 3 green to 4 tee, and 13 green to 14 tee.

Edit:

After pulling out Google Earth, I found 4 walks all over 100 yards on PD. 

3 to 4 - ~ 130 yards
11 to 12 - ~175 yards
13 to 14 - ~ 175 yards
17 to 18 - ~100-150 yards depending on if the tees are up or down.

Bryan and I thank you.
What does tees up or down mean on 17 to 18. I understand if that were 9 to 10, but there when the green is down, the tees are down, and when the green is up, the tees are up, so you would have to give two figures.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

If you look at the tees on 18 using Google Earth they have upper tees on the side of the hill and lower tees on the bottom. I'm guessing they use the upper tees with the north summer wind and the lower tees with the south winter wind.

9 is a unique/different case where you have two greens with two sets of corresponding tees.