Six months ago I started as Super at a large private club with around 1,500 members. The Club has alot of history being in existence for over 115 years. The Club paid Dr Mackenzie and Royal Melbourne in 1926 for a visit to advise and produce a plan for the course. In November (1926) he visited and did produce a plan for the layout which is still available in print. Following consideration, and some objections from members, the plan was not implemented, however some bunker positioning were. The annual report in 1927 stated the objections raised by the members but: "Dr. Mackenzie, however, adhered to the plan." Opportunity missed.
In the almost 90 years following, there have been a number of architects through the doors which have left a number of different styles around the course. There is alot of land on the course, with 21 holes currently, with no flat holes thanks to the natural rolling nature of the site. In 2007, the Club started to work with a known architect who to date has produced 4 complete holes. His style is that golfers should see the bunkers on each hole, which leaves alot of mounding around them, on a gently rolling site, to make them visible through a combination of raising as well as cutting into areas of the land to improve visibility. Some of this work has been met with complaint, more-so the greens which have significant contours within them. All of these greens are raised as well. The Captain of the Club mentioned recently that when dealing with him it's 'either his way or the highway'.
We are currently discussing the next stage of construction due to agronomic reasons (ie. poor draining greens) which are due to start next year. This is a short Par 4 (driver, short iron) which runs up and over another ridge line down to the green. A straight hole which reminds me of the drive at CPC #4 with how the fairway bunkers are positioned. You have to drive to the top of the ridge before you see the green. The architect has produced a plan for the new hole. Again, the land is cut into, with the fairway bunkers left pushed back and raised so they, and the new green, are seen from the tee. In the proposed location they would in play for the second shot of the member, not the drive, and are raised. On the plan, there is 10 foot change in height from the rear bunker down to a low point left of the green which raises up again. Again, the land is gently undulating. I think it's excessive and would look out of place.
I'm not out to start a firestorm with our architect, but the works don't simply sit well with the land and I don't see why the natural features should be consistently disrupted. A client can ask an architect building their house for changes if they want more room in certain areas. How about a golf hole? The Board is made up of businessmen who grant autonomy to their professional staff, so it is a great place to work. As such, I have been asked of my thoughts on the new 4 holes so far and I know I'll be asked of the proposed design. I wish they went ahead with your plans Dr. Mac.
Is the architects decision final?