An important renovation.

[RJ_Daley]

The project to renovate Keller Golf Course, Ramsey County, MN, will make for a graduate seminar in renovation, once architect Richard Mandell gets to work this fall, and they take the old gal out of play for two years to do the reno work.  There is much to like about this old museum piece with plenty of elevation changes, ridges, and hillocks and hollows.  I'm very happy I got to see this course and how it was, and imagine the possibilities.
 
Morgan Clawson has a great overview and since he has spoken with Mr. Mandell, had given me an overview of his understanding of what changes in the renovations are planned.
 
From my own one-time play point of view of the golf course, I find it ironic that Richard Mandell has an Arborist certification, and IMHO, must take out 75% of the trees to bring out a proper presentation of a renovation that could use the high frequency rolling terrain to best advantage. Clearly from viewing old photographs of the course at the time it was built, the original architect did not have a tree infested piece of land to design and route this course.  Instead, the rolling terrain was his canvass, and one must now look hard to imagine the usage of that terrain in the strategy presentation, rather than the now confined tree hazard route that forces play to one and only one ideal LZ or approach.  Key trees can and must play a part in this parkland course-just not this many trees.  But, the bones of the land are there for Richard Mandell to work with.
 
I think this is a highly important project for golf course architecture because of the historical nature of this golf course, and the level of importance it has in the discussion of the future of the game.  It is a publicly owned golf course with rich history.  A public golf course that has held Majors;  a long run of a professional tour stop in the St Paul Open with a list of past champions and players that is rival to all the great venues of the past era; The Patty Berg Classic – Ladies tour; and a whole host of national and local amateur championships.  And, it clearly has an important everyday community golf mission, with active men’s and women’s club, and open to public at AFFORDABLE  prices, that in my mind is every bit as important to the future of the game as all the enthusiasm of new private course development, resort and destination projects.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_Golf_Course

Here is one local gentleman’s ‘Word Press’ article that seems to capture the local resident’s pride:

[url]http://sdate.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/bury-my-heart-at-keller-golf-course/[url]

I truly hope that Richard Mandell's wonderful yearly seminars and conventions supporting 'Affordable Golf' will translate into keeping Keller an affordable golf venue for the Twin Cities public.  While an upgrade or replacement is probably in order for the outdated clubhouse, I suspect the bulk of the 12 million dollar budget represents going from 10,000 sq ft to 23,000.  I wonder if they may not be going overboard on clubhouse upgrade?  If that means a boost in green fees to over $40-50, and take Joe average out of participation, I would be reticent.   I was giddy to plunk down the grand sum of $27 for a weekend round on an historic fun factory of golf, with such a rich history.  I told Morgan, if I lived there in this past decade, or now, I would not hesitate to beg my way into what seems a very active men's club.  I hope after the renovation, the renewed course will be as fun and exciting to play, and embrace the historical pride and flavor that the site of the old St Paul Open and Patty Berg Classic beckons us to recall.

I hope our Twin Cities contributors keep their ear to the ground and inform us of any updates to what is known about the upcoming renovation project. It would be even more exciting to hear from Richard Mandell about his ideas of what can be done there to retain the heritage and fun factor while adhering to his affordable golf principles.  I know I can't wait to play it again before the renovation and think about it some more.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tru dat.

[Dan Kelly]

I hope after the renovation, the renewed course will be as fun and exciting to play, and embrace the historical pride and flavor that the site of the old St Paul Open and Patty Berg Classic beckons us to recall.

Not to mention two PGA Championships!

Rick Shefchik has a good chapter on Keller in "From Fields to Fairways."

All of us Twin Cities GCAers are excited about this project. I think every last one of us is fond of Keller and hopeful of both its improvement and its continued affordability.

[PCCraig]

Well said RJ. Glad you enjoyed the course.

I am a huge fan of Keller, and am really excited for Richard Mandell's restoration/renovation.

[RJ_Daley]

A few observations I'd make in comparing the nature of the County run facility, to our own Brown County golf course that is my home club in Green Bay, are:

The fairways at Keller are cut what seems 1/8-3/16ths longer.  The turf seems mostly blues and annual bluegrass.  The HOC reminded me more of the fairway surface at Wild Horse, which is predominately dwarf K-blue.  With the great number of public rounds, I wonder if dwarf blue might be the better choice for Keller as a public course, including less fighting of poa annua invasion of a bent grass fairway.  Personally, I liked the lie of the ball in the FW at Keller, though it isn't the same as the lie on the dwarf blues at Wild Horse, primarily (I think) due to the sand rootzone, dryer hotter weather, and irrigation requirement rate being more in the management of the super's hands. Wild Horse can maintain a wonderful maintenance meld regarding the FW conditioning and playability. 

The Keller greens were a bit slower than our county course greens and a fraction longer cut.  But, it seemed that there appeared more bent % in the turf at Keller than ours, as ours are somewhere over 80% poa now.  We have a short game putting sand trap practice area green that our super re-turfed and is a pure stand of bent now, and it is great and gives our users a good idea of what we could have.  I imagine Keller is going to completely kill the greens they are keeping, and will reseed the old and new to a desirable cultivar specified by their turf manager-super.  So, they should get a great consistency for the re-opening new decade or so. 

Fairway ridges and hillocks using speed slots and also presenting some reverse camber FWs at dog legs at Keller are quite the dominate character of the routing.  Our Brown county course has good use of the ridges and elevation that we have (which is significant to the routing and strategy) however ours is not as rolling a site and Keller presents the architect with many opportunities as well as potential obstacles.  Morgan pointed out the new plan moves some greens from existing greensites, which also incorporate elevation change features near current green sites.  So, architect Mandell will have an opportunity to change approach strategies and challenges, along with interesting decisions on how to maintain the overall feel of the old course that generations of TC golfers have come to identify as Keller golf.  I could see Mandell approaching some of the hillocks and "melting down" as Doak team constructors call it.  But, how much, to what extent in the overall routing that exists, seems to me to be a real puzzle for Mandell to work on.

I happen to like the current bunker style and array, along with how many Bs exist on the Keller course.  They are a clear winner by comparison to our Brown county course, both in maintenance, and positioning.  Keller bunkers tend to be smaller but with more lip and mound than our big gapping typical RB Harris, Ed Lawrence Packard lineage.  I think Mandell will need to keep the old bunker style in mind and match them, as he creates new ones  around new green sites, and whatever FW new ones he adds. 

Rough at Keller was a nice cut of blue grass, not too penal to keep the public play moving nicely, but definitely a reasonable penalty to play shots from.  I found the Keller rough often, but it was a nice consistent cut around the entire course, unlike our county course with has a wider variance of rough texture and drainage issues.  Although I can't say what Keller is like during much rain, I got the impression it may drain out pretty well by surface movement into wetland and pond areas.  Also, the Keller super has made some nice efforts at wetland and native prairie areas along with pond native wet plant renewal, that I thought were positioned well, and I guess serve the water movement function well.

But, tree management is the 800lb gorilla.  One only needs to look at newly opened Keller aerial and ground photos of early tournaments to see the progression of the tree huggers assault on the course.  There are several aerials over the years and at one point, it is clear they came in to plant straight rows of various species of trees, in that ugly old tasteless style of that era.  One of the mid 40s or early 50s photos shows snap line straight new sappling plantings.  This robbed the corridors of interest and what could be much more fun and variety of shot challenges.  Our county course went through the same tree planting frenzy.  We have lost several crappy week varieties to wind storms and lightening.  Also, our super has gone under existing spruce and other conifers and cut the low branches to 3-6ft high.  This really helps speed play.  Both Keller and Brown County have too many trees, BCGC to a lesser extent.  Harvest those hardwoods and mill the wood to trim out the new clubhouse if you want to retain the pretty trees at Keller! 

Apart from the golf course, Keller county powers that be ought to take a field trip here to our Brown County facility to compare notes on new clubhouse dos and don'ts.  Keller is upgrading from 10K to 23K clubhouse space.  I assume that includes a significant upgrade of their F&B.  Brown county has a nice looking new building replacing one that was very similar to Kellers old club house.  But, while a new building, design layout of F&B areas are so critical.  Where and how the pro shop serves the golfing public and efficiency of the kitchen to front of the house issues, and how the F&B concession operation are managed, are really key issues in the overall budget projections and mistakes were made at Brown County that Keller could avoid.  We have a very good concessionaire.  But, to have any chance to make $, they need to stay open all year on an upgraded F&B menu and presentation.  That means integrating or at least complimenting golfers and those public consumers coming into the restaurant for only food and drink.  If Keller is considering a sandwich only sort of grill, closing for winter, I think they miss the opportunity to keep the regular golfers longer for a few profit bucks of F&B.  After about 12 years of our new facility, kinks in the golfer customer, F&B only customer are being addressed by the concessionaire.   Ours concessionaire is the one and only contracted after the renovation took place, works his tail off, and still struggles.  County politics gets into his business as well.  So, I think this critical aspect of Keller's upgrade needs to be well studied and carefully developed to hit the sweet spot of functional, quality, profitable enterprise.  If it is done wrong, and despite a great renovation of the course, the club house can drag it down and defeat the project's intentions to make things better than present, IMO. 

But, after seeing all the possibilities, I would be giddy about Keller's prospects if I had a dog in the race. 

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:

One of my young associates who is based in the Twin Cities really wanted to get involved in Keller, and we discussed the project at some length.  However, I declined to get involved, and one of the main reasons was their decision to destroy the old clubhouse and build a much bigger one ... I felt their priorities were just in the wrong place.

We built a completely new course at Common Ground for $4 million.  I don't understand how you can justify a $12 million renovation as an important day for affordable golf.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, I agree with you or your premise of $12 million budget may not bode well for 'affordable golf', and I also assume the bulk of that amount is going for clubhouse upgrade.  But, unless one sees a legitimately developed pro forma of expected sales of F&B and other profit centers, and the treatment of taxes, where at least property taxes are not a factor if publicly owned, then it may be premature to assume it isn't still on track to maintain affordable golf.  One would think in these times, there would be a serious scrutiny of the numbers projected, given the austerity wave sweeping the country.  And, this in a region that just approved another sports palace NFL stadium for the Vikes.  You'd think that the submission to an obvious money pit that would require more taxpayer subsidy would not pass muster.  So, until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume the numbers were fairly well scrutinized, and something led the powers that be to approve this. 

I'm not sure and haven't done the research to know exactly what the fund raising source is for the project, regarding a facilities user fee bond offering or whatever.  Perhaps our local contributors can shed more light on this funding plan.

The challenge will be to see if this historically affordable venue remains affordable to the average working guy, golfer.  We will know that in the fullness of time, I reckon.

[Kris Shreiner]

RJ,

I appreciate your take on some lessons learned from your Brown County observations. While this project has great potentia,  and I''m very happy for Rich Mandel and his team, the size of that clubhouse AND serious debtload it will carry,  raises significant concerns for the financial success of the endeavor.

As you point out, your Brown County, with an excellent operator who works his tail off....STRUGGLES! From my view, doubling your clubhouse/dining square footage plus, with the lessons ANYONE in the industry should know now, is asking for trouble! You need constant event/affair bookings, and a talented pitbull of an event planner/marketer to make that profitable. Those folks are like hen's teeth...RARE!

Large space, even superbly presented, is MORE DIFFICULT to maintain at a profitable level than smaller space. Given what has been stated,  a modest clubhouse/dining facility(10,00sq. ft ,properly confugured should be plenty!) of quality, coupled with a solid course restoration, should be financially viable at affordable rates. Where this project seems to be headed, unless there are adjustments, are problems supporting a structure that can't pay for itself...which leads to THE COURSE being deemed unprofitable. This puts even more pressure on the golf side of the equation, and they either have to raise rates to the point where the value becomes a loser, OR reduce rates, and start the slide to the bottom. It really doesn't end any other way once it gets sideways. That's why folks need to be REALISTIC on the front end and understand the QE2 -sized clubhouse is a dead loser out of the gate...unless your looking to be the miraculous exception.

I hope they revisit that clubhouse model and projections, because I'm certain Rich's team will deliver; but even his best work can't have the course as ATLAS for the rest of a poorly modeled facility.

Cheers,
Kris

[Jason Topp]

RJ:

As to affordable golf, around $40 is probably the maximum Keller could charge because there are so many other low cost options in the area. Whether any business model works at that rate I leave for others to figure out.

You did not, however, address the most important question - what would you do with The Tree?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

I proposed on that one, and felt that the tree was sacred in their minds. 

I saw the new clubhouse plans when there, as well as the old clubhouse.  I could see it had some issues and sadly needed to be redone despite it having some old time charm.  Tough call.  I wasn't sure at that time that the whole budget was going to balloon to $12M, but maybe we can hope that if the new one serves well for 60-70 years, that the debt load is well worth it.

I recall the golf budget was pretty much set at $4M, a reasonable number for that market, with prevailing wages, short season, etc.

Not quite on topic, but Richard struck me as the dark horse candidate, even after the cut to five interviews (I didn't make the cut), not unlike Gil Hanse at the Olympics.  In both cases, it appears that the successful consultant made a passionate and thorough presentation that blew others out of the water.  I like that.

[PCCraig]

Richard Mandell has been nice enough to join the local GCA crowd for dinner and drinks during visits to the area for the Keller project. It's been fascinating listening to a professional's opinion on the course after playing it a few times last year and thinking to myself "if I could restore this place I would do X, Y, and Z."

RJ's note regarding tree management at Keller is key. I'd love to say that they should go for a "Lawsonia Links" style look and cut most of the internal trees down. But you have to remember that the course's property is pretty small and with the play it gets it could be hard to justify to the regulars cutting them down from a safety perspective. That being said, I think a fair amount of trees are going to come down. My favorite example is on the left side of #2. Right now there is a (maintained) bunker sitting in the middle of ~30 year old trees near the property line. Richard is planning on taking out the trees and restoring the bunker and the old playing angle.

As for the current clubhouse, while it has a ton of character, it's old and literally falling down. There's no doubt it needs a lot of work. I don't think the county is hiding their motivation for more banquet, wedding, (the clubhouse sits on pretty property overlooking a lake) and outing revenue. It's a shame that they're going that route but if it means the golf course gets the loving restoration it deserves then I'm all for it.

[Jason Topp]

Aerial tour of the course as it is now:

http://mnpga.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/mnpga12/event/mnpga1230/course/kellergolfcourse/aerial.htm?next=..%2F..%2Findex.htm

[RJ_Daley]

It strikes me as absurd in these clubhouse replacements, that planners and decision makers don't utilize a model of a new club house design (as some above suggest ~10K sq ft) and designed in such a way that it can be easily expandable to enlarge kitchen, service and private room areas, AT A LATER DATE!!! Busting a nut, at the outset seems completely reckless, be it a private or public organization. 

As one would imagine, our GCA contingent on the scene and most everyone that has played there are of similar opinion that the course is an exciting and ripe opportunity for a talented archie to show his/her wares.  The bones of a good golf course (mayber not a 7200 yard one - but a good pubic course at 6600-6800 are definitely there to design off of what is there.  After all the 1000s of lessons of overdoing club houses that drag otherwise good golf facilities down, you'd think someone would catch on.  It must be too hard to overcome mover and shakers ego and dreams of grandeur. 

Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the public golfer to have something worth while in the end, at 'affordable golf' price point.

[Dan Kelly]

Aerial tour of the course as it is now:

http://mnpga.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/mnpga12/event/mnpga1230/course/kellergolfcourse/aerial.htm?next=..%2F..%2Findex.htm

I'm in the midst of a very busy week, but there's no time like the present to show you a few Keller pictures I've found in the newspaper's archives. I'll put a few little notes on them; others who know the course will have much to say, I think.

Keller, 1938.
Note the road running through the course.



Keller, 1939
Who needs trees?
Check out the apostrophe-shaped green on the current No. 9 (past the squash-shaped practice green).



Keller, 1939
Note the width of No. 1 (far left; dogleg right).




Keller, 1947
Note that the current No. 11 was the original No. 2, heading back toward the clubhouse. You can see the tee pad right there at the corner of the farm field. The current No. 2 was the original No. 11, playing to the green at the bottom right.



Keller, 1949
A better look at The Tree and its green (lower left)  -- which, unless I'm blind, is WAY back from the green, posing a very different challenge.

Look how OPEN the current No. 16 is (dogleg left teeing off the picture to the lower left).

Look how SMALL the tree in 17 fairway is.



Keller, 1962
Note how far back from the green The Tree is (bottom center).
Note the bunkering all around the current No. 13 (middle left, in the trees).

[David Lott]

Now that I've seen the clubhouse--if only from the air in a photo--I gotta say "what were they thinking" when they decided to tear it down. It might cost as much to fix it up as to build a new one, but what a great building!

[Dan Kelly]

Now that I've seen the clubhouse--if only from the air in a photo--I gotta say "what were they thinking" when they decided to tear it down. It might cost as much to fix it up as to build a new one, but what a great building!

I have no idea how much renovation has been done on that clubhouse -- but I'm sort of surprised it has escaped Historic status.

It was designed by one of the best-known architects in Minnesota, and one of the state's most distinguished black citizens: St. Paul's municipal architect for many years (and the nation's first black municipal architect), Clarence W. "Cap" Wigington.

Wikipedia reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_W._Wigington.

[Richard_Mandell]

As I was getting ready to post something about the 2011 Symposium on Afforable Golf White Paper I happened to stumble upon the thread called "An Important Renovation".  Wondering what it could be, I took a look....

There are many things to fill everyone in on from my perspective and I will start by sharing how much of a divergence of what we see here and beleive in and promote as fans of golf course architecture absoulutely clash with the realities of a real-life project in the public realm.

Regarding trees, you all know the public's attitude about trees and how sacred the removal of trees are to many people.  Dan and Jason have shared some great aerials that show the original farmland of the Keller site.  As much as I would love to cut down every single tree on the property (with the exception of the two trees in four and seventeen fairways) that will never be allowed by the City of Maplewood or many of the golfers who are Keller diehards.  But we are eliminating many trees and doing our best to reveal the true character of the property - the ground.  The resistance to tree removal is amazing to me everywhere, not just at Keller and throughout our Design Team meetings with the golfers, I had to continually remind some of them that Keller was a farm first and that is precisely why the site was chosen for a golf course - no trees!  

The clubhouse project is a good example of providing something for everyone in order to get something for a few.  The financing for the project is coming from bonds through Ramsey County.  The percentage of Ramsey County residents who play golf is very small so creating an element of the overall project that the majority can benefit from will help to push the overall project through.  The clubhouse project is just that - a project that can be sold to the majority in the form of catering, receptions, etc.  The County is depending on making this element of the project a financial success.

Whether I agree with it or not is an entirely other topic. On the subject of affordable golf, the above example is why it is so difficult for the golf business - outside elements that have nothing to do with the actual golf being such an integral piece of the puzzle.  

Another challenge on the affordability issue is the topic of irrigation.  Unfortunaltey $1 million + irrigation systems are the standard and not the exception these days and that comes in material costs based on fuel prices, etc. Labor is at its lowest in a while, generally speaking. The lifeblood for the Superintendent is his irrigation system and few supers would do nothing but push for the most he/she can get in order to best protect his/her asset.  That is an uphill climb when someone is trying to keep costs down.  By the way, Keller was playing fast and firm Friday afternoon and that is refreshing to see.

The actual golf course project itself is only $3.3 million plus $1 million for the irrigation system. The rest of the money goes to soft costs, the clubhouse, and related site work to the parking lots, etc. I don't expect that green fees will rise to the point of unaffordbale for those who play Keller now.  A modest increase is expected but nothing more.

The trees on four and seventeen will remain.  At the pre-bid, I was amazed to see such a huge Oak smack in between the tee and green of four and knew right then and there to avoid discussing it until I had the project.  We had four tours of the golf course with more than 100 golfers throwing opinions and the majority wanted the trees to remain.

I do believe that the tree does pose an intersting hazard for such a short hole (150 yards or so).  The challenge comes in gaining the correct trajectory on your tee shot, something that isn't often a strategy.  It works well there.

As mentioned earlier, we are taking trees out and as a result we will be able to widen fairways.  Two quick highlights are that we are rotating the bunker on two to the left so it will be a central hazard with fairway on both sides.  We are also widening the twelfth fairway a bunch and creating two fairways split by a rdige with sand built into the face of that ridge.

Please feel free to ask any other questions you guys may have and I will try to answer as many as I can.  

[Rick Shefchik]

One conclusion seems inescapable from viewing the aerials: the fourth green has been moved closer to the tee sometime in the past forty or fifty years, because the tree certainly hasn't moved.

[Richard_Mandell]

Rick:

We have numerous aerial photos of the site and have studied an aerial from 1940 extensively.  The green hasn't been moved from its original location.  What happened is the tree has grown. In 1940, the canopy diameter of the tree was about 35'.  Today that canopy is 65'.  That would give the appearance that the green is ten yards closer to the tee, that's all.

[Rick Shefchik]

Richard, that's a great example of how photos can be deceptive. I could have sworn a tree couldn't have grown that much in that amount of time. Another case of unintended consequences when you plant a tree.

[Dan Kelly]

The green hasn't been moved from its original location. 

Rich --

Is that the green's shape today? My impression: deeper and rounder then.

[Richard_Mandell]

Dan - That is not the green's shape as it is today, but it will be that shape again in 2014.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan - That is not the green's shape as it is today, but it will be that shape again in 2014.

Good.

How will you contour that green?

[Sean_A]

Gosh, I can't tell much about the course from aerials, but it is astonishing that the clubhouse is not going to be worked with going forward.  There must be some sort of Architects Society that may be interested in knowing what will happen to the house and may be willing to help in figuring out how to keep it.  For sure, more work on this matter needs to be done before a rash decision is made to knock this place down.  I have no connection whatsoever with architecture and this proposal leaves me with a very sour taste.

Ciao

[Richard_Mandell]

Dan:

The mound behind the green will be lowered about a foot to eighteen inches in order to soften the slope a bit from behind.  The right side of the green will slope to the right into a more prounounced swale between the green and five tee.  The left side and the back will be higher than that right side and the left side will drain in the direction of the left but at a mild 2.5 - 3% slope.  The elevation of the front of the green will not change very much (less than a foot if anything).

The big improvement to the hole is that the sand bunker will move to the left side (instead of in the nmiddle front) as it originally was (see aerials).  That will allow the lesser golfer who can not get over the tree a run-up option under the tree.  We are also moving the cart path to the left of the hole and behind the green and behind five tee.

Sean -

Regarding the clubhouse, I too think it is a great example of architecture but trust that someone has done plenty of work analysis on the subject and made no rash decisions.  The structure is in terribnle condition to the point of some safety issues.

One small victory for the "way things used to be" is that we fought hard to make sure that the new pro shop would continue to be a separate structure instead of getting lost in the bowels of a catering monstrosity.  One big element of Keller is that pro shop and having a separate facility will go a long way in keeping the Keller traditions intact.