The Return of the Craftsman Bungalow and the Death of Large Greens

[Mike Hendren]

In 1993 we moved to the burbs for the schools, built the 4,000 house on 1.2 acres and started living the dream.  With the nest emptying out in less than two weeks, I find myself driving around Nashville's older infill neighborhoods in search of a 2,000 craftsman bungalow with superior finishes on a small lot treed lot with sidewalks and restaurants just down the street.  I want a house where I use every square foot every day.

Will the ultra-large greens being built today fall out of favor like the tract mansions of the 90's as the more discriminating homeowner and golfer both seek ease of maintenance, lower utilities and higher quality finishes?

I spoke briefly with Tom Doak at Dismal River and hope he will weigh in.  As I recall, he acknowledged that larger greens are easier to design and build and there is a reluctance to omit any potential hole location even if it results in incremental creep of the green's edge.  As a golfer I want greens where I use every square foot every day.  

While big greens have their place in architecture, particularly where the green-within-a-green strategy is well implemented I submit they should be used sparingly and not on a wholesale basis through 18 entire holes.   Please don't mention The Old Course as it is literally one-in-a-million.  

A current case in point:  The greens at CC of Troy look infinitely superior to those at Dallas National.  

Your thoughts?

Mike

[Garland Bayley]

As a 22 handicapper, I find a way to use every bit of the greens whether large or small.

[Dan Herrmann]

Fortunately, I skipped the McMansion and already live in my downsized home.

As far as golf goes, every hole needs a green that's the correct size.  Duh.   Our Hanse-designed course has a 4000 sq ft green followed by a 6500 sq foot green, and each is perfect for the hole.  The former is a short one-shotter over a quarry.  The latter is a 550 yard all uphill par 5.  The variation continues through the course.

Obviously, varied green designs are a lot more common than they used to be, and you can get away with it on a private club.  Less rounds = less need for huge greens.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - very nice post and question. I share your tastes, in golf courses and houses. (My wife and I and little boy live in an 1800 square foot bungalow built in the 1860s out of local yellow brick, it makes me think of an old english 'cottage' -- and while it is actually even more modest than it sounds, it's a short breezy walk to cafes and bookstores etc).  But you say something interesting/telling: you write "Will the ultra-large greens being built today fall out of favor like the tract mansions of the 90's as the more discriminating homeowner and golfer both seek ease of maintenance, lower utilities and higher quality finishes?" It seems to me that, in terms of housing, it was your needs that changed over the years, not your "level of discrimination".  Yes, you recognize the ease of maintenance issues etc, but this strikes me as an aesthetic shift emerging out of practical requirements rather than a wholesale reassessment of an 'ideal' to be espoused. And so my question would be: in terms of green sizes, what new/changing practical requirements do you think likely to produce a corresponding shift in design philosophy/aesthetics?  I can't think of anything; in fact, I'd guess that most average golfers both like and need "big greens".

Peter   

[Carl Johnson]

I recommend the old bungalow neighborhoods, with big trees and wide sidewalks.  I've lived in one on the edge of Charlotte's downtown business district since 1976.  Although our house is not a bungalow (though someone did say it was a "grand bungalow," I would not call it that), and larger than 2,000 feet, I'd now be just as happy in one of the old bungalows, except at my age I don't have the energy to move.  When we bought our house the neighborhood had been on the decline, and great houses were very inexpensive.  Now the local population seems to see the value in my sort of neighborhood, and we're completely gentrified.  I probably couldn't afford to buy my house if I had to now.  The downside, of course, has been the increase in property taxes.

About the analogy, I'm not sure, but it's worth thinking about.  However, I do like the smaller to medium greens rather than the huge ones.  I prefer classic design, with which the mega greens don't seem to fit.

[Mike Hendren]

P2, I'm not convinced most golfers "need" big greens, particularly when they can be "accomodated" with chipping areas.  In looking through Ronald's tour of CC of Troy, I was struck by the extent to which the smallish greens played larger through the use of chipping areas - front, side or back.  The size and locations of those areas appeared to be well thought out, rather than the unbiqitous approach all too often designed today. 

I grew up on a small nine-holer where the greens averaged 3500 +/- wrapped all around by a fairway cut.  I think this effected a balance in the short game between lag-putting, pitching and chipping.   More fun and educational than an indifferent approach and long lag put, don't you think?

Bogey

[Ronald Montesano]

I'd call Troy's set of carpets medium-sized; I never felt claustrophobic. Tim and I kept identifying 6-8 potential hole locations per green, sometimes more. I think it was the canny way that Travis established these precincts that marked his mastery. Of the golden-age architects, was Travis the most celebrated and successful competitor? Did this achievement give him some vision that Don, Al, Bert, Per, Seth, et al. did not and could not possess and incorporate?

[John Keenan]

I have always heard that large greens are desirable at courses that get a lot of play 9resort course) as it gives more pin location which help save the greens. I guess issue is how do you define large greens.  PB may well be the exception to this but it is an older course.

Not sure I subscribe to this  but one of those things you hear.

[Bart Bradley]

Mike:

For a hillbilly you sure are a deep thinker.

Yes, I think you make a good point.  Surely, Old Mac represents the upper end of green size....much bigger than those greens would be ludicrous.  One aspect of your analogy that doesn't quite work is that The Old Course itself has huge (admittedly, mostly double) greens. 

Good luck finding the house that is "just right", Goldilocks.

Bart

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike aka bogie I grew up on small greens and loved them. I would love to your thoughts to come true. There are holes and room for variety but all in all I like the smaller greens that should work just fine for a 30 to 40,000 rounds a busy course will get. The rub is the need for subtle contouring which leaves plenty of cup positions. The greens will be plenty tough and interesting.

[Greg Chambers]

Couldn't agree more.  Subtle and small is a great way to go...infinitely challenging and easy on the budget.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

If you use every square foot of every green every day, you must be a really bad putter. 

I think your point is a very good one, however, the guys who I want to hear weigh in on this are the superintendents who frequent the site.  Architects have gone from 5000 square feet being a "medium" size green to 5000 square feet being the bare minimum, in part because we've been told that they have to be bigger for the turf to be excellent ... even though there are a lot of great old courses with small greens in excellent shape.

I would love to build more courses with smaller greens.  The last one I built was Sebonack, and I've heard a lot about how those are too small for all the contour they have.  All I can tell you is that the greens at Crystal Downs and Merion are smaller than Sebonack's, and have more contour than it does.

[Matt MacIver]

All I can tell you is that the greens at Crystal Downs and Merion are smaller than Sebonack's, and have more contour than it does.

Does this have something to do with the current desire for faster greens, shorter turf and therefore slopes need to be 3" or less, thereby creating the need for larger greens to accomodate the foot traffic?  Seems like if we can back to MORE contour and higher grass cuts we could matriculate back to smaller greens. 

Augusta, of course, will have to lead us this way...but will they?  Perhaps the economy will instead?  Less rounds = less courses = lower maintenance budgets.  We may end up getting smaller greens but it wouldn't have been by choice. 

[Mike Hendren]

I can't help but believe that foot traffic is a straw man in the argument, particularly with the current practice of cutting new holes every day.

For example, every golfer that plays the 4th hole at Spyglass Hill likely enters from the very narrow front of the green regardless of where the day's hole location.   Take other smallish greens where the high majority of most players will enter and exit between a pair of bunkers.  I've never seen wear and tear in those instances.

Bogey

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bogey,
While I'll agree that the need for large greens to fend off foot traffic is often overstated, the need for well designed ingress/egress is not. I have seen lots of wear due to everyone entering and exiting a green in the same place and its usually a result of pinching bunkers on the cart path side.

I don't think we need to build golf courses as large as we do most of the time. The industry is always talking about the need to spread wear and the need for larger hole width/length because modern equipment allows the ball to travel so far. I think those needs are overstated and I think it easier to just go big when in doubt. Of course the fact that most involved make more $$$ when everything is large makes it harder to drive the change to the side of small golf features. Having said all that, traffic patterns are a very important part of design and if and when we ever reverse the trend of building large courses, traffic patterns will become more important. Of course the other argument against the need for large courses to spread out wear is we're seeing fewer rounds now. I would think the more prudent play would be to build courses that can work financially with fewer rounds and bigger isn't better in that case.

[Tom_Doak]

Of course the fact that most involved make more $$$ when everything is large makes it harder to drive the change to the side of small golf features. Having said all that, traffic patterns are a very important part of design and if and when we ever reverse the trend of building large courses, traffic patterns will become more important. Of course the other argument against the need for large courses to spread out wear is we're seeing fewer rounds now. I would think the more prudent play would be to build courses that can work financially with fewer rounds and bigger isn't better in that case.

Don:

Architects don't make more $ by building larger greens.  However, the one thing that all those Best New winners had in common was their big scale.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mike, good thread.

I am reminded off a muni in Melbourne that I was playing many moons ago, when GCA was beginning to stimulate my views.

We were playing this short course, in terrible condition, water and drainage problems, tees were in poor shape as were the bunkers - BUT - they had these absolutely massive greens (esp. For such short holes), that were in excellent condition and I just recall thinking that if they made these greens 25-30% smaller, the holes would improve from a challenge point of view and the staff would have all that extra time off mowers to attend to other details to improve the public golfers experience - not to mention the savings in turf inputs, wear and tear on machinery, etc.

I think green sizes should be in keeping with the individual hole and the surrounding routing, to ensure a quality experience.

[Bradley Anderson]

As a superintendent I don't mind small greens as long as:

There is more than one place to walk on and off the green.

A lot of small greens I have seen have all the water draining one direction and that can be a problem particularly when you have a USGA root zone. I would prefer greens with water flowing off the green in two or three directions.

Small greens that receive predominately high lofted shots - par 3's and reachable par 4's - can become heavily pock marked because no one fixes ballmarks anymore.

The easiest greens I have ever taken care of were RB Harris greens  - he had large par 3 greens, medium par 4s and small par 5s. It was formula that worked well from a maintenance standard and it provided nice variety.

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks to all for the enlightening posts.

Question:  If we're building longer courses because of the increased distance attributable to technology, why are we not building smaller greens because of the increased accuracy attributable to technology?

Bogey

[Bradley Anderson]

It just occurred to me that in my experience greens sizes are remarkably similar through the various eras of the game. I have been working on golf courses since 1977. 4 golf courses as an intern and assistant and 4 golf courses as a superintendent. Here is how the square footage of greens breaks down per architect and year of construction:

Packard 1968 200,000
Tweedie 1898 120,000
Unknown 1922 120,000
H.S. Colt 1913 130,000
Unknown 1912 110,000
RB Harris 1968 140,000
Reid & Connellan 1923 130,000
Vignochii 1995 130,000

I think most of the modern greens are also in the 130,000 square foot range except they seem so much bigger because they have curvilinear edges rather than oval or rectilinear shapes common to the older courses. And probably most of the modern courses are built on bigger fill pads to give the illusion of being bigger.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I've never played Crystal Downs, but, Merion has more contour than Sebonack ?

I can't think of any greens at Merion that come close to the contour and slope of 's 1, 2, 3, 7, 14.

And, the contour and slope of the other greens at Sebonack are quite pronounced.

I think that one of the advantages of large greens is variety in play.
By "play" I just don't mean putting, but approaches and recoveries.

For example, the 11th green at The Creek is about 80 yards in length.
It's surrounded by water and gets a lot of wind.
Thus, the hole can be played with a wedge or a driver and any club in between.
That's variety and that's pretty neat.

A large green can also present an entirely different approach shot when the hole location is moved, and that's another facet of variety that's inherent in large greens.
Take # 3 at Sebonack and the difference in the approach when the hole is cut front right or back left.
Those locations call for different thinking, different clubs and different flighting.
Again, that's great variety, ergo interest.
The same could be said of # 17 and a number of holes.

That's not to say that the use of a small green, especially one that plays smaller, like # 5, doesn't have their place.

MeadowBrook probably has the largest greens I've played, but they don't have the pronounced contour you find at Sebonack and other courses.

I think one of the smart things done at Sebonack is the creation of a hybrid course, a combo of the white and blue tees for those where some blue tee holes may be too much for a golfer's game.

Approaching # 2 and # 3 is a daunting task as you distance yourself from the hole, therefore, playing the combo course and teeing off from the white tees offers the golfer a measure of relief while still presenting a significant challenge.

I could easily set up Sebonack such that no one would break 80 in 2013.

[Forrest Richardson]

The concept of a "green" as a separate and wholly different piece of the golf course is a rather new concept. "Greens" were not formalized until about the time Mike's parents were young.     If the fairways are truly playing firm and consistent with the course (as a whole) then it matters little about the size of the greens for they are one in the same with the full golf hole...or, at least, they should be. It all works together when the conditions are best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The concept of a "green" as a separate and wholly different piece of the golf course is a rather new concept. "Greens" were not formalized until about the time Mike's parents were young.     If the fairways are truly playing firm and consistent with the course (as a whole) then it matters little about the size of the greens for they are one in the same with the full golf hole...or, at least, they should be. It all works together when the conditions are best.


Forest,

Don't the bunker configurations and locations influence the formalizing of greens ?

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, they do.

[Sean_A]

The concept of a "green" as a separate and wholly different piece of the golf course is a rather new concept. "Greens" were not formalized until about the time Mike's parents were young.     If the fairways are truly playing firm and consistent with the course (as a whole) then it matters little about the size of the greens for they are one in the same with the full golf hole...or, at least, they should be. It all works together when the conditions are best.

I dig your thinking.  Effectively, a green can be much larger when turf is kept tight and short without spending the money to keep the grass at green length.  Many is the time when I have been caught behind bunkers when a putter would have been choice of shot if not for the sand.  I wonder if Colt was trying to stop this concept when he went hog wild for plateaux greens? 

Do you think modern watering practices have been the main culprit in a more defined green than previously?

Ciao