Name a single golden age course that could be built today.

[Jason Topp]

While this question is not originally mine, I think it is a good one.  Can you name any Golden Age course be built today given the economics of building such a course, the environmental restrictions and other governmental hurdles associated with building in the modern area and the liability concerns and buffer requirements associated with a modern course? 

[Sven Nilsen]

Lawsonia.

[Phil McDade]

Lawsonia.

Stole my line! And it wouldn't be that expensive, either. Langford and Moreau moved a ton of dirt for their greens, bunkers, and mounds, and very little else -- it's a great example of a course that's both highly manufactured in some respects and yet its routing follows the lay of the land. Few stupid cart paths as well.

[Jason Thurman]

Pinehurst No. 2, unless I just don't understand restrictions.

[Kyle Henderson]

Prairie Dunes, maybe? Haven't been, but I imagine the land costs and environmental restrictions are relatively mild obstacles there to this day.

[John Kavanaugh]

TOC

[Sam Morrow]

I think lots could still be built, I guess the ones that would be trouble are the ones along coast lines and in overly sensitive hippie states where an endangered frog is more important than a golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

There are a few that couldn't be built ... Pebble Beach and Cypress Point would be tied up in California Coastal Commission b.s. for a century.  Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge might have problems with their little streams, in New York ... same for The Creek Club.  Pine Valley might possibly have had to work around the water differently.

Other than that stuff, I don't see why many great courses couldn't be built as they are today.  Augusta ... why not, nothing different there than what they've done at Reynolds Plantation.  Crystal Downs, why not?  Olympic and SFGC, why not?  Oaklnad Hills, why not?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, most could be built, since they are often on pretty good sites with little environmental impact.  That said, I do recall some pix in the old books of filling swamps, etc. that couldn't be done now, so it would vary.

I presume you are figruing Ross or Mac came back to life and tried to implement their exact same design on the same site?  I am sure the beaurocrats would have a few changes even on the best of sites, including setbacks from creeks, adjacent roads, etc. which are all greater today than back in the day.

And the real questions would be if the ragged bunkers would look the same if they put in modern irrigation.  Would the put in cart paths?  Would the tees be bigger, greens flatter?  Would there be ladies tees?  ETC ETC ETC

[Kyle Henderson]

Olympic and SFGC, why not?

My first thought was that these properties would be cost prohibitive, but I guess Sebonack and Friar's Head are doing just fine.

[Pat Burke]

Apparently anything in San Francisco would be out.  Hide your frogs.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the responses.  I am assuming land acquisition costs would be comparable.  In Minnesota, I suspect drainage of wetlands was commonplace and therefore would prevent many of the courses being built today.

[RJ_Daley]

Unless I miss my evaluation and memory of the character of the land upon which the course is built (no significant wetland or environmental areas) I  see no reason why Oak Ridge couldn't be built the same routing and shaping of greens, tees, etc.  Maybe a little low and swampy down there by Kelly's house.... 

[Phil McDade]

I kind of wonder if Milwaukee CC could be built today -- seven holes that cross or skirt the Milwaukee River -- which is a major and well-regarded fishing stream in these parts.

[JNagle]

Today's drainage standards and water retention and water rights (ownership) would have an impact on many great courses in PA or within the Chesapeake watershed (possibly the Delaware also).  The state wants to own and speak for every drop of rain water.  As we have worked in these areas in recent years one of the restrictions (when a governing body is in play) placed upon drainage is that no additional drain lines may be placed directly into an open water body.  By this we mean streams, lakes, ponds....... anything that ultimately discharges directly into the aforementioned watersheds.  So if you consider this standard and you look at the soils within these areas, typically clay, and the need to build a USGA green and drain bunkers it makes it difficult to do so and all the while incorporate streams and rivers into play as they did on many great PA courses.  Think of how much Flynn used stream crossings and such.  That is not to say one cannot find alternative solutions to drain a green or bunker.  There is also the restrictions placed upon cutting/filling within a floodplain.  You can get around such things but it takes time and money to permit and in the end you may not get the natural look one desires.

If you look outside of the water issues, so many classic era courses were very much lay of the land and not that expensive to build.  Look beside old greensites and you will see the area of cut used to generate the fill for a green.  Bunkers were often cut/fill in-place with little need for importing or exporting of material.  Tees we either placed at the top of a ridge and cut/fill in-place also.  Hauling of soil across a site was not that extensive.  Construction was very localized.

[Patrick_Mucci]

While this question is not originally mine, I think it is a good one.  Can you name any Golden Age course be built today given the economics of building such a course, the environmental restrictions and other governmental hurdles associated with building in the modern area and the liability concerns and buffer requirements associated with a modern course? 

Jason,

My intitial response would be any Golden Age Course where water was not a factor, either at the flanks (Pebble) or internally (Augusta)

Remediation would almost certainly alter what's there now from what would be permitted.

[Michael Essig]

You are so right about the LA clubs and anything on the coast of CA.  LACC used to pump oil from their property, and their land is probably a minimum of $1B to a developer (assuming 300 acres for the two courses), and the number could be multiples of that.  As for the coastline, I think you have to throw Torrey Pines (not a golden era course; late 1950's design) into the mix, because the Torrey Pine tree only grows in that area, making the Torrey Pine an endangered plant species.  Neither CA state or Feds would allow you to cut a single Torrey Pine tree down. Alternatively, it would make for interesting routing test to weave around every Torrey Pine tree on the property.

[Carl Rogers]

TPC Sawgrass, built in the early or the mid 70's??  Could it be done today on that site in its orginal condition?

[Zack Molnar]

How about Seminole? Wasn't there a lot of land movement and wetlands work on the site?

[Mark Johnson]

i dont see any reason Chicago couldnt be built today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How about Seminole? Wasn't there a lot of land movement and wetlands work on the site?

Doubtful, too many water issues and to close to the ocean

[Nigel Islam]

Could NGLA and Shinnecock be built today? What about Fisher's Island? Oakmont probably could not because of the turnpike.

[Scott Weersing]

What about Pine Valley? I think it could be built today also.

[Jon Wiggett]

Alwoodley, Moortown, Headingley.... infact most of Dr. Macs Yorkshire courses would still be viable builds today.

Jon

[Tom_Doak]

Could NGLA and Shinnecock be built today? What about Fisher's Island? Oakmont probably could not because of the turnpike.

If Sebonack could be built today, National and Shinnecock could ... although they would cost a lot more to build due to restrictions for lining the greens, etc.  The 14th hole at National would probably have had to be different, and the little wetland in front of 16th tee might have required big setbacks as well.