Trump International Golf Links profile is posted ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I agree, reasonable compromise would seem to be the best method for developing golf courses.

As to the issue of "promises made", it's not like we're discussing love sick adolescents, these were seasoned politicians and bureaucrats who were intimately involved in the pre-project discussions.

If someone wanted my approval and they were touting 200, 2,000 or 6,000 jobs, I'd want a detailed analysis confirming same.

Why would you settle for less ?

[Chris DeNigris]

Patrick

I think you hit the nail on the head. There has to be a compromise. In this instance the compromise was made on the promise of six or seven thousand jobs depending on which side of the bed Donald got out of on any particular day. It would appear those claims were spurious to say the least.

Niall

The planning application that Trump submitted estimated 4600 new jobs (mostly temp construction jobs during the build out phases) with 1200-1400 new permanent jobs resulting from ongoing operations, including jobs gained from the residual economic activity in the local area. There were multiple independent economic analysis reports/studies conducted by the local council and the national gov't that validated Trump's Deloitte economic report. The estimated time for build out used was 7 years.

BTW there were/are several Scottish national economic forecasts on record at the time of application that estimated a drop of ~9000 oil industry jobs in the Aberdeen/NE Scotland region by 2015 and upwards of 15,000 going away by 2020.

So while some have correctly pointed out the relatively rosy current and recent employment numbers in the Aberdeen area- The large scale development project proposed by Trump was embraced by most of the local business people in the area/region from a long term economic and tourism standpoint.

Hopefully the 2nd course will get built along with the hotel (smaller version) and a chunk of the other residential development so that the local economy can benefit to the greatest extent still possible. I'd like to spend a couple of days there in 2016. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I still can't figure out why the opposition to the project was so strident from a few.

"GOLF" and Scotland are inextricably linked.

If TOC, Western Gailes, Troon, Turnberry, Prestwick, etc, etc., were being built today, would the opposition be as strident ?

OR, is the only reason, "The Donald" ?

And, if it is only "The Donald", then they're all morons 

[Garland Bayley]

Chris,

I still can't figure out why the opposition to the project was so strident from a few.

"GOLF" and Scotland are inextricably linked.

If TOC, Western Gailes, Troon, Turnberry, Prestwick, etc, etc., were being built today, would the opposition be as strident ?

OR, is the only reason, "The Donald" ?

And, if it is only "The Donald", then they're all morons 

Patrick,

Why are you being so dense? The site was designated
SSSI - Sites of Special Scientific Interest

A loose analogy is the land near Bandon. Not far north of Bandon is Oregon Dunes National Recreation area. I would be opposed to building golf courses there. However, as you know, the Bandon Resort was built on a gorse choked piece of land that was a fire hazard. I have no objection to building golf courses there.

There are other people in the world besides golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

A fire hazard to whom ?

It was uninhabited and essentially a land locked bluff.

What harm did Bandon's development do to the environment ?

Ditto Trump ?

Just because the area was designated SSSI doesn't mean that the introduction of a golf course within that designated area will be harmful to the environment.

Can you list the damage to the environment for us ?

[Connor Dougherty]

Connor,

What damage to the environment did NGLA, Shinnecock, Southampton, Maidstone, GCGC and Pine Valley cause ?

Ditto TOC, Turnberry, Troon, Prestwick, Muirfield, etc, etc.

Certainly NGLA is a manufactured golf course, but I fail to see what damage to the environment the construction caused.

While we're on the subject, what damage to the environment did the construction of the structures on Manhattan Island cause, and is the human race better or worse off because of that construction ?

Hard to imagine that 200 acres of a golf course has such an enormous impact on the environment

Patrick,
As I had mentioned in my previous post, almost all of the golf courses you mention were built long ago, with the benefit of not knowing the damage they may have caused. I am also not familiar with environmental damage as it pertains to NGLA, Shinnecock, Southampton, Maidstone, and many of the other courses that you listed. The best these golf courses can do now is be stewards of the game, using less water, fewer fertilizers and pesticides. That's how we should judge them. (If I'm not mistaken I believe that's also the premise for GOLFWEEK's classic and modern ranking system).

For what it's worth, TOC has a high biodiversity, which, combined with its very natural contours, leads to a very sustainable golf course. It's environmental damage, since its inception, has been very limited. It is dealing with a perfect climate, long established grasses, great drainage, and a willingness to let one or two imperfections in when it leads to the overall health of the course. Muirfield didn't even have an irrigation system for the 1992 Open Championship.

I do agree that it is hard to imagine that 200 acres has an enormous impact on the environment. The issue rises when every course is built in a similar manner. If this only occurs once then the impact is not all that important. It becomes a much bigger problem when ignoring experts on environmentally sensitive pieces of land becomes the norm, and a standard criticism becomes, "Why didn't you just ignore said environmental rule so the finished product was superior?"

On the topic of Manhattan, it was a city built largely with the benefit of not knowing the environmental damage caused by building such a large city on the island. There were a few things they got right, for one, the fact that you can easily walk and take public transport around the city. Is man kind better off with Manhattan as it is now? I would say yes (and I'm sure there's a few who would say no, but let's leave them out of this for now), for many reasons, one of which is the limited footprint for such a large population (compared to, say, LA, which is one of the most poorly designed cities from an environmental standpoint for the sole reason that its population occupies a LARGE footprint, and auto transit has drastically weakened air quality and caused all sorts of problems).

But Manhattan isn't golf. It's where humans live and function as members of society, and the island has improved life for man kind. I love golf, and I dearly hope to see many of the places you mentioned, but if I were asked if golf has improved live for man kind it would be incredibly hard for me to say yes. In fact, as of now, I'm certain the answer is no to that question. I would like to think that in the future golf has a negated impact on mankind and the game will bring joy to others like it has me.

As for the gorse choked land at Bandon, it's detailed in Dream Golf that the land was once choked with gorse, which, because of its flammability, led to the town being burned down on a few occasions. The golf course is supposed to act as a barrier in case there were another gorse fire.

I would liked to have seen the environmental impact of Bandon but I haven't yet. I certainly will be watching it much more closely for Bandon Muni given the environmental concerns around the project.

I try to remain consistent on this issue, and not let my bias against Trump and Hawtree get in the way of what I truly believe. But I have seen experts say over and over again that Trump destroyed an environmental treasure, ignore planning commissions and forced the government to look the other way. I think that should take away from the final product. The same should be said for any other project, regardless of how much we like the owner and the architect.

Note that when I say "experts" I'm referring to established scientists. They are in the same category of people who have shown how Sharp Park has indeed helped save the frog and the snake, rather than people who have very limited understanding of what is occurring within each environment and are determined to rid of golf because of their preconceived notions (which are only bolstered by projects like Trump International Golf Links).

[Patrice Boissonnas]

I played Trump National Scotland on a perfect day last October coming back from a beautiful 3 day trip in the Highlands including rounds at Nairn, Dornoch and Castle Stuart.
I have to say I didn’t like TNS. Part of my disappointment was probably due to my expectations being too high (but wasn’t TNS heralded as the best course in the world?) or simply because it’s hard for a young course to compare to the Inverness gems.
I am sure the course will slightly improve with time, but I think most of my dislike has to do with the design itself.
In my opinion, there is nothing really wrong with TNS, but there is nothing great either, and that’s where I disagree with those who praise this Hawtree design.
I have to admit some views are stunning. Standing on the 6th or the 14th tee is as good as it gets, and you can’t have a bad time playing among towering dunes.
So much for the vista but I was expecting much more from a design point of view.
I don’t think there is any world class hole on this course, nothing that has the charm, the originality, the personality or the subtlety of the very best links courses.
I can’t remember any hole being special and making me want to come back and play again.
It feels like the design team was trying so hard to reach perfection that they didn’t make any gutsy choice as for the strategy. In the end, you play very common golf at TNS which is not what I expected from the project. Why did they have to flatten all the fairways rather than letting nature express itself?
You may call it an Americanized version of a links but what’s the purpose of it? Thank God they didn’t bring their waterfalls.
On top of that, I think the bunkering is awful: why always replicate the same pot bunker and multiply it everywhere like pimples on a teenager’s face? Look at holes like 4, 16 and 18: isn’t it ridiculous? What about creativity and variety? Was there any inspired creator in there? Look at the bunkers at Muirfield! Doesn’t it look much better?
Maybe my criticism comes down to this: I can’t find the passion at TNS. I can’t feel the sweat and tears this site would have deserved.

TNS is a good product, a nice enjoyable golf course, but nowhere near to be a great one.
Next time I am in the Aberdeen area I will play Royal Aberdeen and Cruden Bay rather than TNS.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for highlighting the positives and negatives with this course in its current state.  I will be interested to see how perceptions of the course change over time and whether the ryegrass goes away. 

I think I will wait a bit before slapping down the money required for this course.  I have too many other courses I know I want to see.

[Tom_Doak]

I expect to take three profiles live this week and they will all be of courses that I prefer to this week’s Open site.

In the case of nodding toward Trump International over Muirfield, the reasons are straightforward. They both have similarities in terms of revetted bunkers that are tactically placed and green complexes that are varied. No one will accuse either set of green complexes of being St. Andrews-esque and that’s fine - the challenge is nicely balanced from tee to green. The deciding element though is the land upon which they are built. A HUGE tick in the plus column goes to Trump International. Only nature can create the highs like those found at the 3rd, 6th and 14th holes. Muirfield’s ‘auld watery meadow’ is no match. Again, not talking about where you would rather have a long lunch - I am strictly talking golf holes. Thus, while Trump International doesn’t have a lick of tradition compared to the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers, I still find a game there more rewarding/compelling.

I wonder if Ran still feels this way after watching The Open this week.  Probably so, he has a blind spot for Muirfield.

I only posted this because I ran across the following at golf.com, where writers were asked what they thought of Muirfield:

Bamberger: Oh, completely great. If you don't like Muirfield you have absolutely a weird sense of golf. Playing it might be a different matter -- I'd rather play up the street at North Berwick -- but for a good player it's absolutely one of the best. And the setting is profoundly lovely, civilized and timeless.

[Sean_A]

In the case of nodding toward Trump International over Muirfield, the reasons are straightforward. They both have similarities in terms of revetted bunkers that are tactically placed and green complexes that are varied. No one will accuse either set of green complexes of being St. Andrews-esque and that’s fine - the challenge is nicely balanced from tee to green. The deciding element though is the land upon which they are built. A HUGE tick in the plus column goes to Trump International. Only nature can create the highs like those found at the 3rd, 6th and 14th holes. Muirfield’s ‘auld watery meadow’ is no match.

I don't know which I would choose to play again, but to compare the bunkering between the two as some sort of wash is a nonsense. 

I also disagree about the land.  Muirfield is not dramatic, but the land is fine.  Trump on the other hand, is far too wild to be considered along with the very best courses.  The land dictates a certain modern style if we are to throw away the idea of blind shots and generally outside the box architecture.  This is Trump's major failing.  The land doesn't scream modern architecture, yet that is what was planted.  The land calls for a much more daring style of architecture which in truth probably wouldn't have met with the goal of holding championships.  Unlike Muirfield, which I believe got the most out of the site, Trump doesn't embrace the land for what it is and that is why I think it is nowhere near a home run. 

Both are great courses, but for very different reasons. 

Tom - while I enjoyed Muirfield, I couldn't help thinking that it would have been a much more exciting championship if St Andrews of Sandwich were the venue.  The conditions heightens the value of funky architecture - something Muirfield lacks in its quest to be a stern championship test.

Ciao

[Kirk Gill]

On first glance, the 18th at TIGL reminds me of the 16th at Pradera. Am I wrong?

[Steve Lapper]

I've just heard from my very good source within the Trump Organization that several of the concerns and criticisms made by many about the course  are now scheduled to be remedied in short order. I'm told the ryegrass found in the fairways and surrounds will be sequentially gassed out and replaced by 100% fescues. As I understand it, other changes, in response to what have been reasonable suggestions, are to follow.

Say whatever you like about the Donald , but I do credit he and his people for responding to what was a most certainly a fair criticism.

[Adam Lawrence]

Steve - I'm not sure what 'gassed out' means in this context. In the US, the phrase would normally indicate the use of methyl bromide, but that chemical is illegal in the European Union. There is, as discussed earlier in this thread, a new-ish selective herbicide, Rescue, that kills perennial rye without taking out other species, but it's not a straightforward process, and it's foolish to imagine that the rye will be eliminated and replaced by a fescue-dominated stand in short order.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve - I'm not sure what 'gassed out' means in this context. In the US, the phrase would normally indicate the use of methyl bromide, but that chemical is illegal in the European Union. There is, as discussed earlier in this thread, a new-ish selective herbicide, Rescue, that kills perennial rye without taking out other species, but it's not a straightforward process, and it's foolish to imagine that the rye will be eliminated and replaced by a fescue-dominated stand in short order.

Adam,

  I'm no greenskeeper, nor a grass expert, so I defer to you. I do know that my source within the Trump Organization believes whatever the work involved, they intend to get the course to fescue and will likely start later this season. How long it takes, I've no idea? Gotta start somewhere, no?

[Adam Lawrence]

For sure. But it will not be a straightforward process. Other links course (such as Royal Cinque Ports) that have sought to remove weed grasses and increase the proportion of fescues and bents in their fairways have taken several years of sustained effort to do so.

[Sean_A]

Steve

Wasn't it always the case the bents & fescues would eventually be seeded?  Hence the reason for the controversy over using rye in the short term?

Adam - We have been on more or less the same program as Deal.  It takes a along time to weed out meadow grasses.  I think we have been at it for about 5 years now.  The generally wet weather during that period hasn't helped.

Ciao 

[Mark Pearce]

The Deal BUDA was during their program to get rid of  meadow grasses from the fairways.  The results have been excellent, from a subsequent visit and the course played fine during that BUDA but some areas of fairway were ugly as sin.  Will the Donald allow that at Trump International?

[Steve Lapper]

Adam & Sean,

It was always my understanding that the rye grasses were used to make the fairways playable for what amounted to a premature opening date. I surmise that they will now try their best to work out a feasible plan to see fescues populate the turf, regardless of the consequences of appearance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Would a strident commitment and an unlimited budget expedite the process/conversion ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Adam & Sean,

It was always my understanding that the rye grasses were used to make the fairways playable for what amounted to a premature opening date. I surmise that they will now try their best to work out a feasible plan to see fescues populate the turf, regardless of the consequences of appearance.

Steve,

the fairways were playable anyway before the ryegrass overseed.

Jon

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam,

Would a strident commitment and an unlimited budget expedite the process/conversion ?

I will defer to the likes of Jon, who have forgotten more about growing in fescue than I will ever know, but I honestly don't see how.

Possibly they can, with enough commitment and enough cash, find a quick way to eliminate the rye without wrecking everything else. But once they have done so, they are back to the situation that existed before the rye went down. The existing fescue will be more mature, sure, but there will still be large areas that lack coverage, and then what? We know from experience that you cannot push a fescue grow in too hard, because if you do, the extra fertility means the weed grasses return.

I agree with Jon, based on the evidence of what I saw last year, that in most cases, the fairways would have been playable without the rye overseed. The possible exceptions, and where there was most rye last year, were the eighth and ninth. I have not been there this year, but from what those who have are saying, there is more rye around now then there was in 2012, which implies the problem of how to grow in the fescue while maintaining a level of presentation with which the operators feel comfortable is, if anything, even greater.

And my central question is this: if there was not sufficient budget or commitment in 2012 to complete the grow in with traditional links grasses, what reason is there to suppose it has appeared now, when the challenge is likely to be greater still? Comparing photos of Trump this summer to every other links I have seen shows clearly how much greener the course is than anywhere comparable. This doesn't speak to me of an operation that is serious about a rapid transition to a traditional sward and mode of maintenance, because it's not as simple as just growing in the fescue. If you don't manage for fescue, you'll lose it. End of story.

[Sean_A]

Brian

The 18th is a slog and a very poor finish to the game.  I can understand why its so long - the course has to try and get somewhere near the house at the finish.  As it is, its a slog to the house after the game.  Something went badly amiss.  That said, the 17th is one of the best holes on the course so sacrificing it would be tough. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

That hole just doesn't look right for Scotland, does it. It looks more like a standard hole on a desert layout (elevated tee, flat fairway littered with bunkers) than the closing hole of the 50th ranked golf course in the World. I suppose I'll need to see it for myself but it just doesn't look my cuppa from what I am seeing and hearing.

Brian,

I would not put it top 50 in the UK at the moment. Just shows you can buy ranking

Jon

[Paul Gray]

It almost looks as if it was designed by someone that doesn't actually play the game. Oh. 

But seriously, despite my objections to the course ever having been built, I've never previously questioned the quality of the layout. This however does look decidedly odd. I've tried to imagine it without the ridiculously out of place fairway patterns but I'm not sure that it changes too much.

[Alex Miller]

*selects bunker*
"ctrl+c"

"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"
"ctrl+v"

Beyond the huge contrast of the fairways (and their contours) to the surrounding dunes, this is all I see. The same bunker, overused and not all that flattering or in keeping with the large sand dunes found around the course.

Hope I get to play it so I can be proved wrong. There is no doubt it's a stunning setting and the course looks very much playable, but do you need 20 bunkers on a 650 yard finishing hole that also has water in play and supposedly great land to golf on already there?