[Dan Moore]

Desert Forest made an inspired choice in selecting Dave Zinkand for a major renovation in 2013.  Zinkand who was the project manager for Coore & Crenshaw at Bandon Trails and We Ko Pa has accomplished a bold and imaginative updating of Red Lawrence’s 51 year old desert classic. 

The renovation was built around a need to rebuild all 18 push-up greens that had begun to suffer serious health issues and a desire to update bunkering that, while deep and well placed, had devolved into bland, visually boring, repetitive saucers. 

Zinkand also addressed what I had felt was the only major weakness of the course; the 14th and 15th holes which are back to back mid-length par 4’s that looked and played almost like the same hole and added other strategic flourishes that have greatly increased the allure of Desert Forest.  As you will see Zinkand’s work was anything but timid as one might expect for a young architect working on one of his first solo projects.

A common complaint of Desert Forest is that it is to narrow and unforgiving. During the renovation a large number of mesquite tree lining the fairways have been removed. A couple of fairways have been widened a bit here and there. This had had a dramatic effect of making the holes feel more open and inviting.

Dave Givnish and I will be working up a more detailed article so for now I’ll show a few highlights that showcases Dave Zinkand’s bold and dramatic work. 

#1
This photo shows the unhealthy mottled state of the greens prior to the renovation.  Lawrence picked a scenic site for this green which was originally the 10th hole.



#3
A back tee added in the 1970’s was removed restoring the nature of this hole as a tough to hit short par 3.





#6
The first hole to see significant change Dave proposed extending the green out to the right to take advantage of natural slopes for a ground approach to right hand flags. The green was raised while moving the right hand bunker more to the middle adding a great deal of interest to this short par 4.














#8
Another significant change with 25 yards added to the back tee (now 231 from the tips) and a reconfigured green site that eliminated the left to right, front to back character of the original green.  The green has been tied back into the bunkers on the left and the right hand bunker which was not part of the original course was eliminated.  I’m surprised the tree on the left which shades the green wasn’t removed along with the tree behind the green opening up the vista down the ninth hole. 







#11
One of my favorite holes on the course, eleven is a stylish par 5 that bends and flows with the natural slope of the land. It has been greatly enhanced by tree removal down the right side and near the green.  The old green perched above a grassed wash was completely disconnected from the surrounding terrain. The new green has been widened on the right and is much more integrated into the slopes rising from the wash.










#12
A good example of the new bunker style featuring grass lips.





#14
Originally a 343-369 par 4 the hole the green was moved 30-40 yards closer to the tee. This change in green position allowed the 15th tee to be lengthened which means these two holes are now clearly differentiated.

The new design was proposed to take advantage of a hump which is now located to the left side of the green and the natural left to right slope of the fairway.  Now a driveable par 4 the hole drops off to the right near the green making for a difficult short pitch if you don’t stay on the high ground to the left.  However, the hump to the left of the green and various slopes on the green bring into play various ground options for navigating this green. 

Altogether a brilliant addition which creatively utilizes the terrain to add the variety of a short, fun par 4.

[RJ_Daley]

That is some seriously good looking remodel work.  And, a very excellent series of comparative photos with an instructive narrative from Dan. 

The new grading contours and slopes on the greens, surrounds in-tune with approach avenues and bunker placements, not to mention the more natural looking style that now makes the course look like it is in place with its natural surrounds - rather than a manicured artificial contrivance placing a parkland looking course in a desert, hits the high note. 

 
 

[J_ Crisham]

Dan,  Nice pictures- congrats on the remodel! Good to see you have escaped Chicago- minus -18 as we speak- no golf today! Hope to see you when the weather breaks.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

Thanks.  Looks really good.  Looking forward to the full write up.  Hope you're utilizing the ground game options to their fullest since the only ground game in Chicago is the one at Soldier Field...   

[Mike Hendren]

Dave Givnish and I will be working up a more detailed article so for now I’ll show a few highlights that showcases Dave Zinkand’s bold and dramatic work.  

Dan, excellent post and kudos for your precise use of the terms "renovation" and "update."  The new work is indeed bold and dramatic.    I'm very fond of Desert Forest because in my opinion it exported simple practices of traditional parkland architecture to a bold and dramatic setting and environment.   In my one round there the juxtaposition was startling, brilliant and unique with the course almost playing second fiddle to nature.  I can't help but wonder if the course was not the short-lived apex of desert golf course architecture .  

I need to pull out my copy of Brad Klein's excellent club history this evening for a better retro-perspective, but I can't help but wonder if Red Lawrence would be a little disappointed.

I offer these comments as an observation, not a criticism.  The work appearas to be very well done.

Bogey

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Looks fantastic, cant wait to get back there again.
I loved the course before and now it only looks more appealing.

[Dave Givnish]

Dan - The tree to the left of #8 green has been removed. A number of other trees are also under consideration.

Opinions are mixed about the changes but the members are mostly positive at this point. The curb appeal of the course has been no doubt improved with the new bunkers and the tree removal. The changes are still a bit stark at this point and I suspect that will change some once the course is green and the newly created desert areas are vegetated. The changes should look more evolutionary then. 

Play from tee to green seems to be more fun as a result of additional forward tees. What is interesting is that the course is playing harder because of the bunkers and the new green contours, but the Golf Association lowered both the slope and the course ratings. Our handicaps should travel pretty well as a result.

We are adjusting to the new contours in the greens. The hardest part for me is trying to forget the local knowledge about the old greens. Some form of "What are we going to do when the greens speed up?" is heard often. The greens have been kept somewhere between 9 and 10. It won't take much more than 11.5 to make a number of greens scary. Zinkand introduced center line humps to a number of greens.

There are some strong negative opinions though. They stem mostly from what is seen as the club's departure from our heritage as an architecturally significant course that was laid on the land. In fairness, what was changed this summer was not exactly the course that Lawrence finished. The bunkers had been materially changed around 2000. Most of the trees that were removed had been planted through the 70's and 80's and tightened up the playing corridors.

I'm interested to see how the changes will be received on GCA after some of you get out to play the new course.

[Ronald Montesano]

What a great day for photographs.

[Dave McCollum]

I just played the course.  I think the work is fantastic, extremely well done, and very much with sensitive respect for Red Lawrence’s original creation.  When I returned home, I drug out my Confidential Guide to read what Tom Doak had to say about the course many years ago:

“Only the large, plain greens keep it from being my favorite desert layout.”

No worries about that now.  I didn’t see or play DF before the restoration and only had the benefit of Ran’s lyrical course description and other comments here as my preparation.  I expected the course to be very narrow and extremely difficult for a mediocre golfer like me.  When I got there and saw that the fairways had not been over-seeded (to limit the competition with the newly planted Bermuda), I gulped and thought “Oh great, it’s going to play fast as well; I’m going to shoot a 100.”  It was fast; probably the fastest unfrozen course I’ve ever played.  And, yes, it was a challenging test of golf.  However, it was one of the most enjoyable rounds of golf I have ever played anywhere.  In my view, the course is a thinking golfer’s paradise.  Every shot requires thought, choice, and execution, sometimes precise execution.  There are so many options on every hole, failure can only be the product of operator error, the guy hitting the shots.  There was plenty of room to play any game you wanted and some stern rewards for choosing or executing badly.  But when the shots came off as desired, I felt as exhilarated as I ever had with the game.

I sent my first shot wildly off into the desert.  Not a good start:  reload.  Made a slight adjustment, told myself I had to concentrate and play my game, and played the next twelve holes with the same ball.  I put that one into the desert only when I got overconfident and tried to take advantage of the fast conditions by bashing it as far as I could.  That’s an operator error on Desert Forest.  You must play with thought and respect.  The desert is beautiful to behold.  You don’t want to spend much time playing golf there.  The point I’m trying to make here is that the course is very playable and infinitely interesting, even to a hack like me, and that it will require your full attention.   

Two lost balls, both operator error, some pars, a birdie, some bogeys, a few others, and tons of fun.  As an example of desert golf, I thought it was a masterpiece.  The green complexes are fantastic.  They are slopey, full of subtle internal contours, and defended by some fierce, deep, and beautifully crafted bunkers.  They weren’t designed to be skating rinks at which to hit thoughtless shots or putts.  They were designed to fit seamlessly into a beautiful, thoughtful golf course in the Sonoran Desert.  If they are running at 12, they will be scary.  But why would anyone do that to a wonderful course?  Like lipstick on a sow, it’s just not right. 

I’m not much of a course critic.  I agree with those that think courses should be played and enjoyed, not rated.  That’s just me, I play golf for fun and have to admit that I can have fun playing golf on a crappy course with the right mates.  DF far exceeded my expectations and was a ton of fun to play.  Sure, it’s a challenging course, but for all of the right reasons. 

One can’t play there without noticing a certain aura about the club.  The range was full on weekday before our round, one of the last off for the day.  It was pretty busy at the turn and still had a few players out there at end of the day.  Dedicated golfers working on their games.  Great practice facilities.  A very comfortable and beautifully maintained facility.  Pure golf.  I commend the members for making the “bold and imaginative update of a desert classic.”  That took guts and respect for their course and the game.  No dumbing down to be found here.  You are lucky folks to be able to play your course.  I hope you enjoy it much, much more over time than I did on my one, fleeting visit.  I have the feeling that you will.  And thanks for providing a wonderful experience. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Overall, the new bunkering and the rebuilt greens are an improvement.  The new bunkers have a more natural flow and tie into the landscape better. And the greens have a more natural feeling flow with less of a geometrical feel.  That being said, the previous incarnation of the greens was awesome--Doak was wrong in stating that they were boring.  The two best improvements are the 7th green, which needed more pinnable places, and the new 14th hole.
There are 3 very big misses.  In fact, the 8th green is a complete messup with no ground game run up potential, which the previous green possessed.  The entire right half of the green will hold very few shots, and most shots hitting the right side of the green will end up on the dirt road.
The new greenside bunker fronting the 11th green takes away the runup shot for the average golfer.  Worse, for the higly skilled player, short shots used to be repelled and ended up with a difficult tight lie pitch.  Now, this bunker is absolutely heavenly forthe skilled player and up and downs could not be easier.  That is simply  a complete architectural failure.  The 11th used to be a brutal up and down for the good player, but an easy up onto the green for the not so good player.
The final miscue is the sloping of the 6th green.  The new right pin is awesome, but by remowing the tier, the running shot cannot be shaped to the right.  Over the years I witnessed many solid pars scored with a 40 yard runup to all pin positions;. 
Aside from removing the back tee on 17, the new back tees have brought back more approach shot variety.  The back tee on 7 has restored the strategic risk/reward in choosing left or right:

[Dave McCollum]

RMD—

I agree with you about the 8th green.  As I understand it, there was to be a reshaping and a compensating bunker right of the green, mitigating a runoff into the wash, which was never put in on this go around.  The day we played, the pin was right.  One shot landed within a foot of the pin and ended up in the wash.  Another (mine) was a little short and ended up in the same place.  Both looked like good shots, but neither player knew the contours or had much experience playing the hole.  The greens were firm.  We were playing hit-and-hope golf, based on what we saw from a long way from the green.  In my world, that isn’t a design mistake as much as a future adjustment combined with course knowledge that wasn’t available at the time.  The rest of your “misses” are based on what used to be there, a perspective I am totally ignorant about.     Not that my opinion counts for much, but a careful reading of your post seems like they got a lot of things right.  I’m sticking with the premise of my post that more good came from this work than harm and that a very good course has been elevated to another level.  Isn’t that a good thing?  Isn’t that what this website is all about, promoting good golf architecture?                 

[Tom_Doak]

That being said, the previous incarnation of the greens was awesome--Doak was wrong in stating that they were boring. 

Not sure the word I used was "boring," I don't have the book in front of me.  But the greens were too simple and repetitive, with lots of steep back-to-front slopes.  In fact, I am surprised in some of the other comments here to hear that they are worried the greens will be tougher when they are fast ... from what I remember of the course [and it's been 15 years] the old greens had to be kept a bit slow because of all the tilt.

[Mike Hendren]

Let's stipulate that the greens were boring, too simple, repetitive whatever. 

The current trend to "create" pervasive and dramatic interior green contours threatens architectural integrity and diversity in my book.  Route a course any way you wish, place bunkers wherever (provided they have jagged edges!) you want (throw at least one in the fairway to appease that crowd) and pay no attention to wind direction and yardage variances AS LONG AS YOU CREATE WILD GREEN CONTOURS!

While you guys are throwing Lawrence under the bus, toss Donald J. Ross under there with him.  Old Tom Morris could use the company.

Mike

Pardon the rant but I'm re-reading Richard Foster's A Celebration of Discipline where there is a chapter on simplicity.  It's underrated.

[Jud_T]

Bogey,

Just based on the pictures it doesn't exactly look like there's a bunch of buried elephants out there.  If they can tear up the Old Course, I guess a sensitive restoration/renovation of a desert golf course falls somewhere below Chernobyl and Bhopal on the list of crimes against the earth.  If anything, the trend these days is to REDUCE steep slopes that can't stand up to today's green speeds.  Why don't we just judge what's on the ground now when we get a chance to see it in person?  In particular, I'll be interested to hear what Brad Klein has to say about the work.

[Tom_Doak]

The current trend to "create" pervasive and dramatic interior green contours threatens architectural integrity and diversity in my book. 

Mike

Pardon the rant but I'm re-reading Richard Foster's A Celebration of Discipline where there is a chapter on simplicity.  It's underrated.

Michael:

I was not saying that I thought the greens should be redesigned.  In fact, I'm quite surprised that the club allowed significant changes to the greens -- they sure weren't interested in that 15-20 years ago. 

Most likely they felt like the greens had too much back to front slope for today's speeds and HAD TO BE softened, if nothing else.  I can't tell from the descriptions how much they were redesigned otherwise with internal contours etc.

[Mike Hendren]

JT, based upon the pictures (and notwithstanding your attempt to discredit me since I don't routinely swing by there ) I actually LIKE what I see.   I happen to think that this is a very unique golf course in the history of golf course architecture for two reasons:  1) traditional golf design in an environment that was new to the game; and 2) from both date and design perspective the course, perhaps more than any other, is a bridge between the classic and modern eras.  I'm not big into museum pieces, but I think this course is one. As a member, I would likely think otherwise, so the work there makes sense from the membership's perspective.  And it's their call.  I suspect the course is "better" now.

Again, I could be all washed up since I couldn't find my club history last night.

I would be interested in learning about the evolution of the membership, particularly over the past 20 years.  My guess is that younger members favored the changes while older members lament them.  Locally, I've seen that dynamic backfire at a Richland CC that no longer exists and at another well-heeled club in town that has mostly obliterated Donald Ross' work through three significant renovations over the past 50 years. 

[Mike Hendren]

The current trend to "create" pervasive and dramatic interior green contours threatens architectural integrity and diversity in my book. 

Mike

Pardon the rant but I'm re-reading Richard Foster's A Celebration of Discipline where there is a chapter on simplicity.  It's underrated.

Michael:

I was not saying that I thought the greens should be redesigned.  In fact, I'm quite surprised that the club allowed significant changes to the greens -- they sure weren't interested in that 15-20 years ago. 

Most likely they felt like the greens had too much back to front slope for today's speeds and HAD TO BE softened, if nothing else.  I can't tell from the descriptions how much they were redesigned otherwise with internal contours etc.

Then why didn't they simply slow down the speeds to save capital expenditure and routine maintenance expense?  My speculation is that's not what the younger members want and they easily carried the day since a historically older membership is dying off.

I do believe the course looks improved and that the work is well done.  My comments should therefore be more congratulatory in tone and content.   I'm just itching for a little debate today.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Dan implied, but didn't say specifically that the greens had become unhealthy and mottled.  I assume that means the need and desire to re-grass with a new and very fast cultivar.  Given all the water restrictions and regulations to perhaps take an allotment of effluent under possibly new imposed water/effluent regs, isn't it possible that permitting greatly influenced the redesigns of green slopes and bunker placements also considering sprinkler throw and quantity reqirements.  I wonder if Don Mahaffey might have some insight into water/irrigation issues that could have driven design configuration?

[Dave Givnish]

The greens were "multicolored" from generations of bent cultivars returning to parent strains. Mottled is a fair description. The drainage was poor at best. We'd struggled with this for several years. The new greens have a uniform 12" green base with an up to date drainage system and were done in A4 bent. The speeds are being kept intentionally slow for the first 6 months. Remember that these were only seeded over Labor Day weekend in 2013.

There was quite a discussion about green speeds during the construction process. The target for green speed in the old maintenance standard was between 11 and 12. Before 2004, the greens in the winter could get much quicker than that because they weren't watered very much as the course was dormant. With the new contours, there is a faction that still wants to see 12 and 13 speeds. I don't think that the members in general are pushing for quicker conditions. If we could keep the greens firm, the current speed is probably just fine. That would reduce maintenance costs somewhat. However, the new bunkers require a lot more maintenance so it's probably a wash.

The comments on the 8th green are fair. There is an approach up the left side but it's narrow. I've not had much success trying to come in from the right as the shots do move off the green if they have speed coming in. Moving the pot bunker a bit to the right might fix the problem if it opens up the left side some.

DF is on well water so effluent use is not an issue. I'm not sure if there was an impact on design from permitting requirements but I'll check.

[Dave McCollum]

Brad Klein can do his own commenting.  I did read an end-of-year-summary interview where he specifically cited Zinkand’s restoration at DF as an example of talented young archies entering the business.  I also heard that BK thought that the Masterplan proposal was one of the best he’d seen. 

[Dan Moore]

A few comments.

In general, aside from those holes that saw significant changes (6 and 14) and the style of the bunkers which I feel are a vast improvement, the overall bunkering scheme does seem to be more in the spirit of a restoration where original bunker sites were maintained and several bunkers added somewhere in the 70's and 80's were removed.  The only photos I have seen of the original course showed rather shallow bunkers.  The bunkers in my before photos are likely not at all like what Lawrence built originally.   

Likewise with the exception of 6, 8 and 14 the greens generally seem to be in the spirit of the originals, but I feel I need to see the course again to really have an opinion on that as its hard right now to know what they will be like when the speeds pick up. Some of the greens did have strong back to front slopes but not all. 4 and 5 had big false fronts on the right and left sides respectively.  Some like 3 and 8 went from back to front and 17 feel off to the left.  There were a lot of subtle interior undulations that came alive at high speeds.  A big factor were slopes that played against the natural tilt toward the valley in Phoenix where local knowledge would really help out.  As a relatively  new member I always felt I was at a disadvantage. 

I'm not in the loop as an out of towner who shows up for 2-3 trips a winter but as far as I know the club thought long and hard before deciding the greens needed to be rebuilt.  In the end they felt the health issues with the push-up greens where inconsistent profiles of native soil were at odds with a sand layer that had built up in recent years couldn't be resolved with new drainage alone.  Dave can correct me if he has different information but I don't think the need to soften greens to accommodate faster speeds was a major factor in the decision to rebuild.  Personally I never had a problem with the array of colors and grasses presented and thought that they played really well until last year when a couple seemed to be really struggling. 

The jury does seem to be out on 8.  I really liked the original green which sloped hard from front left to back right and you always needed to play to the left half of the green.  Now it looks like the back was built up perhaps to help hold longer shots.  The right hand bunker was not original and its absence along with the dormant grass not stopping anything seems to be causing more balls to end up in the wash.  I wouldn't know since I was in the front bunker both days I played.

RMD not sure I agree with you on 11.  I see your point and agree the up and downs were difficult around that green but the bunker does pose a mental hazard when you have a short club in and there are still plenty of places to miss short other than the bunker.  I'm not sure what purpose the original bunker far left behind the tree served.  Eleven might have been a good candidate for no bunker at all.  But getting rid of the tree near the green, and even more so, the trees along the right hand side of the fairway are a major improvement in my opinion. 

As far as member support there were only a handful of no votes when the project was approved. 

[Jud_T]

Dan et. al,

Now that another season is almost in the books- How has the renovation been received?  Any further changes or thoughts now that things have had a bit of time and experience to settle in?

[Mark_Fine]

Desert Forest was one of my favorite desert courses!  A Red Lawrence design (Lawrence worked for Flynn).  If you studied Flynn, you could immediately see the similarities in Lawrence's work their.  The course had just aged over time as all courses do and had been tweaked and lost some of it original luster.  The bunkers were tired and grassing lines had been altered.  Pretty normal stuff.  From the photos, it now looks like a very nice C&C style design and if that is what the club wanted, so be it.  I am more of a purist and I would retained/restored the Lawernce/Flynn look and appeal as I loved that original design.  It was the best and most unique in the desert - simple yet very complex!

[Mac Plumart]

I regret only having played the current version of the course, as I would love to have compared and contrasted the two versions.

However, I was there in January and was very impressed. Great walk, interesting shots that required you to think before striking the ball, excellent bunker placement, and interesting greens.

If I was in Phoenix a lot, I would do my very best to become a member. It is my kind of coure and club.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I played there a few weeks ago and the course/grown in was looking very good.
My first reaction at the end of the round was quite simple..
I would like to see the results if a poll was tekn as to the members like or dislike.
The remodel has made a tough course even tougher in my mind, that is not a critisim unless as a member you didnt want it to play any tougher.
Greens are tougher in terms of angles of landing areas and slopes away from the centres of greens.
The bunkering looks great but is certainly more penal around the greens than it was.
A very tough course now, and wasnteasy before.

It has always been my favourite desert course in that area, and remains that way, just now have to bring even more game.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()