Without question, the answer is trees!

[Mark_Fine]

We all know that many existing courses are doing bunker remodels, changing grassing lines, adding native areas, reducing water usage, expanding shrunken greens, adding forward and back tees, …, but the single biggest change that golf courses across the country and around the world are making to their courses is the removal/management of trees!  Will this continue or is this another fad the will wane and courses will revert back to the arboretums that many designs turned into? 

[Carl Rogers]

To offer a contrary note, I make 2 observations:
1. Oakmont; having been born, grown up, went to school, now live, in various parts of the eastern US, I find the tree-less landscape jarring and un-natural.  A few specimens in very infrequent intervals and numbers, in my very unlearned opinion, would make the course-landscape seem more in place.  Trees are a part of the eastern US.
2. The course I know best, Riverfront ... Some planting in some clusters on the perimeters of various holes would help soften the impact of the development.

[Ian Mackenzie]

We made a very simple analogy when asked this question by (rightfully) concerned members.


Member A: "OMFG, you guys are nuts. Why are you taking all these trees down? I love trees."


Cmte Member: "Thanks, Mr. A. BTW, do you have a garden at home?"


Member A: "Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with anything?"


Cmte: "Do you ever weed your garden?"


Member: "Of course I do but I fail to see the correlation."


Cte: "Why do you weed your garden?"


Member; "So the weeds dont take over the place and strangle my roses and tulips. Plus, they are ugly....oh, I see now....."

[John Connolly]

You have to find a way to make trees serve the golf course, not the other way around. Put a saddle on 'em. They do have a place in a parkland setting ... an important one. They need to be there - they contribute structure, aesthetics and sometimes strategy. It's not about getting rid of trees on parkland golf courses. It's about making sure the ones that are present contribute. No tree gets a free ride - it must justify itself.

[Mark_Fine]

Carl,
I agree with you there are times where trees are needed and/or beneficial.   Fownes did for example plant trees at Oakmont near the tees and that was missed by Fazio and the club when they did the massive removal.  Not surprising as the Fazio group doesn't pay much attention to detail if hired to do "restoration".  Best to only use them if you want to redesign your golf course.

Ian,
Good story and analogy.  Trees are always the most challenging aspect to deal with of any course renovation and require the most time and education to get golfers/members to understand.

John,
Great point about parkland courses.  By definition, parkland courses have trees but they need to have purpose and be integrated properly with the course design. 

My real point of this post was that TREES have gotten more attention in course renovation over the last 15 years than any other architectural feature!  Will it continue or will it wane like most fads in golf course design? 

[Niall C]

Not sure how many of those that have posted on this thread are UK based but from my perspective of being resident in Scotland I really don't think the tree removal craze has caught on over here. My own course has recently removed a number of trees (as well as much gorse) at the behest of Martin Hawtree/Paul Kimber however I very much doubt many clubs over here employ recognised GCA's to give them advice on anything.


In fact I suspect that for every tree removed from a golf course in the UK over the last couple of decades, that about ten have been planted in its place.



So if GCA's aren't there to give clubs advice, how else is the message going to get out there to the ordinary golfing public ? Any thoughts ?


Niall

[Steven Blake]

As long as water shortage is a concern tree removals will still be in play as a great tool. So will out of play areas/natural/fescue areas.

Blake

[Niall C]

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on what way you look at it, water shortages generally aren't a problem in Scotland 


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Niall,


Parkland private members courses down south seem to be tree-hugger land.


Trees and scrub and foliage generally just keeps on sprouting and growing so unless dealt with promptly it tends to get too big to cut down surprisingly soon. I suggest one factor is that parkland golf courses are no longer grazed by animals chomping away at freshly sprouting roots etc, ie eating them before they grow to a size large enough to become a issue, and that this has contributed to matters over the decades. But golfers don't tend to appreciate animal droppings.


BIGGA, the greenkeepers association, ought to be a key player in this matter but their members are I would suggest hamstrung by the club committee's they work under and golf club committee's usually think they know best so tend to be resistant to taking notice of greenstaff or bringing in someone knowledgable from outside. There's also a direct cost factor in bringing in an advisor and committee's don't normally have sufficient vision to realise that some prompt outside advice can save time and money in the longer term. A kind of chicken and egg situation.


And there's the influence of the great god of TV golf, almost always transmitting from some beautiful looking tree lined course where the sun is shining, the sand is yellow and the sea or ponds are attractive shades of blue.


Time for some night-time use of hammers and copper nails!


atb

[Niall C]

Atb


There used to be a certain greenkeeper of a championship course north of Dundee, who every time there was a storm, would go out at night and cut down a few trees and then blamed it on the wind ! However I doubt that many greenkeepers would be willing to go to those lengths though doing something through BIGGA seems like a good idea.


Niall

[John Connolly]

Mark,


I think trees have been a point of focus of design and restoration because there has been a fundamental need for that to be the case. They are tightly coupled phenomena. Once courses return to strategic play upon healthy turf, emphasis in design can shift. But I would expect the tree problem to be cyclical. The clearing that has been occurring at American courses over the last 10-20 years has been due to the over planting that occurred after the Dutch Elm disease blight and/or ongoing native tree growth. Design had to deal with the problem when it came home to roost. But courses are biologic and geologic entities at their core and will forever exist as such - grass will grow, trees will sprout, riverbanks will erode. Design's emphasis will adapt and evolve in kind.

[Brad Treadwell]

It seems to me that the ODG's knew what it took to grow grass, at least that turf needs light and air.  Most the trees that are being cut down at courses are trees planted by Committees over the years to fill in the empty spaces around the entire golf course, which have impacted not only turf, but width, strategy, vistas, etc.  Tree Management shouldn't be a trend but an ongoing practice that manages these plants that grow.  If clubs had been managing their tree populations over the last 50 years appropriately, they wouldn't be in the position they are currently in, where hundreds or thousands of trees need to come down. 

[Marc Haring]

I know a club pro whose very definition of a quality golf course is one where every hole is surrounded by trees on all sides to the point of total isolation. When you have influential people like that there is little hope.

[Paul Gray]

Niall, Thomas et al are absolutely right about golf over here. Tree removal is currently the preserve of clubs at the upper end of the spectrum. Lesser clubs almost always see more trees as a sign of quality.

[Carl Rogers]

Admittingly, a smart and at times aggressive tree management/removal is required .....
The prudent medium seems hard to execute ......

[Thomas Dai]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Harry Colt planted trees at Sunningdale. Correct or duff information and if correct does anyone know why?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Colt was one of the first architects to prepare recommend tree planting plans for his golf courses.  He had enough vision to see that clubs might end up planting trees and figured since it was his design, he should suggest where they go (as well as the types of specimens).  Some other architects followed suit.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks Mark.
Atb

[Ian Andrew]

Mark,


I agree with your assesment


I think from an "inputs and sustainability" perspective, it can only increase
It's far from a fad, it's the new reality ...


I think we'll see a tendency to more open landscapes and more preservation of ground based native vegetation

[Mark_Fine]

Ian,
I am sure you are seeing the same as me and everyone else; it is almost impossible to take on a project and not have to deal with trees.  My hope going forward is that courses/clubs are smarter about tree management.  However, I still think it will ebb and flow as most things do in golf course architecture.  We have seen all kinds of cycles in golf course design and that will only continue into the future. 


One of the courses that has not followed suit is Augusta National.  Yes they are dealing with trees but they are planting more than they are removing.  I still remember standing in the 15th fairway and looking at all those newly planted pines that not only block long range views but force boring chipouts and funnel all play down the middle.  What a great missed opportunity to put in an old elongated Mackenzie style bunker that would have kept the views open and enhanced strategy rather than hindered it.  Would you prefer to see a player pitch the ball back in play 90% of the time or have to deal with the temptation to go for the green or not from 220-240 yards in the bunker?  To me the answer is obvious.


Mark

[Marc Haring]

Ian,
I am sure you are seeing the same as me and everyone else; it is almost impossible to take on a project and not have to deal with trees.  My hope going forward is that courses/clubs are smarter about tree management.  However, I still think it will ebb and flow as most things do in golf course architecture.  We have seen all kinds of cycles in golf course design and that will only continue into the future. 


One of the courses that has not followed suit is Augusta National.  Yes they are dealing with trees but they are planting more than they are removing.  I still remember standing in the 15th fairway and looking at all those newly planted pines that not only block long range views but force boring chipouts and funnel all play down the middle.  What a great missed opportunity to put in an old elongated Mackenzie style bunker that would have kept the views open and enhanced strategy rather than hindered it.  Would you prefer to see a player pitch the ball back in play 90% of the time or have to deal with the temptation to go for the green or not from 220-240 yards in the bunker?  To me the answer is obvious.


Mark

Good call Mark.


That would be a mouth watering prospect and I would even suggest that it would be popular with the Pro's

[Mark_Fine]

Marc,
When they call me to fix it, I will let you know  .  I just have to hope someone else doesn't do the work before me (although I wouldn't mind as it would be great to see it changed)!  In time it will be!
Mark