[Tal Oz]

Hello treehouse, my name is Tal and I’m a GCA junkie. I’d like to thank Ran for letting me join here. I stumbled across this website after receiving an invite to Chicago Golf Club and subsequently searching the internet high and low for any info about the place. I’ve been hooked here ever since.

A little info on me:
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 29
Handicap: 8
Home Course: Rustic Canyon
Favorite Courses I’ve Played: CGC, WFE, Riviera, Rustic Canyon, Wilshire, Old Mac

Onto my topic. I’ve been thinking a lot about scale and how to define it in GCA. Of all the courses I’ve played, Bethpage Black and Yale both struck me as courses with huge scale. I’ll never forget turning the corner to #4 tee at BPB or taking a long breath at #9 tee at Yale (alone, in the pouring rain) and thinking how large both places felt. The trees, the bunkers, the hills, the width of the corridors. Contrastingly Rustic Canyon, even with all of it’s width and canyon walls feels smaller and more intimate. Same at Riviera with it’s giant bunkers and large overhanging eucalyptus.

How can an architect create scale or is that mostly defined by the site?
What are some other courses with large scale?

[Mark Kiely]

Three I've played that I put in that category are Kapalua (Plantation), Southern Highlands and Classic Club.

[Adam Lawrence]

I've been thinking and writing about scale quite a bit recently. It's clear to me that a lot of old courses have shrunk, visually, a great deal over the years, the result of tree growth and bunker shrinkage, among other things.


Without a doubt, the 'biggest' course I have ever seen is David Kidd's new Mammoth Dunes at Sand Valley in Wisconsin. I have a review of the course in the upcoming April issue of GCA, in which I talk quite a bit about that aspect.

[Thomas Dai]

There are a few courses on UK common land that stretch their 18-holes over a vast area of open land, eg Cleeve Cloud, Minchinhmapton Old etc.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Most of the celebrated courses of the past 20-25 years are built at a different scale than most of what came before them:  Sand Hills, Bandon (all of them), Cape Kidnappers, Castle Stuart, Whistling Straits, lots of Tom Fazio courses, Streamsong Black, and right on down the line.  It doesn't necessarily mean big greens, just width and long views across multiple holes.


Most of the last 20 years the best new course would have also been voted as the biggest.


I feel like I was one of the people who pushed things in that direction and I'd like to help pull back from it, in the interest of sustainability.  But if you have a potential client who's focused on awards (and I've not met many who aren't), going small is a tough sell right now.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas raises a good point, too ... places like Cleeve Cloud are on a ginormous scale, but eminently sustainable.  But they can't turn a bunch of sheep loose to graze Streamsong!

[Sean_A]

I too was thinking of Cleeve Cloud as huge scale and very unusual for its time.  I wonder if some heathlands had that feeling prior to tree growth?  Its hard to tell in the black and white pix, but it is clear the designs were on a larger scale than today.  Tree growth has limited exterior views (which are probably not very good in most cases these days) and constricted the playablity of the designs. Cleeve Cloud remains huge. I am sure the site size is high for Cleeve Cloud, but much of the land between holes is for walkers...not golf per se.  I would love to know a comparison of site size between Kington and Cleeve Cloud.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Most of the celebrated courses of the past 20-25 years are built at a different scale than most of what came before them:  Sand Hills, Bandon (all of them), Cape Kidnappers, Castle Stuart, Whistling Straits, lots of Tom Fazio courses, Streamsong Black, and right on down the line.  It doesn't necessarily mean big greens, just width and long views across multiple holes.


Most of the last 20 years the best new course would have also been voted as the biggest.


I feel like I was one of the people who pushed things in that direction and I'd like to help pull back from it, in the interest of sustainability.  But if you have a potential client who's focused on awards (and I've not met many who aren't), going small is a tough sell right now.

I had that conversation, almost word for word, with Bill Coore last year 

[Tom_Doak]

I was pleased that The Loop, while it has lots of acres of short grass, feels more old school in terms of scale.  But if it wasn't also reversible I don't think it would have won an award, precisely because of its smaller visuals.

[Jeff Schley]

I would think total acres for a golf course could be considered starting point, then of course routing for if there are no other holes to be seen (in a housing development for example or a heavily treed course) with it going out and back in a loop of some kind it would affect the perceived scale.

[Tim Martin]

Old Sandwich

[Eric Smith]

I was pleased that The Loop, while it has lots of acres of short grass, feels more old school in terms of scale.  But if it wasn't also reversible I don't think it would have won an award, precisely because of its smaller visuals.

Well if that is the case (and I believe you) then the awarding is about as meaningless as Morning Drive.

[Ira Fishman]

A course which has great and beautiful scale across parts of the property but even more dramatically up and down is Primland.  Unfortunately, it gets that scale by being a real challenge to reach unless you like long drives on mountain roads.


Ira

[Joel Pear]

Where does Erin Hills fall in this discussion?  Have only played it once, but but felt that the property seemed enormous.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tal, from one Millennial to another, welcome!


Big-scale courses I've played that I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread include:


Corales
Tobacco Road
True Blue
Vista Links
Streamsong Blue
Alotian

[Mike Hendren]

San Francisco Golf Club
Idle Hour
Chambers Bay

[Tom_Doak]

It's true that a lot of restoration work also increases the scale of older courses by removing trees and widening fairways to fit the modern aesthetic.  Of course that's how many of those older courses looked when they were built.

[Scott Senior]

Just to reiterate what Mr Doak said...Streamsong Black scale is huge.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Gamble Sands pushes the large scale to another level. It really is a big properly with huge fairways and greens . This is even bigger in scale than his new Mammoth Dunes

[Alex Miller]

Tal as a 28 year old in LA, let's grab a drink sometime!


Scale is super interesting and I find one thing that I find easier to relate one course to another. Scale of the property (elevation, width, etc...) and of the features on the course itself (green size, bunkers, etc...) and how they fit together may be the most important piece of whether I find a course fits the land its on and is a huge part of the vibe and charm I get from a course.

[Tal Oz]

Thanks for all of the responses, I had never heard of Cleeve Cloud. A quick peek at the video on their website and I can see what you all mean about extraordinary scale.

seems like most of the responses to scale come in a few different forms (i.e. expansive views such as Bandon and Cleeve Cloud, large golf features such as bunkers and greens, or natural landforms such as hills)

@ Tom RE: new courses of the last 20 years, part of that has to be most new developments are farther and farther away from city centers, no? Erin Hills, Sand Hills, Bandon, and Streamsong come to mind.

[Tom_Doak]

@ Tom RE: new courses of the last 20 years, part of that has to be most new developments are farther and farther away from city centers, no? Erin Hills, Sand Hills, Bandon, and Streamsong come to mind.

True.  It would have been silly to build a small scale course in Montana, or the sand hills.  But lots of U.K. links are at a small scale visually, while new ones aren't. 


Interestingly the "overlooked" links courses that have come up in the rankings in recent years, and the ones that U.K. golfers think Americans overrate, are all "big" courses - I.e. Cruden Bay, Dornoch, Pennard, St Enodoc, etc.

[Sean_A]

@ Tom RE: new courses of the last 20 years, part of that has to be most new developments are farther and farther away from city centers, no? Erin Hills, Sand Hills, Bandon, and Streamsong come to mind.

Interestingly the "overlooked" links courses that have come up in the rankings in recent years, and the ones that U.K. golfers think Americans overrate, are all "big" courses - I.e. Cruden Bay, Dornoch, Pennard, St Enodoc, etc.

Tom

That is interesting because I wouldn't consider any of the courses you listed as big scale even with the views.  All these courses have defined borders which visually impact the course and in some cases the playability is impacted.  I don't think the courses are all that large in size either with possible exception of St Enodoc.  It does have a few large scale features and because of how the routing flows through different landscapes it feels larger, but it also must accomodate walkers.  Shared use as is the case at Cleeve Cloud is a different case which imo deserves praise. 

Cruden Bay actually feels a bit hemmed in to me even though it does have some large scale features in the form of dunes and an ocean!

Gleneagles Kings felt surprisingly large scale to me, but I don't think it takes up any more land than a typical US country club. Notts doesn't look particularly large scale, but it feels like while playing.

Still, I haven't seen anything like Cleeve Cloud...maybe that is a different category...mega scale...but its still very walkable...so perhaps not.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I don't think we should get sidetracked by the views.


Irrespective of the views, Cleeve Cloud and Minchinhampton Old for example, both cover huge open aspect landscapes/acreages. You could have numerous courses on the area of property/acreage they both play over. But they are common land, bit like Westward Ho!, which also covers a large area. All shared with walkers and dogs and grazing animals though.


atb

[Sean_A]

I don't think we should get sidetracked by the views.


Irrespective of the views, Cleeve Cloud and Minchinhampton Old for example, both cover huge open aspect landscapes/acreages. You could have numerous courses on the area of property/acreage they both play over. But they are common land, bit like Westward Ho!, which also covers a large area. All shared with walkers and dogs and grazing animals though.

atb

I do think views are part of large scale scale...usually anyway...even if they are interior views.  Its possible to pull off the illusion of large scale when views are present.  To me, this sort of design is of far more interest than simply naming large scale courses.   

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()