When it comes to an architect being brave and building iffy holes that may put players in risk, is there anything they can do to mitigate their liability? I'd imagine nearly all architects would not want to open themselves up to too much risk and/or carry the necessary insurance to cover those instances.
Much like Harbour Town, could Sawgrass be built today?
Tom, on the Fried Egg you mentioned that in Ireland it is now very difficult to build on coastal land that wasn't already a golf course. Is this the same in places like California? Could someone take an average seaside course there and rebuild it? For that matter, would the same be applicable for courses with creeks that meander through the property very close to play? Since it's a course today, could the course be redesigned and keep the same Creek interaction?
Ben, as you know we have to build “safe” holes and to that end we even have recommended separation distances. Safety first. Always.
But how much of that is just perception and fear of a ridiculously litigious society? On all the supposedly dangerous (and great) holes we know, how many accidents have there actually been? Is that luck or is it a heightened sense of what is safe and what is dangerous with a skewed sense of same?
I’ve heard of more accidents between two parallel fairways as accidents on blind holes, road holes, crossing holes and quirky holes.
As to the environmental restrictions, it is virtually impossible to build a new course on virgin linksland anywhere in the EU ( we won’t count Britain where it is very slightly easier). Tom has got almost the perfect job at St Patrick’s because he is building on what was nominally already a golf course. But one where he doesn’t have to “undo” anything because that golf course was so minimal - effectively just mown grass - that there is nothing to cover up.