[Terry Lavin]

Two clubs here in Chicagoland have renovated their golf courses by implementing a plan that is designed to be accomplished over the course of several years.  I'm speaking of Shoreacres and Old Elm.  In my judgment, both courses are measurably better that their prior presentation and the work was performed in a relatively seamless manner.  Both involved significant tree removal, fairway widening, green expansion and rough grass elimination.


The impressive thing to me is that the phased approach seemed to whet the appetite of both members and guests as to what the ultimate look, feel and play of the golf course would be.  I'm wondering if other clubs have done this and what those experiences may have been. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't know if it's specific to restorations, but the long term master plan is a staple.  Yes, in big money eras, with boomers less reluctant to take on debt, 1 and 2 year projects got more common after the 1980's, but phasing seems to be making a comeback, at least in my experience. 

[Peter Pallotta]

"The impressive thing to me is that the phased approach seemed to whet the appetite of both members and guests as to what the ultimate look, feel and play of the golf course would be." 

I wonder if architects and renovation specialists will let us in on the 'trick' they use in this regard. There must be one - a strategy and tactics for whetting appetites and keeping everyone on board.

I'm thinking maybe they start with the most innocuous stand of trees on the course, ones that no one loves or even thinks about save for the grouchy member with the sketchy handicap -- and after they chop *those* down and let in the sunlight and air and vistas that no one expected, they've got the membership right where they want them.  

[Dave Esler]

TL,
I was in Miller's Pub last week and somehow your name came up!


Completely agree with Jeff regarding the trajectory for timeline of projects-at least around the Midwest.  Back in the late 80's-early 90's, I believe CC of Peoria may have been the first to go all in one year, then Onwentsia, we did Glen View and Park Ridge shortly thereafter and certainly a few of the NS and West Side clubs did as well and it was de rigueur there for about a decade.


We've done both the "one year" and the more traditional, protracted implementation.  The trigger for the "one year" approach is usually the requirement or desire to substantially impact greens surfaces-they also often require a special assessment.  Old friend and former MidContinent USGA Agronomist, Paul Vermeulen among others, would explain the financial & agronomic benefits of doing all of the greens at once, whether it was a simple re-grass or total rebuild.   Recapturing the corners as Tim Davis did several decades ago at Shoreacres (since dramatically expanded by others) could be done gradually if the fill pads are generally in tact.  Typically, memberships decline to do three to six greens a year for six to three years.


Many, if not most all other project categories can be done over time.  I think Crystal Lake CC?? stayed open in the 1980's even through a fairway re-grassing.  Most of our projects around here and into the Lake Geneva area have been multi-year implementations.

[Carl Rogers]

Isn't the downside to the protracted approach ,continuity  of personnel & maintaining a consistently executed vision?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I'd say it worked at my course, but for an unintended reason.   Architects presented a master restoration/renovation plan and finished one hole to give the membership an idea of what the plan would look like.  The hole has been very negatively received, and no further work under the plan has been approved.
   I’d say this experience has been a good thing.  If the entire project had been undertaken an initio, we’d have a real disaster on our hands.

[jeffwarne]

The Birdge was done over 5-6 seasons(always once the course was closed for the season and never closed a hole during the process), with major tree work done the 2-4 years before that
Every year the members would tell me how much they looked forward to seeing the changes.
They kind've got used to it and were suprised when we stopped...

[David_Elvins]

Imo, If you are rebuilding greens then knocking it all over in 1-2 years is probably preferable because no one wants 2 temp green for 6 months for 9 years straight.  If you are doing mowing lines, tree removal, tees, etc them longer term can work better, particularly if you can gain greater approval of members by knocking off less controversial stuff early.

[Jim Franklin]

The Birdge was done over 5-6 seasons(always once the course was closed for the season and never closed a hole during the process), with major tree work done the 2-4 years before that
Every year the members would tell me how much they looked forward to seeing the changes.
They kind've got used to it and were suprised when we stopped...

Jeff, you guys did an incredible job. I am not sure what else needs to be done. I am sure you will be tweaking here and there, but job well done sir.

[Terry Lavin]

We had difficulties getting a Master Plan passed at Beverly about 15 years ago. Ron Prichard broke the paralysis by implementing his plan on what he called our “most vanilla hole.”  The result spoke volumes about the potential for amazing change. Unfortunately, a number of items couldn’t be negotiated, so we are implementing the rest of the plan now.


What a process.

[Tom_Doak]

There are reasons for both approaches.


Thirty years ago (!), when I started working at Garden City Golf Club, there weren't many clubs in America that would have considered a $3 million restoration [much less a $15m one].  Our work there and at Camargo and Shoreacres was done slowly over many years, because the clubs were quite conservative in their approach.  While I had presented them with a long-term vision, the membership weren't "sold" on it at all . . . we did some work, they appreciated it and wanted more, and eventually we got there.


In that approach, it's important to start with the little things.  Mowing lines, and trees that aren't too controversial.  Then, identify a hole where they have a problem, and fix it.  Transforming one hole to a "new" style can backfire entirely:  if it's not received as a faithful restoration, it will just look out of place.  I distinctly remember the first time I saw Bel Air, the 7th hole had been redone by George Fazio in the 70's, and they didn't ask him back to do the rest.




That approach has mostly fallen out of favor now.  Greenkeepers are wary of the course "always" being under construction; they're also wary of losing focus on the turf because they are distracted by the construction.  So, they'd prefer to hand off that responsibility to an architect and a contractor.


Once you're on a contractor's schedule, they'd prefer to get the job done all at once, instead of doing 1/4 of four different projects over 4 years.  Most architects would, as well.  It isn't better or worse for the result necessarily, it's just more efficient for business.

[mike_malone]

T

[mike_malone]

   I'd say it worked at my course, but for an unintended reason.   Architects presented a master restoration/renovation plan and finished one hole to give the membership an idea of what the plan would look like.  The hole has been very negatively received, and no further work under the plan has been approved.
   I’d say this experience has been a good thing.  If the entire project had been undertaken an initio, we’d have a real disaster on our hands.

One is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.

[Kyle Harris]

   I'd say it worked at my course, but for an unintended reason.   Architects presented a master restoration/renovation plan and finished one hole to give the membership an idea of what the plan would look like.  The hole has been very negatively received, and no further work under the plan has been approved.
   I’d say this experience has been a good thing.  If the entire project had been undertaken an initio, we’d have a real disaster on our hands.

One is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.

Ha. I literally just spit my coffee out in public.

[Mike_Trenham]

We completed a restoration/renovation at St Davids in Wayne, PA over a number of years 7-9.  Due to financial realities of also building a new clubhouse and maintenance building at the start of this cycle.


It worked out well for us as Ron Prichard lives <30 minutes away and could be at the club on Fridays or Saturdays most weeks while work was being performed.


Plus after the first two years we changed contractors to another local Doug Mottin.  Doug had just started his firm and was open to our modest sized projects.  And as one of his first clients he was appreciative and flexible as the project continued.  He also runs an extremely clean site with no unneeded disturbances, making this staged approach tolerable for the golfers and staff.


I will say that, doing a project over a long term does seem to open the members too much towards ongoing tinkering with the course.

[Mike_Trenham]

   I'd say it worked at my course, but for an unintended reason.   Architects presented a master restoration/renovation plan and finished one hole to give the membership an idea of what the plan would look like.  The hole has been very negatively received, and no further work under the plan has been approved.
   I’d say this experience has been a good thing.  If the entire project had been undertaken an initio, we’d have a real disaster on our hands.

One is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.

Ha. I literally just spit my coffee out in public.

Mayday, ironically - Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()