When did architects...

[Ted Sturges]

...start cutting down trees?


Seems like we had a long period of time when clubs did nothing to maintain their forests, and it also appears that either none of these clubs had consulting architects to advise them or the architects they had didn't tell them that if you don't maintain the forest, the golf eventually suffers. 


Oakmont, Winged Foot, Pine Valley.


Three examples of no thoughtful tree maintenance policy for a very long time.  My question is...how long did this period of tree neglect go on...and why?  Seems like any professional architect could have helped avoid this problem at a number of clubs in the US and elsewhere.


TS

[Garland Bayley]

Maybe a better question is when and why did architects start recommending planting trees on golf courses. Many years ago my club had an architect recommend planting trees on what had to be an already over treed course. The most egregious suggestion was to plant trees behind the 9th green, which now block the view of Mt. Hood from the dining room, deck, and grill.

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe a better question is when and why did architects start recommending planting trees on golf courses. Many years ago my club had an architect recommend planting trees on what had to be an already over treed course. The most egregious suggestion was to plant trees behind the 9th green, which now block the view of Mt. Hood from the dining room, deck, and grill.

Sometimes that was done by golf architects, but a lot of times, not.  Places like Chicago Golf Club and SFGC did not have a consulting architect until the 1990's.  Occasionally if the committee decided they needed to do something, an architect was brought in by whomever was on the board at the time, but there was no consistency, and some of the old guard clubs never needed an architect at all.

[Adrian_Stiff]

In the UK MOST new golf courses have had to plant thousands and thousands of new trees in order to convince the planners that the golf course will have positives to the general ecology and environment.


The thought of mass removal of native trees for the sake of golf would not be happening in most situations.


The removal of non native trees is a different matter, the thinning out of trees that were a 'nurse crop' another situation where a UK architect could have some say.

[Peter Pallotta]

I suppose this is one area where today's architects owe a debt to RTJ for establishing the modern-day 'professionalization' of gca and promoting the concept of a consulting architect.

[Pete_Pittock]

Maybe around 1990. I was on greens committees then. It was hard to make a good argument for adding or subtracting trees without an overall plan. Selective thinning of our douglas fir trees paid for a lot of improvements.

[Tom_Doak]

I suppose this is one area where today's architects owe a debt to RTJ for establishing the modern-day 'professionalization' of gca and promoting the concept of a consulting architect.

Perhaps, but RTJ didn't really do a lot of consulting work, other than his Open Doctor stuff and some redesigns.  I guess he did rebuild the holes at Garden City Golf Club that I've fixed, but those are the only pieces of his work I can think of that I've touched.

[Ted Sturges]

Tom Doak:

"Sometimes that was done by golf architects, but a lot of times, not.  Places like Chicago Golf Club and SFGC did not have a consulting architect until the 1990's.  Occasionally if the committee decided they needed to do something, an architect was brought in by whomever was on the board at the time, but there was no consistency, and some of the old guard clubs never needed an architect at all."



Tom,   Why didn't clubs think they needed help in the 70's and 80's?  Oakmont might not have gotten so over-treed if they had someone helping them.  And...you say the old guard clubs never needed an architect...I would argue that they did...they just didn't know they did.  When did the consulting architect sub-industry of the overall gca industry get started?


TS

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,   Why didn't clubs think they needed help in the 70's and 80's?  Oakmont might not have gotten so over-treed if they had someone helping them.  And...you say the old guard clubs never needed an architect...I would argue that they did...they just didn't know they did.  When did the consulting architect sub-industry of the overall gca industry get started?

Ted:


In the sixties, seventies and eighties, most architects were trying to get work to modernize old golf courses, not to preserve them.


Mr. Dye was not a believer is "restoration" but he did send me to Camargo in 1984 to tell them what Raynor had done originally was better than what von Hagge did to the course.


When I interviewed to consult at Garden City Golf Club in 1990, they had about a half-dozen candidates for the job, so I guess consulting was a thing by then, but there wasn't really anyone going around claiming to be an expert at restoration. Geoff Cornish did get some consulting work in the 80's based on his book with Ron Whitten making him an "historical expert".  He might have been a good choice for his mentor Stanley Thompson's courses, but he was not especially well versed in what Ross or Tillinghast or MacKenzie or Willie Park had built.


The idea that every good course needs an active consultant is mostly promoted by potential consultants . . . to protect the course from other potential consultants  .  Back in the seventies these places were familiar with the concept of "leaving well enough alone".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure why this morphed to restoration, rather than trees?


I would have to look back at some of my 1980's master plan reports.  I think I warned about "over planting" and even recommended some tree removals, but mostly to break up straight line plantings, and promote possible heroic escapes from under trees.  But, I recall a few calling for "native areas" and turf reductions, which I think led to some tree removals.  That said, it was always an uphill battle.


And, I recall a few master plans where the original call was about some tree or another that some wanted out (because it blocked their shots somehow) and some wanted retained.  Sort of OT, but I lost a job to C and C in the early 1990's.  The club's one request was to save the tree by the 4th green, even though its shade and roots were killing the green.  I glibly said I would save it, as long as they told me where to stack the logs.......wasn't the right answer.


IMHO, it always needed a famous course doing it to highlight the trend, such as the US Open of 1992 (?) at Pebble Beach, where the USGA promoted fw chipping areas over all deep rough. Or the 1974 PGA at Inverness, which widely promoted restoration of Ross courses from its original roots in New England.


For tree removals, it was probably the US Open at Oakmont in 2008, but it seems like the movement had been going on a while, and that just made it okay and actually accelerated or mainstreamed it.


I would still say that there are counter trends for every trend when it comes to tree removals.


I would also say that it made perfect sense to plant and plant a lot on those Midwest courses built on cornfields, but you can have too much of a good thing.  Those probably weren't done by gca's, but after opening by the committee.

[Mike_Clayton]

In Australia it started in the early 1980s at Kingston Heath when Graeme Grant, the new superintendent, started taking down big trees.
Despite the significant early scepticism of many, the rave reviews from pros at the many tournaments the club held in the 1980s and 1990s helped sway the critics (or shut them up anyway!) as did the climb and solidification of the course in the world rankings.
Graeme's brother Bruce, John Sloan and I got the consulting job at Victoria in 1995 and headed down the same path as KH and it was also very successful despite the predictable early criticism.
Subsequently, we took out significant numbers of trees at every club we worked with - much of it the result of decades of both neglect and over-planting.


No course however took more trees that Yarra Yarra where Tom Doak has recently staged a hugely successful intervention:)

[Mark_Fine]

When they started planting is an easier question to answer vs when they started taking trees down.  The advent of irrigation on golf courses played a big role in tree planting as has been discussed on this site many times.  The "restoration" movement is what triggered tree removal but I am not sure when that began.  I am sure it has been on-going to some degree but the work at Oakmont really turned up the focus as it was soooo dramatic. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure, but as much as we critique the effect of ANGC on maintenance, perhaps it, as a course built in a nursery, with some areas of tall pines, and very attractive on TV, sort of influenced the idea that a golf course ought to look something like a botanic garden (although plenty of writings warned against the impracticality of all those higher maintenance trees).


As I mentioned, the USGA Open courses, usually narrow tree lined affairs, probably created the idea that this was ideal, as well.


And, again, on all those cornfield courses, it is hard to criticize at least initial tree planting because I'm sure they did want shade, especially before carts were common.  That they did the planting without giving it any real design or agronomic thought is the problem, not the idea to create shade.  For that matter, back then holes were much more closely spaced, and probably more in need of separation for safety as well as visual reasons.

[Tom_Doak]

When I started consulting at Chicago Golf Club, in one of the early meetings, the superintendent produced his prefecessor's meticulous notes on every tree planted over his tenure.


I glanced at it, handed it back and said "Start with those."  Everyone in the room laughed but they are all gone now!

[Wayne_Kozun]

Did USGA agronomy consultants like David Oatis play a part in this at all?  I know that the GCS at my club talks about how Oatis recommends removing trees.


Here is an interesting story on trees from ScoreGolf magazine:  [size=78%]https://scoregolf.com/feature/the-case-against-trees/[/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Dave Oatis and many others at the USGA are strong supporters of “tree management”.  They realize many courses have been over planted for the wrong reasons and this can negatively impact the condition and playability of the golf course.  The USGA has been helpful providing many supporting consulting reports for courses that I have worked on where I recommended tree management.  At my most recent project at Bethlehem GC they were very helpful and quite impressed with the progress made to date.  Can’t say anything but positives when it comes to the USGA on this topic. 

[Thomas Dai]

Aerial photos and maps show trees from above.
What would be nice to see though is an overhead that shows the tree roots under the ground and the width and extent they spread.
Be good to be able to review such in relation to the likes of drainage systems etc.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas, while it varies, the general rule of thumb is they extend about the same width as the tree canopy.  Some species tend towards a deep central "tap root" and other old trees may extend beyond the canopy.


Saving tree roots during construction is a real problem, as they are near the top of the ground (at least the fine ones collecting most of the water) and sensitive to compaction from heavy equipment.  Of course, where do dozer operators prefer to park their dozers for lunch?  Under the shade trees, of course.  We try to restrict it, and call for steel cable around the drip line/canopy of the tree, but it is always a battle when trying to save a nice tree.


Probably shouldn't have posted that on a thread about tree removal, but it sort of fits.


Back on topic, in my current master plans, I use sun charts to show hours of sun or shade on every green and tee.  Up north, I found the distance trees need to be from the green edge to be well over 100 feet to allow in that vital morning sun.  So far, its hard to attain in most cases.  Then, we have to rely on getting six hours of sun any time of day, from the south to west, to make sure turf grows well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

By coincidence, checked my email before checking out for lunch and the USGA Green Section was in there.  It included this video:


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/video-hub.html#brightcoveId=5834141980001&pageTitle=%20Rules%20of%20Golf%20Explained%3A%20Abnormal%20Course%20Conditions&playlist=rules-explained

[Sean_A]

I can't recall the course, but Colt did at least one tree plan back in the 20s.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas, while it varies, the general rule of thumb is they extend about the same width as the tree canopy. Some species tend towards a deep central "tap root" and other old trees may extend beyond the canopy.

Thanks Jeff.
Nice dozer driver story and the sun charts and related advice. And when trees are close together, general scub too, root-balls do have a habit of getting tangled-up with one another like giant knots.
As to the above I was pondering how some species of trees that grow tall and thin have wide root foundations that have a propensity for finding their way into and along drains. Hence my desire to 'look down' on the roots as see where they've reached and the impact, ie a visual presentation method that can be used to highlight to members the problem in a format they might readily understand and thus aid and hopefully ease the convincing of them the requirement for tree management and removal if needed.
atb

[Sven Nilsen]

Ross did a tree plan for Oakland Hills in the late teens.