Architecture chat!

[aiyyer]

We played two rounds at Royal New Kent same day. Second round was about 12 shots better once you get past all the visuals Stranz throws at you. Loved the course. Both RNK and TR have similar starting fun holes.

[Lark]

Best municipal golf courses: 14 must-plays in the United StatesNice write-up. I haven't played all of these but based on the ones I have, I would put Bethpage Red and Trump Ferry Point (it is a muni) among this group.

[Lark]

Best municipal golf courses: 14 must-plays in the United StatesNice write-up. I haven't played all of these but based on the ones I have, I would include Bethpage Red and Trump Ferry Point (it is a muni).

 

[Phireside]

Any thoughts on courses that route though residential areas and house lined courses? The course that I would consider my home course has 6-7 street crossings from green to tee and has homes along many of the holes. The homes are set far enough back that I don't feel like it takes away from the golf, but every time I cross the street it just seems silly. There is even one hole that stand alone. Cross the street, play the hole, cross the street to the next.

The course would be considered one of the best public tracks in my region, and I love the golf. There is a great mix of holes, shapes, tees, design, etc.

I accept that many modern courses are going to have this, so I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[klebs01]

awful. Completely ruins the course. They should never have been built. Probably the worst trend ever in golf development. Would generally rate them a zero. Might actually be happy if they shut down so the traffic can go to core golf courses.

[575M]

While for some it may be solely about the course for many it is about the experience and lifestyle. Club life built around a community provides an overall experience that far exceeds the stand alone facility. The convenience of getting in your own cart and heading to the club makes so much more sense for those of us that have been living the club lifestyle over the years. You get in your cart head out for your round then after everyone heads to the bar for a cocktail, head home to shower grab your wife and back to the club for cocktails and dinner with friends. Never once getting into your car and taking a risk Additionally the golf course community provides much better support for the club itself thru greater utilization. If one or the other is going to downsize in numbers I believe it is the stand alone non-resort course.

Many of the top courses have some homes surrounding them though not to the degree of the new golf course communities being developed today. Pebble, Pine Valley with their cottages (had an acquaintance that lived in one) Merion, Crystal Downs, Southern Hills, Cherry Hills just to name a few. Even Cabot Links has condos lining several holes. There are many others but these are the 1st ones to come to mind that I’ve played.

[Noles]

Using Merion as an example, I don't think having homes off the property on one side of a few holes is at all comparable to courses routing through a development. Courses through developments vary in enjoyment in my opinion. I am not exactly a straight hitter of the ball. When houses are practically on top of the fairway, I'd rather stay home and cut the lawn. I have played some where the houses have plenty of distance and really don't affect the course at all. I don't mind those courses.

[Lark]

Golfweek's Best 2020: Top 100 Best Courses You Can Play

Golfweek’s Best public course ranking is out. I disagree on a few courses here but instead will comment on a general observation- the modern courses seem to dominate this list. It is interesting that the overall (both public and private combined) rankings by other magazines have classic courses dominate, but the best public lists have so many more modern courses.

[575M]

I agree that courses that are tighly residentially lined can be an issue. But generally I think those communities were 1st designed with maximum residential development in mind, generally bundled communities, with a golf course then tucked in. It seems to me that the better residential courses were designed for the course 1st and the homes then developed around. Many of the old classic courses like a Merion will have some homes bordering certain holes. Certainly not even close to the same abundance of the residential golf community. But those homes can still come into play with fairly wayward shots. We happen to have a relative whose home is off one of the holes at Merion. Many a ball has been found in their back yard. In the perfect world we would all live in residential golf communities on a large enough piece of ground where a home is never seen from the course.

 

 

[Phireside]

I can't claim to have played too many of these, but I have played a few of the Washington st. ones. I'm surprised and thrilled to see Gamble Sands on the list and ranked so high. Doesn't always get much attention, but it's a gem. Salish Cliffs is another great course that I'm surprised to see. Not sure I agree it's a top 100, but maybe those outside of the 100 offer slim pickings.

I personally like Torrey North over South, but it doesn't have the same prestige, so maybe that's a factor in having them so far apart from each other on the list.

And Pumpkin Ridge. Over priced and just blah.

[klebs01]

courses like Marion that are core golf courses aren’t even remotely similar to courses through neighborhoods. I’m familiar with club life and don’t see myself ever going back to public golf, but have no interest in joining a residential club. The sacrifices made for both the house, land and golf don’t seem worth it to me. I haven’t seen core golf facilities Having issues (really any around me) but it seems a lot of residential clubs are struggling. May all be a regional thing. I’m glad there are very few residential courses and clubs around me so I don’t have to deal with it often.

[Chanceman]

This is a very interesting topic. Architecture in general I mean.

One thing that golfers, who think they know a bit about it, might say is that a course is "tricked up".

What do we all think is meant by this term? Is it just the setup eg pin at the back of a green near a drop off OR is it more an architectural thing like having a pond in an inconvenient spot. Or is it just a way of justifying your bad play.

[Noles]

Here is an example of what I would consider tricked up, or just bad architecture. At my old club we had a green that had a pond left, a lower tier on the front left that ran severely toward the pond. The lower tier had a hill to its right and behind that sloped severely toward the tier, thus sloping to the pond. Any kind of shot aside from a full wedge shot with a lot of spin would end up on the fringe by the pond or in the pond. Here comes the tricked up part. The green above the tier sloped away from the pond. So any attempt to hit something that just got to the top of the tier to trickle down and maybe stay out of the pond or near the hole would bounce away from the tier and be further away from where it landed. The first time I played it I couldn't believe it. I hit several balls and said "where am I supposed to land this shot?" No longer a member there.

[Tim_Gavrich]

I've played several dozen golf courses in residential developments, and routing and spacing are absolutely critical.

Here's a Google Earth view of Orange Tree, a club in Orlando that has the tightest and most relentless residential confines of any course I've ever played. The corridors are about half as wide as they should be, and there is basically one hole (can you spot it?) where you can miss safely to one side and not be either OB or in water. Several LPGA players and a few PGA Tour players play there because if they can get it in play at Orange Tree, any other course they play will seem wide in comparison. Which makes the course useful for that purpose, but not my cup of tea.

And now for something completely different: Windsor, a very high-end club and residential development near where I live, that is an example of the New Urbanist school of planning. If you've been to the town of Celebration near Disney, that is also a New Urbanist community. At Windsor, you can see a totally different philosophy with regard to the way it's laid out. With the exception of a few holes on the front nine at the panhandle of the property (whose corridors are actually plenty generous), the golf course is on its own contiguous piece of land, with houses ringing the property. And on the holes that do run along the edge of the property, you can see that Robert Trent Jones, Jr. provided (because he was given) a lot of room to play. With its dense main area and the ring of homes around the core part of the golf course, it's probably the best modern golf community layout I've seen. The golf course is very enjoyable as a result.

These are two pretty polar-opposite modern approaches to integrating homes and a golf course. I love the New Urbanist approach at Windsor and wish more developers had deployed it in the 80s, 90s and 2000s when these sorts of projects exploded in popularity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of courses out there more like Orange Tree, and others with a bit of a hybrid approach (double-wide hole corridors, so that homes/OB are on one side). Luckily, developers are getting a bit savvier lately, and I think golf course architects are able to push back a bit more when a developer squeezes them by trying to wring an extra few lots out of a site plan.

[smashdn]

It is a housing thing not a golf thing. Golf was just the tool to raise property values.

Few are good, most are bad.

[smashdn]

So those two different pictures, take a count of how many properties have "golf course views" in the first compared to the second. Say that adds 10-15% additional "value" to the property. Which design made the developer more money?

[Chanceman]

Fair enough. That's an example of a design flaw. Tricked up seems to be a comment on a non-traditional way of asking the golfer to play. Like a green, as you say, that slopes all in one direction or a blind fairway that channels every ball which is say left into a hazard. It can also be on the daily pin setup where the pin is right on an edge. Come to think of it, it might be how Augusta does it.

[smashdn]

Tricked up to me is artificial breaks in the fairway to force a lay up.  Once maybe you can get away with it, if the slope of the ground sort of makes it make sense, but if you just have a fairway broken in two for the sake of making the long guys lay up, that is an example of tricked up.

 

Cutting holes dangerously close to false fronts and shaving the apron to the point you can putt off the green and run well down the fairway is another example.

 

Fairways narrowed just for the sake of making them narrow and not following the ground contours.  

 

I don't think "tricked up" is most often an architecture thing more of set-up and presentation thing.

[Chanceman]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

Tricked up to me is artificial breaks in the fairway to force a lay up.  Once maybe you can get away with it, if the slope of the ground sort of makes it make sense, but if you just have a fairway broken in two for the sake of making the long guys lay up, that is an example of tricked up.

 

Cutting holes dangerously close to false fronts and shaving the apron to the point you can putt off the green and run well down the fairway is another example.

 

Fairways narrowed just for the sake of making them narrow and not following the ground contours.  

 

I don't think "tricked up" is most often an architecture thing more of set-up and presentation thing.

 

Sounds like you are having a bit each way there. First you quote an architectural example and then you quote set-up examples as the main culprit. To be fair, it can probably be both. I have heard people say the architecture is tricked up (as in your split fairway example) or the set-up as in pin placement and tight lies. It's the Archi side that interests me. Some course are just too "gimmicky" if that is the word. You know, like silly ponds and gratuitous bunkers. But then some people would say all-natural features can look tricked up - such as quite a few holes at St Andrews like the Road Hole bunker.

[klebs01]

I’m with @smashdn. Tricked up to me is more about setup. Like Marion for the us open where fairway bunkers were 10-20 yards in the rough. Basically, doing stupid set up things just to make it hard and take skill out of the equation. 

[smashdn]

10 hours ago, Chanceman said:

 

Sounds like you are having a bit each way there. First you quote an architectural example and then you quote set-up examples as the main culprit. To be fair, it can probably be both. I have heard people say the architecture is tricked up (as in your split fairway example) or the set-up as in pin placement and tight lies. It's the Archi side that interests me. Some course are just too "gimmicky" if that is the word. You know, like silly ponds and gratuitous bunkers. But then some people would say all-natural features can look tricked up - such as quite a few holes at St Andrews like the Road Hole bunker.

 

When I say "breaks in the fairway" I mean where the course has decided to just put a strip of rough in.  Break the fairway into two ovals where if you drive it too far you end up in the rough.  I've seen it and it is lazy.

 

If there is an architectural feature there, say a ditch or cross bunker or creek or something that is fine.  But mowing lines that don't follow the contours of the ground are set up issues.  Having the rough go straight across the fairway is also a missed opportunity.  If you must have it why not mow it on an angle to the tee so there is a side that could possibly be carried and a side that could be favored to get further down the shorter side.

 

The Road Hole bunker and green were designed by Allan Robertson.  The bunker I suppose may have existed forever but it has a revetted face.  How is that natural?

 

 

I was reading MacKenzie last night.  He remarked that he went back to an old design and added almost 1000 yards and redid most or all the greens.  Basically took a 5800 yard course and stretched it to 6800+.  He said the previous course record was only 74 or 78 due to the tiny greens and tall grass along the narrow fairways and around the greens.  After adding the yardage and enlarging the greens the record score came down to a 64 (or 66, it was late when I was reading it).  

 

His point was that a sound design will often have a quite low course record, and that it should not be looked down upon as a pushover course because of it, but rather that the course rewards a good player when he plays well and hits his spots.

Edited August 19, 2020 by smashdn

[Chanceman]

To clarify, are you saying that architectural oddities are generally ok? That it's only course superintendents (and USGA officials) who can be accused of "tricking up"?

[Chanceman]

Rebooting this thread.

NGLA was built over 100 years ago with a bunch of Template holes like the Redan, the Eden, the Road Hole, the Alps, the Cape, which were drawn from mainly Scottish golf courses. The idea was to bring the best ideas for golf holes to bear in America.

My question is if a new NGLA were being built now, what holes would be considered a template hole in 2021? Ones that are unique enough to be iconic.

In the USA perhaps Pebble #8 or is that just a glorified Cape hole. Or maybe Augusta #13 or Bandon Trails #14.

It has to be something with a standout feature that can be used elsewhere in some form. 

[putterboy75]

Huge fan of Coore & Crenshaw designs. They take it back to the Golden Age with very little land moved, mostly wide fairways which are playable for everyone but require the better player to place the ball on the correct side of the fairway for the approach shot to the greens. I love that their courses are so natural to their respective environment and don't ever feel forced. They also have GREAT short par-4's (who doesn't enjoy a < 300 yard par 4 followed by a 250 yard par 3?) and the greens have subtleties which I've never experienced from any other architect (not saying C&C have better greens than all the others, just memorably different.)

 

I hope to have the chance to play more of C&C's designs - Kapalua Plantation (their first), Dormie Club, and Chechessee Creek are the 3 played so far.

 

I'm not a big fan of the "signature" hole and I wouldn't say any of these 3 have an obvious choice for one. When each course is viewed in its totality, I think they're hard to beat in the modern era. Interested to hear others thoughts.

 

 

[Schley]

5 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Rebooting this thread.

NGLA was built over 100 years ago with a bunch of Template holes like the Redan, the Eden, the Road Hole, the Alps, the Cape, which were drawn from mainly Scottish golf courses. The idea was to bring the best ideas for golf holes to bear in America.

My question is if a new NGLA were being built now, what holes would be considered a template hole in 2021? Ones that are unique enough to be iconic.

In the USA perhaps Pebble #8 or is that just a glorified Cape hole. Or maybe Augusta #13 or Bandon Trails #14.

It has to be something with a standout feature that can be used elsewhere in some form. 

So basically the modern era 1960 forward what holes would be considered templates?  Of course they can't be interpretations of old template holes from Macdonald and Raynor.

[Schley]

I'll start the list with the most iconic and famous IMO.

 

17th at TPC Sawgrass

[Chanceman]

1 hour ago, Schley said:

So basically the modern era 1960 forward what holes would be considered templates?  Of course they can't be interpretations of old template holes from Macdonald and Raynor.

NGLA was built pre WW1 so I would say from 1920 onwards. So maybe Alister Mackenzie would feature and Donald Ross as well.

But 17th at Sawgrass is a good call.

I was going to say the 17th at Pac Dunes but its a Redan!

So what about the 16th at Bandon Dunes across the ravine and then up to another shelf? Not many lke that.

[Chanceman]

Riviera 10th 

[Mde103]

16 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Rebooting this thread.

NGLA was built over 100 years ago with a bunch of Template holes like the Redan, the Eden, the Road Hole, the Alps, the Cape, which were drawn from mainly Scottish golf courses. The idea was to bring the best ideas for golf holes to bear in America.

My question is if a new NGLA were being built now, what holes would be considered a template hole in 2021? Ones that are unique enough to be iconic.

In the USA perhaps Pebble #8 or is that just a glorified Cape hole. Or maybe Augusta #13 or Bandon Trails #14.

It has to be something with a standout feature that can be used elsewhere in some form. 

For it to be used as a template hole, it would need to be able to replicate. The 8th hole at Pebble is certainly one of the most iconic holes in all of golf, but you can’t really build that hole anywhere else. I think 17 at Sawgrass has pretty much become a template at this point. Most courses don’t go to that extent with the water, but at this point it seems that most US courses have a short par 3 with water in front. 

[CDM]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:00 AM, Chanceman said:

And yet we have Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Bandon, Cabot, Kiawah, Streamsong, Cape Wickham, Barnbougle, Erin Hills, Sand Valley, Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns, Carne, Old Head etc all being built in the last 25 years. It is amazing how much good land has been found and new golf courses built around the world. And what's more, all playable by the public under certain conditions.

 

Good point. The interesting part of all the courses you listed for the most part, the location(s).  Most are pretty remote, IE: not in populated areas Ie:  major cities.  Yes you can fly in and drive over for the most part to them, but not a short drive to most either. 

 

I am sure there are tons of property that someone could build a top 25 course on but access would have to be reasonable or it would have to be something like Tara Iti.  What I do for a living I deal with land aspects all day and there are some properties look at and think "damn this place could be a sweet course" but economics rule.