[Mike Hendren]

Two questions:

Given the rush to remoteness and its theatrical ground, when will we again see a great golf course designed in the American parkland (broadly defined for this question as flat to gently rolling sparsely treed or forested site) tradition?

What is the last great parkland course designed/constructed in America?

Bogey

[Dan Herrmann]

You're probably right - The NIMBY movement is here to stay.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - I don't know the answer(s), but I think Dan is probably right. Furthermore: as much as I long to go to places like Bandon and Cabot, I can't help but feel a little sad/disturbed that the current 'model' for excellent golf seems to be a fostering of expensive and time consuming exclusivity -- an approach/ethos that is, IMO, the implicit 'dark side' of the interests and values we tend to espouse ad-nauseum on a site like gca.com.  On the other hand, clearly it is a model that is working (i.e. producing great golf courses) and one that seems to be viable (i.e. financially successful) -- and so, in that sense, I have no leg to stand on with my petty complaint.

Peter

[Steve Burrows]

Though, as you suggest, it has generally fallen out of favor, the parkland course is a significant contribution to the genealogy of golf course design.  I too hope that is not ignored entirely as a legitimate typology.  Doing so might be to admit to the end of American exceptionalism, and we can't have that, can we ?

[Jim Sherma]

Michael - I'm interested in where this thread goes. In some of the recent threads pertaining to Chicagoland golf I was wondering if parkland-style golf is just out of fashion or underappreciated these days. I think it generally is, at least as far as the commentary on GCA. There are many reasons why this may be the case. There are the obvious great parkland courses of the golden age, but very little love of anything that followed in that vein from guys like the Gordons. Maybe there is too much similarity in the land used, or just not enough "newness" to get people the talking classes exited. It could be that the maintenance styles that generally get used for parkland courses is more to blame than the architecture and aesthetics. Hopefully, there will be a good discussion as I have a soft spot for old courses of these styles.

[Brent Hutto]

If you want frequent winds of sufficient force to influence your golf shots both in the air and on the ground...

If you want wide, uninterrupted vistas where a substantial portion of the golf course is visible to you at most times during the round...

If you want firm, well-drained, sandy soil with cool-season grasses receiving minimal inputs of fertilizer and irrigation water...

If you want low-profile greens that sit at ground level with no apparent margin between "fairway", "apron" and "green"...

All these are things very hard to come by in location where Parkland courses can be built. In fact, the very nature of Parkland golf is predicated on land (i.e. "parkland") that does not have these characteristics. So on a forum where each of the above preferences is reified into the one true vision of golf-course greatness then of course Parkland golf won't be much discussed. And given the relative paucity of courses in North America offering those elements, it makes sense if you're going to invest millions of dollars and a couple decades of development work in making a high-end "destination" golf course you will not be building a Parkland course.

And unfortunately, I can't see much hope the next decade or two of a viable industry to design, build and market golf courses that aren't "destination" resorts. The USA seems to already have 2x or 3x as many inland/Parkland/non-"destination" golf courses as can be supported by the golf-playing public. It'll take a long time for that to shake out far enough for new construction to be more than dribs and drabs.

[Mike Hendren]

Though, as you suggest, it has generally fallen out of favor, the parkland course is a significant contribution to the genealogy of golf course design.  I too hope that is not ignored entirely as a legitimate typology. 

Steve, thanks for articulating what I couldn't phrase. 

I can't help but worry that we won't see the modern equivalents of SFGC, Merion and Plainfield, just to name a few.

Bogey

[George Pazin]

Surely the folks at Dallas National, Pikewood, and more than a few others disagree with your premise, Sir!

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

Good questions -- some might consider the host course for this week's U.S. Women's Open the best parkland course built recently (last 20-25 years or so): http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46415.0.html (I wouldn't, but the course has lots of admirers.) Does Rock Creek Cattle qualify as a parkland course? I've never played, but perhaps there is an argument there for it.

Obviously, land availability is a factor in this -- I'm sure there is plenty of land that is "parkland" in nature that's just as remote as what's being done in Oregon, Nebraska, and Nova Scotia. But why travel to the remote regions of, say, upstate New York or western Colorado, for a "parkland" experience when I can get that nearby? For it seems the Dismals/Ballyneals/Bandons/Cabots of the world are trying to appeal to the golf "purist" who is seeking something similar to the game's origins without having to cross the Atlantic (notwithstanding that some of the earliest golfing sites in Scotland were decidedly parkland, like the North Inch.)

[Ed Brzezowski]

Route 401 in Chester County Pennsylvania just short of Route 345.

Stonewall, the original course. Some trees and a great deal of rolling farmland. I forget the name of the guy who did it but it is a great course.

[Carl Johnson]

Not to change the subject, but by way of contrast or agreement, what's the new parkland situation coming to in the British Isles.  I have no idea.  What do those who are knowledgeable on this have to say?

[Mike Hendren]

Route 401 in Chester County Pennsylvania just short of Route 345.

Stonewall, the original course. Some trees and a great deal of rolling farmland. I forget the name of the guy who did it but it is a great course.

Yet wouldn't most opine that the guy has gone on to greater heights (and because of that the course is only great in hindsight?)

Bogey

[Carl Johnson]

Surely the folks at Dallas National, Pikewood, and more than a few others disagree with your premise, Sir!

George, I've never seen Pikewood, but my impression has been that it would not qualify as a parkland course, at least not as I think of the term.  Am I dead wrong about this, or is their just some room for disageement?

[Tim Pitner]

What about CommonGround in Denver?--it may not be great, but it's darn good. 

[George Pazin]

Surely the folks at Dallas National, Pikewood, and more than a few others disagree with your premise, Sir!

George, I've never seen Pikewood, but my impression has been that it would not qualify as a parkland course, at least not as I think of the term.  Am I dead wrong about this, or is their just some room for disageement?

Can't say from first hand knowledge. I was using Bogey's definition - broadly defined for this question as flat to gently rolling sparsely treed or forested site - in a very broad fashion, basically any non-links, non-desert/mountain/canyon, non-sand hills type of course. It probably has more elevation change than Bogey is suggesting, but I still lumped it into parkland.

My point is simply that there are a lot of other courses besides remote destination courses that have been built in the last few decades with the goal of being great courses.

[Tom MacWood]

How many parkland courses began life as parkland courses? My impression is most parkland courses from the good old days actually began as mostly treeless farmland courses.

[Andy Troeger]

If we are using Bogey's definition that a parkland course needs to be flat or gently rolling then I would disqualify Dallas National, Rock Creek, and Pikewood National which all have some definite elevation changes. Pikewood is closer to a mountain course than a parkland style IMO. Dallas National is probably the closest of the three, but its still got severe elevation changes. You sense a big difference playing Colonial and then Dallas National the following day.

[George Pazin]

Only Mike knows what he means, but I'd be surprised if he was excluding the likes of DN & Pikewood from his grouping. I took his use of the term 'parkland' to simply mean non-links, non-WOW destination type courses. Consider the intro "Given the rush to remoteness and its theatrical ground" - seems like he was using 'parkland' as a category for "none of the above".

They have mountains in Dallas? Just looked at DN's website, it says the course has 160 feet of elevation change. My neighborhood has more! That's a wee tiny hill around here.

[Sean_A]

How many parkland courses began life as parkland courses? My impression is most parkland courses from the good old days actually began as mostly treeless farmland courses.

As inconsistent as links and heathland definitions are, perhaps parkland is the most vague definition of all.  I have a minds eye picture of what I think the ideal parkland course should be and it doesn't involve tons of trees, but it may have started as a piece of land on which animals grazed.  As trees have become more and more part of designs (intentionally or not), it would seem people now visualize parkland courses as tree-lined.    

Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

Only Mike knows what he means, but I'd be surprised if he was excluding the likes of DN & Pikewood from his grouping. I took his use of the term 'parkland' to simply mean non-links, non-WOW destination type courses. Consider the intro "Given the rush to remoteness and its theatrical ground" - seems like he was using 'parkland' as a category for "none of the above".

They have mountains in Dallas? Just looked at DN's website, it says the course has 160 feet of elevation change. My neighborhood has more! That's a wee tiny hill around here.

George,
I could see some compromise regarding Dallas National, but Pikewood has plenty of WOW. So does Rock Creek. And both sure feel remote, even if Morgantown doesn't really qualify. I'm not sure what I'd characterize Dallas National as being, but sometimes I think these stylistic "groupings" are just ways of trying to divide things that need not be divided!

But since we're at it, parkland makes me think of courses with "core routings" too and not so much expansive properties. Also not so much sub-divided housing courses.

[Tony_Chapman]

Bogey -- Are you familiar with Jeffrey Brauer?

[Carl Johnson]

If we are using Bogey's definition that a parkland course needs to be flat or gently rolling then I would disqualify Dallas National, Rock Creek, and Pikewood National which all have some definite elevation changes. Pikewood is closer to a mountain course than a parkland style IMO. Dallas National is probably the closest of the three, but its still got severe elevation changes. You sense a big difference playing Colonial and then Dallas National the following day.

I think I'd go with "mountain" style for the Pikewood course.  My mother inherited property within a couple of miles of where the course is, and she always referred to it as her "mountain land" (for what little that's worth).  It was adjacent to Greer properties (John Raese's inheritance).  There are carries on the course, as I understand it.  Also, if you look at the course on Google's statelite view, all the holes are isolated from each other by fairly substantial forest land.  On the other hand, no question but that it's much different land than the "hot" courses are being built on today.  

[George Pazin]

Only Mike knows what he means, but I'd be surprised if he was excluding the likes of DN & Pikewood from his grouping. I took his use of the term 'parkland' to simply mean non-links, non-WOW destination type courses. Consider the intro "Given the rush to remoteness and its theatrical ground" - seems like he was using 'parkland' as a category for "none of the above".

They have mountains in Dallas? Just looked at DN's website, it says the course has 160 feet of elevation change. My neighborhood has more! That's a wee tiny hill around here.

George,
I could see some compromise regarding Dallas National, but Pikewood has plenty of WOW. So does Rock Creek. And both sure feel remote, even if Morgantown doesn't really qualify. I'm not sure what I'd characterize Dallas National as being, but sometimes I think these stylistic "groupings" are just ways of trying to divide things that need not be divided!

But since we're at it, parkland makes me think of courses with "core routings" too and not so much expansive properties. Also not so much sub-divided housing courses.

I can certainly see what you're saying, it's likely just a matter of semantics. I'd agree on RC; from what I've heard, Pikewood just strikes me as a course in a hilly area. But I look forward to finding out someday, perhaps even soon.

I'm hoping Bogey can provide a little Hillbilly clarity to the issue.

[Kalen Braley]

RCCC might qualify here if there wasn't so much up and down.  While a few of the holes are rolling, its more walkable f/f mountain style golf than parkland....

[Mike Hendren]

I'm hoping Bogey can provide a little Hillbilly clarity to the issue.

George, I really can't.  Party on.

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()