Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Brett Meyer on January 23, 2023, 06:21:44 AM

Title: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 23, 2023, 06:21:44 AM
I found the other thread on whether there's starting to be too much flashy sand on these new courses to be addressing an important question which I've been thinking about for awhile and which I think the computer renderings of Pine Barrens bring to a head. But that turned into a thread about the meaning of 'pioneer' and discussion on this seemed to end.

For me when thinking about Pine Barrens, the issue of whether there's too much sand quickly becomes: "Should they have even redone Pine Barrens?" That's because the core of what I thought was so brilliant about Pine Barrens was the flow of the course. There were flashy, dramatic holes, but there were also a lot of subtle holes in between. While it certainly had enough great holes to be a great course, this restraint helped make it so that, to paraphrase Ian Andrew, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts."

I think that they should have just restored Tom Fazio's Pine Barrens (maybe without the right 12th green). That's especially because it's one of the best courses of one of the most important architects of the 'pre-renaissance' period. What do you think?

I think your better served with a little restraint. I prefer a few more visual breaks being used to emphasize the next impressive architectural high note.Too much, simply undermines the best work, by blurring and blending it together. The sum becomes less than the parts.
I still don't understand why they made major changes to Pine Barrens in the first place. It was a very good golf course.

They should have done a restoration instead of a renovation that made significant alterations to some of the holes.
I agree with many on this thread that the sandy blowout look is getting overdone and that it'd be nice to see architects pull back from it on sites where they could have used it. I think that the Loop does this very well; Doak et al could have done something Sand Valleyesque there but they restrained themselves and it's a refreshing change of pace from other recent designs.

I have a bigger problem with the renderings of Pine Barrens: that in going with the sandy blowout look throughout the course, they're eliminating one of what I thought was the biggest strengths of Fazio's design, the mix of subtle and dramatic. More than anything, I was impressed about the flow of the design of the original course. It started with a hole of middling visual interest, followed by two holes that were visually quite tame (some beautiful, simple short grass work around the 2nd green), then cranked up the visual drama and design complexity with the multi-route 4th and 5th. Then it was back to simpler and more subtle with the 6th and 7th. I especially liked the simple fall-away green on the par 3 7th.

It continued this way throughout; 9-13 simpler (not the right 12th green), 14-16 dramatic, finish somewhere in between.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: archie_struthers on January 23, 2023, 07:23:17 AM
 8)


In the early days of GCA Tom Fazio was often the poster child for detractors of "big development" on this site. In some ways it was the "Renaissance Period" here on the site when minimalism,  maintenance melds and shovels over bulldozers were all the rage. Finding the holes was embraced  among the cognoscenti on board here. Names like Naccarato,  Paul and Mucci were frequent if not daily contributors and boy were they a fun read. Nascent stars like Cirba and the "Redan Man"  started showing up with great research and opinions on golf and the direction of architecture. I was intrigued and learned , listened and at times rebelled.


The question posed here is a good one !  Not having the pleasure of playing Pine Barrens in Florida but heard many good reports about Fazio's work there. Perhaps there is good reason other than the architecture to redo it. I confess to not having enough information to make that analysis here. But it's a good discussion point.


Given the expense of the acquisition does the new project have lodging or housing needs to make it viable. It appears the site is huge and so doubt this is the reason. Maybe the Keiser's want a feel throughout the resort that is blended. Again , given the scope and dynamic golf development here it's a good one for debate.

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Stewart Abramson on January 23, 2023, 08:32:29 AM
I played Pine Barrens numerous times. It was a solid DS 7 "An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect soundly designed, interesting holes and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf" (note, I left out "good course conditioning", as that was no longer the case the last few years)


A DS 8 is a course that is one of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see.


In most cases I don't think  it's worth the cost and effort to try to turn a DS 7 into an 8 (or higher). However, in the case of WW, the place wasn't ever a business success, notwithstanding the quality of the courses. The chances that a mere restoration would make the place a success was made even more unlikely given its proximity to the relatively recent addition of Streamsong.  In acquiring the facility Cabot likely felt the need to to have a place that is at least a DS 8... worth a special trip to see. So, in this case I can understand why they decided not to just retore PB.


Perhaps the question should be broadened to be  "Under what circumstances, if ever, is it justified to tear up and re-do a DS 7 rather than just restoring it?"
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 23, 2023, 09:00:53 AM
What flow? Pine Barrens original routing was *awful*


Your crossed the same spot 4 times for… reasons. You walked a quarter mile between 15-16-17 each because Fazio routed Firestone through a quarry.



Rolling Oaks was the superior course simply because of how much better it flowed through the property and took you somewhere.


As for the open sand look. Look at the early photos of Pine Barrens. QED.

In fact, Pine Barrens is the poster child for the whole being LESS than the sum of the parts.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Joe Andriole on January 23, 2023, 09:26:27 AM
As is often the case I find myself agreeing with Mr. Harris. Pine Barrens was certainly flashier but ....

Generally, I'm beginning to feel that aesthetics are becoming too desirable to the detriment of the basic tenants of good architecture.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 23, 2023, 09:40:21 AM
What flow? Pine Barrens original routing was *awful*


Your crossed the same spot 4 times for… reasons. You walked a quarter mile between 15-16-17 each because Fazio routed Firestone through a quarry.


I think it was pretty clear from my post that I meant flow in the visual drama, with some holes being surrounded by flashy sand and others having more short grass and less flashy sand. I thought that this ebb and flow in the design style was a virtue and the new renderings make it look like that'll be lost, which I think, all else equal, would make for a worse course than its predecessor.

But was the flow in the routing really that bad? I fail to see how a routing crossing itself four times is bad in itself. You might see it exactly the opposite...as a creative way to deal with a challenging property or to include holes that you really want.

And how bad were the individual walks? It's been awhile since I've been there but they didn't seem that bad. I consulted Google Earth and it looks like there were two (1-2, 16-17) that were about 150 yards and one (11-12) that was about 180 yards. I'll give you that those are a problem.

But (1) no one was claiming that the course was a 10. And (2) is that really that bad? We have walk-forwards to more middle and forward tees all the time on courses that we all praise. And it's not like any of the walks are 300 yards. Assuming that you're often going to be walking 50 or 60 yards to get to the next hole anyway most of the time, is another 90 yards really that much of a problem? And if the benefit of this cost is that we get a greater variety of holes or fewer bad ones, it might be completely worth it. I can't say for sure that this was true with Pine Barrens, but there was certainly enough special about the course to make me sympathetic to Fazio on this point.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ben Hollerbach on January 23, 2023, 10:46:24 AM
Perhaps the question should be broadened to be  "Under what circumstances, if ever, is it justified to tear up and re-do a DS 7 rather than just restoring it?"
That is an interesting question, as one would expect the cost and time to restore / subtly improve a DS 7 towards a DS 8 would be noticeably less than tearing up the DS7 and trying to build a DS 8 from "scratch".
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ben Stephens on January 23, 2023, 11:05:34 AM
Im more interested in seeing what Riley Johns and Keith Rhebb does to Rolling Oaks. Isn't Mike Nuzzo is doing the short course and practice area?


Re Pine Barrens it would be interesting to see what the Fazio routing is compared with Kyle Franz's


Also from experience CGIs sometimes are overdone that you try to rein it back a bit.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Rob Marshall on January 23, 2023, 11:36:16 AM
Someone explain to me the value of the routing if the holes are good? Does it really matter if you walk 100 yards to the next tee?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 23, 2023, 12:11:20 PM
Someone explain to me the value of the routing if the holes are good? Does it really matter if you walk 100 yards to the next tee?


Rob-I haven’t played the subject course so I can’t offer an opinion on the original routing. Generally the individual holes would need to be good/great to necessitate three treks of 150-180 yards between greens and tees.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ian Andrew on January 23, 2023, 12:18:18 PM
I think that they should have just restored Tom Fazio's Pine Barrens (maybe without the right 12th green). That's especially because it's one of the best courses of one of the most important architects of the 'pre-renaissance' period. What do you think?

I think your better served with a little restraint. I prefer a few more visual breaks being used to emphasize the next impressive architectural high note.Too much, simply undermines the best work, by blurring and blending it together. The sum becomes less than the parts.
I'm only responding because you are using my quote to make a point - one that I don't share. But that's ok. No issues with you using the quote to make your point btw. That's fine by me.

I like Pine Barrens, did from the beginning, but they can do what they like. It's not something I would have preserved given the choice. It needed work to be a draw. Whether Kyle goes that extreme is up to Kyle. I'm interested to see the results. I wasn't going back to Pine Barrens if they cleaned it up and left it as is.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Michael Chadwick on January 23, 2023, 12:29:26 PM
It's a fair question, although it could only be realistically posed before Cabot became the new owner. A product represents its brand, and Cabot in my view doesn't appear to be a brand that would embrace a 'pre-renaissance' architect as you term it, Brett.


A different ownership group certainly could've taken that restoration angle. But with Congaree, Gozzer Ranch, and other well maintained Fazio designs elsewhere, Cabot's decision to overhaul the course with a next-gen architect seems more appropriate for its brand strategy and customer base.   
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tommy Williamsen on January 23, 2023, 12:49:57 PM
I have played WW a half dozen times over the years, and like a Doak 7 went because it was on my way to somewhere else. I enjoyed PB more than Rolling Oaks and agree that a good restoration would be preferable. I can see why the new owners have opted for a complete restoration. Flashy use of sand is the new de rigueur. I know it is not fashionable on this site, but I did not go more or stay in the vicinity longer because the infrastructure stinks. Even when the course was new, I hated being in the clubhouse. I'd grab lunch, play the afternoon round, then leave. Nothing about the place encouraged me to stay on-site or linger in the clubhouse.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kalen Braley on January 23, 2023, 12:50:51 PM
My question would be, did anyone ever ask Fazio what his opinion on all this was?

If it was your work and you were still around/in the biz, wouldn't you want some input or consideration?

For example what would the group's response be if someone else other than Tom was brought on to resurrect High Point?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 23, 2023, 01:18:08 PM
I think your better served with a little restraint. I prefer a few more visual breaks being used to emphasize the next impressive architectural high note.Too much, simply undermines the best work, by blurring and blending it together. The sum becomes less than the parts.

I'm only responding because you are using my quote to make a point - one that I don't share. But that's ok. No issues with you using the quote to make your point btw. That's fine by me.

I like Pine Barrens, did from the beginning, but they can do what they like. It's not something I would have preserved given the choice. It needed work to be a draw. Whether Kyle goes that extreme is up to Kyle. I'm interested to see the results. I wasn't going back to Pine Barrens if they cleaned it up and left it as is.



Ian,

Maybe I mistakenly thought that you were making the point about Pine Barrens. But I guess that if I did, it was because I thought that Fazio's Pine Barrens exemplified the point. It had flashiness, but also a lot of visual breaks and the course stood out for me more than just about any other that I've seen in this mix of drama and restraint.

Would you agree that Pine Barrens did this well? What are some other courses that you think do a good job of this?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Rob Marshall on January 23, 2023, 01:31:14 PM
Someone explain to me the value of the routing if the holes are good? Does it really matter if you walk 100 yards to the next tee?


Rob-I haven’t played the subject course so I can’t offer an opinion on the original routing. Generally the individual holes would need to be good/great to necessitate three treks of 150-180 yards between greens and tees.


Tim, I was always in a cart playing with my father but I can honestly say I don't remember going from green to tee as anything other than normal but It's been a while since I played there. Every time I looked to go back they were overseeding......
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 23, 2023, 01:39:31 PM
Someone explain to me the value of the routing if the holes are good? Does it really matter if you walk 100 yards to the next tee?


Rob-I haven’t played the subject course so I can’t offer an opinion on the original routing. Generally the individual holes would need to be good/great to necessitate three treks of 150-180 yards between greens and tees.


Tim, I was always in a cart playing with my father but I can honestly say I don't remember going from green to tee as anything other than normal but It's been a while since I played there. Every time I looked to go back they were overseeding......


Rob-Playing with your dad is all that counts. :)
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ronald Montesano on January 23, 2023, 03:07:25 PM
"tenets" of good architecture, not tenants. Tenants occupy a living space; tenets are rules/guidelines.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kalen Braley on January 23, 2023, 03:10:16 PM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Max Prokopy on January 23, 2023, 03:47:31 PM
Is it possible that part of the purpose is re-branding the entire "experience"?  If the operation always lacked economic success, even with a big name like Fazio, then a restoration might not make enough of a financial splash. 


I know some GCA folks might not love Fazio's work, I don't particularly, but he is a "name" and attracts followers.  If that couldn't help them turn a profit then wholesale changes might be strategic more from a financial vs. golf architecture perspective.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Alex Miller on January 23, 2023, 04:13:24 PM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225


These 7 holes alone have about double the green to tee walks of my home course. That seems... not good.


I haven't played Pine Barrens and probably best to remember the renderings we've seen are just not photos. Uncomfortable question: if nobody has asked Tom Fazio about restoring it, how much does that matter if the end result is universally accepted as an improvement? Of course we'll have to wait to see it, but it sounds like many including the new ownership thought that could be achieved.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 23, 2023, 04:16:48 PM
"tenets" of good architecture, not tenants. Tenants occupy a living space; tenets are rules/guidelines.


And you wonder why people block you…. ::) ???
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Rob Marshall on January 23, 2023, 04:28:58 PM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225


I have to say it's been a long time since I was last there but I never would have guessed that. I never noticed it in a cart.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tommy Williamsen on January 23, 2023, 04:56:34 PM
One of Cabot courses' hallmarks and ongoing "tenets" is walkability, so it makes sense that they would like to minimize the length of walks from greens to tees.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ben Hollerbach on January 23, 2023, 05:33:11 PM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225


I have to say it's been a long time since I was last there but I never would have guessed that. I never noticed it in a cart.
It would be curious to know what the percentage of cart round vs walking were. Probably 85-90% carts.
In a cart going 15mph you can travel 440 yards in a minute, so the longest drive here would be just over 30 seconds.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Steve_Lovett on January 23, 2023, 06:23:17 PM
I played both Pine Barrens and Rolling Oaks several times over the years. Both solid. Neither sacred. Their condition and interest to me diminished over the years. I'll withhold judgment until I see it all in person, but the photos look over the top, stylistically.


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tom_Doak on January 23, 2023, 06:30:24 PM
Im more interested in seeing what Riley Johns and Keith Rhebb does to Rolling Oaks.


Well you are going to be disappointed then, because they’re no longer involved.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tom_Doak on January 23, 2023, 07:10:45 PM
As to the original post, my initial reaction was that they should have restored the course.  That’s one reason I shied away from accepting the job.  But they are trying to make it a walking golf destination, and you couldn’t really preserve the original design with those green to tee walks.  It just wasn’t designed to be walkable.


I played it two years ago and that is the only time in recent memory that I have played out of a cart!
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on January 23, 2023, 09:56:59 PM
8)


In the early days of GCA Tom Fazio was often the poster child for detractors of "big development" on this site. In some ways it was the "Renaissance Period" here on the site when minimalism,  maintenance melds and shovels over bulldozers were all the rage. Finding the holes was embraced  among the cognoscenti on board here. Names like Naccarato,  Paul and Mucci were frequent if not daily contributors and boy were they a fun read. Nascent stars like Cirba and the "Redan Man"  started showing up with great research and opinions on golf and the direction of architecture. I was intrigued and learned , listened and at times rebelled.


The question posed here is a good one !  Not having the pleasure of playing Pine Barrens in Florida but heard many good reports about Fazio's work there. Perhaps there is good reason other than the architecture to redo it. I confess to not having enough information to make that analysis here. But it's a good discussion point.


Given the expense of the acquisition does the new project have lodging or housing needs to make it viable. It appears the site is huge and so doubt this is the reason. Maybe the Keiser's want a feel throughout the resort that is blended. Again , given the scope and dynamic golf development here it's a good one for debate.


Archie,


Thanks for the enjoyable post. Oh…..the good old days.


I played Pine Barrens a couple times when it first opened and thought it was pretty good. Not great, but certainly worth playing if you were in the vicinity.


Was there too much flashy sand back then? Not that I recall. Honestly, I remember also playing Whistling Straights close to when it first opened and thinking there was too much flashy sand, much of which was really out of play.


Back then advertising for WS called it “Pete Dye’s tribute to Ballybunion”. Might have been good advertising, but it was also false IMO. Ballybunion doesn’t feature flashy sand.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: jeffwarne on January 24, 2023, 12:14:30 AM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225


I have to say it's been a long time since I was last there but I never would have guessed that. I never noticed it in a cart.


Definitely noticed the rides.
The bar was lower in the early 90s though.
Always preferred  Rolling Oaks.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on January 24, 2023, 01:41:16 AM
8)


In the early days of GCA Tom Fazio was often the poster child for detractors of "big development" on this site. In some ways it was the "Renaissance Period" here on the site when minimalism,  maintenance melds and shovels over bulldozers were all the rage. Finding the holes was embraced  among the cognoscenti on board here. Names like Naccarato,  Paul and Mucci were frequent if not daily contributors and boy were they a fun read. Nascent stars like Cirba and the "Redan Man"  started showing up with great research and opinions on golf and the direction of architecture. I was intrigued and learned , listened and at times rebelled.


The question posed here is a good one !  Not having the pleasure of playing Pine Barrens in Florida but heard many good reports about Fazio's work there. Perhaps there is good reason other than the architecture to redo it. I confess to not having enough information to make that analysis here. But it's a good discussion point.


Given the expense of the acquisition does the new project have lodging or housing needs to make it viable. It appears the site is huge and so doubt this is the reason. Maybe the Keiser's want a feel throughout the resort that is blended. Again , given the scope and dynamic golf development here it's a good one for debate.


Archie,


Thanks for the enjoyable post. Oh…..the good old days.


I played Pine Barrens a couple times when it first opened and thought it was pretty good. Not great, but certainly worth playing if you were in the vicinity.


Was there too much flashy sand back then? Not that I recall. Honestly, I remember also playing Whistling Straights close to when it first opened and thinking there was too much flashy sand, much of which was really out of play.


Back then advertising for WS called it “Pete Dye’s tribute to Ballybunion”. Might have been good advertising, but it was also false IMO. Ballybunion doesn’t feature flashy sand.


No links course features flashy sand (see the other thread). The closest you get are some of the open - and natural - blow-outs in Carne or St.Patricks but they are few and far between.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Paul Rudovsky on January 24, 2023, 02:27:29 AM
For those who minimize the importance of routing, I suggest a visit to Ellerston in NSW, Australia.  Built on Kerry Packer's private family estate on what I recall as being 100 sq miles in area, the golf course may have the best collection of 18 holes I have ever seen on a golf course (certainly top ten in that regard).  That said, it also has the worst routing I have ever seen...with long long distances from green to tee (but I do not recall crossovers). 


I only played the two tracks at WW once (in late 2011) and have no recollection of the routing, but IMO routing is a critical element of design...golf courses are NOT just the sum of their 18 holes.  Ellerston may be an extreme example but it screams that message.


Related to this point, I have a strong sense that large sites may be a detriment to great architecture...almost like it can make the routing task too simple and straightforward.  That may inhibit creativity.  On small sites (Merion being a great example but far from the only one), I sense the architect has to "dig deeper" and that shows in the final result. 


BTW...if you want to play Ellerston these days I gather it may be tougher to access than ANGC!



Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on January 24, 2023, 03:05:17 AM
For those who minimize the importance of routing, I suggest a visit to Ellerston in NSW, Australia.  Built on Kerry Packer's private family estate on what I recall as being 100 sq miles in area, the golf course may have the best collection of 18 holes I have ever seen on a golf course (certainly top ten in that regard).  That said, it also has the worst routing I have ever seen...with long long distances from green to tee (but I do not recall crossovers). 


I only played the two tracks at WW once (in late 2011) and have no recollection of the routing, but IMO routing is a critical element of design...golf courses are NOT just the sum of their 18 holes.  Ellerston may be an extreme example but it screams that message.


Related to this point, I have a strong sense that large sites may be a detriment to great architecture...almost like it can make the routing task too simple and straightforward.  That may inhibit creativity.  On small sites (Merion being a great example but far from the only one), I sense the architect has to "dig deeper" and that shows in the final result. 


BTW...if you want to play Ellerston these days I gather it may be tougher to access than ANGC!
Paul,


Over the years there have been many different topics pertaining to golf architecture discussed here, but I don’t recall us ever discussing whether a large site can actually be a detriment to good architecture.


In your opinion, is Ellerston just a one off or do you think there are many such examples?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ben Stephens on January 24, 2023, 04:51:09 AM
Im more interested in seeing what Riley Johns and Keith Rhebb does to Rolling Oaks.


Well you are going to be disappointed then, because they’re no longer involved.


Drat!!
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 24, 2023, 06:25:45 AM
I took some approx. measurements on Google Earth as the existing course still there:

(These assume the golfer isn't walking thru lines of play on other holes, ie cutting across the 2nd green from 16 to 17)

Transition  Yards
1 green to 2 tee
     190
3 green to 4 tee
120
6 green to 7 tee
160
11 green to 12 tee
220
15 green to 16 tee
135
16 green to 17 tee
250
17 green to 18 tee
225

Kalen,

I was being a bit charitable to Fazio with some of my green-to-tee walk estimates and I missed 17-18. Thanks for doing a more careful job collecting the numbers.

But I suspect that practically speaking, the actual walks are probably a bit less bad than your numbers suggest. One, I'd start measuring from 15 or 20 yards off the back edge of the green because you're always going to have to get a bit away from the green for the next tee (maybe not at St. Andrew's). Maybe you already did this.

And I'd also always knock off what I think is an average (and reasonable) walking distance between holes. I'd say that's around 50 or 60 yards. When assessing the architect's routing, they get a free, no-questions-asked 50 or 60 yards between every hole. Beyond that is when you start to deduct points. And with some of the walks at Pine Barrens, like 3-4, there isn't much left, maybe 50 or 60 yards.

To be sure, this still leaves a few 140 yard walks and more if you're playing forward tees (whether we should discount that is another discussion). I'd knock Pine Barrens for having several of those. Yet on the courses where the gaps between holes really start to bother me, you get several walks over 200 yards, even discounting the initial 50 or 60 yards. These especially become a problem if the course allows both carts and walkers. These long walks will really challenge the walkers to keep ahead of the riders.

The Pine Barrens longer walks, while still too numerous, are never so long that this would become a real problem. I think you have to keep something like that in mind when criticizing a course for having long green-to-tee walks. Anything over 120ish yards is a problem and it's especially a problem if there are several of them, but this is far less of a practical problem than if you have a few 300 yard walks.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 24, 2023, 07:11:58 AM
If you’re going to make me walk through a golf course with ball in pocket there better be a good reason.


The 17th/18th holes at Pine Barrens were never good reasons.


The lack of golf between 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 17-18… an area in the middle of the golf course one traverses FOUR times with no compelling features or focal points on the property? Of the 8 holes coming into/out of the area only the 2nd, 6th, and 11th got the fizz going.


The juxtaposition of the old 3rd and 16th was a little odd to me, too. One that created a crossover and an odd, fake, pond.


The entire Pine Barrens routing existed to serve two holes (4 and 15). It was justified through cart use.


Nothing on Pine Barrens could match the excitement and flow of Rolling Oaks felt while standing on the 12th tee and then climbing out of the bottom of the most interesting portion of the property. The equivalent position on Pine Barrens lead you back to… yup… the same bill space for the fourth time.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Rob Marshall on January 24, 2023, 08:01:39 AM
I would think that the importance of routing the course is the best use of the land not the distance from tee to green.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Sean_A on January 24, 2023, 08:09:05 AM
I would think that the importance of routing the course is the best use of the land not the distance from tee to green.

Among other things it depends on if the course is meant to be walkable. If the goal is a walkable course that walk should be one of the priorities of the routing. Of course the concept of an acceptable walk is subjective. And of course there is more leeway the better the course...at least from a consumer PoV. But there isn't much point in a so called walkable course that encourages people to use carts because of long transitions between holes.

Ciao
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Paul Rudovsky on January 24, 2023, 08:33:24 AM



Over the years there have been many different topics pertaining to golf architecture discussed here, but I don’t recall us ever discussing whether a large site can actually be a detriment to good architecture.


In your opinion, is Ellerston just a one off or do you think there are many such examples?


My sense is that Ellerston is an extreme example...and so few have played it that it would be hard to get a consensus on it. But I do think our day to day lives are filled with examples where excess availability of something leads to "careless" use of it (and that statement is from someone on the right side of of the political spectrum).  It is just a natural tendency...if something is fairly limited and "dear" we wisely work hard to use it carefully so we don't run out (while also looking for more or acceptable substitutes).  If something seems to be unlimited...why worry about it? (or at least worry less about it)
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Paul Rudovsky on January 24, 2023, 08:35:49 AM
BTW two other examples of great architecture coming from limited land availability would be Harbour Town and Wannamoissett (spell?)
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: M. Shea Sweeney on January 24, 2023, 09:31:17 AM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.





Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Max Prokopy on January 24, 2023, 03:25:44 PM
BTW two other examples of great architecture coming from limited land availability would be Harbour Town and Wannamoissett (spell?)


"Wanny" was the first to come to my mind, squeezed into an urban area.  It is a master class in routing. 


Being a painter, I find the blank canvas of a place like Sand Valley a much tougher task.  When I played there I could picture 50, 60, 70 possible greensites just in the immediate areas.  Narrowing those down and configuring something sensible, walkable, and playable seemed heroic. 
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on January 24, 2023, 05:15:32 PM
BTW two other examples of great architecture coming from limited land availability would be Harbour Town and Wannamoissett (spell?)


"Wanny" was the first to come to my mind, squeezed into an urban area.  It is a master class in routing. 


Being a painter, I find the blank canvas of a place like Sand Valley a much tougher task.  When I played there I could picture 50, 60, 70 possible greensites just in the immediate areas.  Narrowing those down and configuring something sensible, walkable, and playable seemed heroic.


Don’t let anyone kid you on that routing on a huge site is harder than routing on a really tight site, just because you have so many choices.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tommy Williamsen on January 24, 2023, 06:27:31 PM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Paul Rudovsky on January 24, 2023, 06:54:34 PM
Being a painter, I find the blank canvas of a place like Sand Valley a much tougher task.  When I played there I could picture 50, 60, 70 possible greensites just in the immediate areas.  Narrowing those down and configuring something sensible, walkable, and playable seemed heroic.


Don’t let anyone kid you on that routing on a huge site is harder than routing on a really tight site, just because you have so many choices.


Ally--I can't speak for others but I am NOT saying routing on a large piece of property is harder.  I am saying that routing on a small of property requires more concentration and focus.  It is almost like a golfer who steps up to a wide open hole ands loses concentration and bows the tee shot left or right into the rough.   I think the increased concentration with a small restricted piece of property often brings very creative solutions

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tom_Doak on January 24, 2023, 07:20:06 PM
I've had the great fortune of doing routings for expansive properties on many occasions -- at Rock Creek I was given my choice of 80,000 acres, but then they second-guessed that because some of the land was leased from the government, and I had to change my routing!


Routing on a huge site is just different.  Many architects are tempted to do the Ellerston thing and not worry about the green-to-tee distances, but I try to minimize those as much as I can.  When you are walking between holes, you lose focus on the game at hand.  That's okay if you are walking along a beautiful view, but otherwise it's going to wreck the experience IMO.


Routing on a small site gives you more limited options, and if something isn't working well you have to fix it with the bulldozer.  With a bigger site, I always think I've got a chance to fix the problem by rerouting a hole or two.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Don Mahaffey on January 24, 2023, 07:26:50 PM
Has Fazio group done many restorations? I can’t remember any, but I’m probably missing some. 
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 24, 2023, 07:45:51 PM
Has Fazio group done many restorations? I can’t remember any, but I’m probably missing some.




Don-Three I can think of are CC of Scranton, Wee Burn CC and Fox Chapel Golf Club.



Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: archie_struthers on January 24, 2023, 07:50:25 PM
 8)


Good stuff Tim , and they do a lot of re-tinkering

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 24, 2023, 07:52:53 PM
I wish I could say my photo albums of the old WW courses are my two of my faves, but they aren't. But they are better than nothing.


http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWPineBarrens/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWPineBarrens/index.html)


http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWRollingOaks/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWRollingOaks/index.html)
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 24, 2023, 08:00:13 PM
8)


Good stuff Tim , and they do a lot of re-tinkering


Archie-Tom Marzolf seems to be the lead guy for most of Fazio’s restoration/renovation projects.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tom_Doak on January 24, 2023, 08:02:45 PM
Has Fazio group done many restorations? I can’t remember any, but I’m probably missing some.


They did Inverness and Oak Hill (East), were abused for it a few years later, and stopped doing them until the market for new courses dried up.  But they did keep working at Bel Air!
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: jeffwarne on January 24, 2023, 11:51:14 PM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


Pretty sure his point was he was there for the golf.
Our “hang” at WW was another 18 holes or an emergency 9.
I had lunch in the clubhouse and grabbed a beer or 12 to go many times.
Perfectly fine.
Give me the “muni” feel every time.





Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Rob Marshall on January 25, 2023, 09:49:47 AM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


Pretty sure his point was he was there for the golf.
Our “hang” at WW was another 18 holes or an emergency 9.
I had lunch in the clubhouse and grabbed a beer or 12 to go many times.
Perfectly fine.
Give me the “muni” feel every time.


It was a great place to have a 36 hole day. It was just in the middle of no where. I believe there was supposed to be a Marriott or Hilton when they first built but it fell thru. I grew up at a Muni so the feel never bothered me. Never thought it was dirty and enjoyed every round I played there. My father had his only hole in one on the 16th at Pine Barrens.



Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: M. Shea Sweeney on January 25, 2023, 10:47:18 AM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


Pretty sure his point was he was there for the golf.
Our “hang” at WW was another 18 holes or an emergency 9.
I had lunch in the clubhouse and grabbed a beer or 12 to go many times.
Perfectly fine.
Give me the “muni” feel every time.


It was a great place to have a 36 hole day. It was just in the middle of no where. I believe there was supposed to be a Marriott or Hilton when they first built but it fell thru. I grew up at a Muni so the feel never bothered me. Never thought it was dirty and enjoyed every round I played there. My father had his only hole in one on the 16th at Pine Barrens.


For me that style of golf is sort of like visiting a State Park- are those bathrooms the Four Season's? I am sure the guys climbing in Yosemite aren't quite worried about those sort of comforts... (not saying all golf needs to be that way)

The muni offers that spirit- and what's funny is a lot of the clubs that have these sacred courses are often purposely hanging/trying to deliver rawness - and subsequently everyone loves it. Or the modern destination model of putting on the fancy rawness and everyone clamoring over it.

When I first visited Ohoopee and got to the holes with the Zebras- the first thing I thought about was World Woods where you get near the cows and it feels like you could just as well be in Australia.

I once arranged a trip for a bunch of people who were keen on an adventure in the middle of nowhere / 70+ degree weather - we rented out this old horse ranch about 15 mins from World Woods- it was great. We must have had like 12 guys. We built this huge fire and cooked out all night (ourselves) and played golf all day. One of the guys who was on that trip is dead- I know that was one of his last great boondoggles - and a good one it was.

World Woods, for a moment in time, offered something unique from the rest of the state, in a peculiar way that was not exactly done on purpose- and there are many golfers who enjoy that type of "experience".





Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Stewart Abramson on January 25, 2023, 03:13:09 PM
I wish I could say my photo albums of the old WW courses are my two of my faves, but they aren't. But they are better than nothing.


http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWPineBarrens/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWPineBarrens/index.html)


http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWRollingOaks/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/WWRollingOaks/index.html)


Here are links to a few more:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157643124366835 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157643124366835)  Pine Barrens


https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157643123980023 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157643123980023)  Rolling Oaks
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Steve_Lovett on January 25, 2023, 05:14:14 PM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


There's a difference between a low-key experience (something like Tobacco Road as a public example or Palmetto Golf Club as a private example) and a lousy experience. World Woods became the latter.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kalen Braley on January 25, 2023, 05:28:56 PM

Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.

The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)

 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.

Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.

There's a difference between a low-key experience (something like Tobacco Road as a public example or Palmetto Golf Club as a private example) and a lousy experience. World Woods became the latter.


Steve,

While I agree with this in principle, I think there are more variables at play.

For example one can play a nice course with all the extras, great clubhouse, F&B is on point, but if the cost is high it may still be a lousy experience in terms of value and not feeling like it lived up the price.

As opposed to playing something like Mike pointed out on the other thread, no frills, Ok conditioning, basic golf, but at a great price point where one deems it a terrific experience.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Alex Miller on January 25, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

From a business perspective...

Not sure who "they" is, but if it's Cabot I would say the answer is clearly no. There is not only a brand quality which needs to be maintained, but no doubt the marketing buzz from a "reimagined experience" on the same site weighs into the business decision. Added to the difference in green fees for a new Cabot course vs Pine Barrens, the case for the former is pretty clear.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: M. Shea Sweeney on January 25, 2023, 06:19:19 PM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


There's a difference between a low-key experience (something like Tobacco Road as a public example or Palmetto Golf Club as a private example) and a lousy experience. World Woods became the latter.


Steve,
Well we're getting somewhere- I played Tobacco Road several times a semester in college and somehow Palmetto lets me go there when I want. So both are near and dear to my heart.


I and many others do enjoy playing golf where THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE. And World Woods, perhaps not on purpose, sort of offered that and good holes at scale. I will miss it.







Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 25, 2023, 06:40:01 PM


Like others have said, the whole place never had much of an experience. It had a trunk-slamming muni feel to it (not in a good way) and was no place you'd want to hang out and spend time. The experience and golf needed a full overhaul - not a tweak or restoration of what was there. I hope it's successful.


The fact that you didn't feel compelled to hang there is why I felt compelled to go play golf there.

Those sentiments are exactly why I loved going to World Woods. Back when this was first announced I knew that was it for a "great escape". It was the type of place you could arrange 3 or 4 groups and have at it without much fuss (caddies, rules, $$$ etc)


 Tough to have low key experience and real big golf in Florida- more time goes on the less it exists.


Not quite sure what you mean. The last time I was there the clubhouse wasn’t even clean. I couldn’t wait to get in my car.


There's a difference between a low-key experience (something like Tobacco Road as a public example or Palmetto Golf Club as a private example) and a lousy experience. World Woods became the latter.


Steve,
Well we're getting somewhere- I played Tobacco Road several times a semester in college and somehow Palmetto lets me go there when I want. So both are near and dear to my heart.


I think where we differ is I and many others enjoy playing golf where THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE. And World Woods, perhaps not on purpose, sort of offered that and good holes at scale. I will miss it.


There are not many privates that deliver both the quality golf course and social experience of Palmetto. Low key, welcoming and unassuming is embedded in their culture.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on January 25, 2023, 06:53:27 PM
I and many others do enjoy playing golf where THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE. And World Woods, perhaps not on purpose, sort of offered that and good holes at scale. I will miss it.
Sounds like an anti-gentrification movement for golf courses.
My buddies and I do a golf trip every year in February.  We generally have gone to the Orlando area, but we will likely try CCF once it is open. 
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 26, 2023, 06:03:28 AM
One of my litmus tests for meeting new people within the golf business was guaging their reaction to my comments on the golf carts at World Woods.

They were well maintained but an older late-90's era model.


Those that thought I was being negative about that were likely to only be interested in sucking as much cash out of golf as possible. Those that thought I was being positive about that were likely kindred spirits.

I echo the wistful rose-tinted view of the somewhat run-down nature of World Woods but also recognize it's time had passed.

I won't miss Pine Barrens nearly as much as I'll miss Rolling Oaks. I'll also miss the tee shot on the second hole of the three practice holes.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 26, 2023, 07:36:18 AM

From a business perspective...Not sure who "they" is, but if it's Cabot I would say the answer is clearly no. There is not only a brand quality which needs to be maintained, but no doubt the marketing buzz from a "reimagined experience" on the same site weighs into the business decision. Added to the difference in green fees for a new Cabot course vs Pine Barrens, the case for the former is pretty clear.

It's a fair question, although it could only be realistically posed before Cabot became the new owner. A product represents its brand, and Cabot in my view doesn't appear to be a brand that would embrace a 'pre-renaissance' architect as you term it, Brett.

A different ownership group certainly could've taken that restoration angle. But with Congaree, Gozzer Ranch, and other well maintained Fazio designs elsewhere, Cabot's decision to overhaul the course with a next-gen architect seems more appropriate for its brand strategy and customer base.

I've been thinking about the branding issue since Michael posted about it and Alex raises it too, so I'll give my take. First of all, I think I agree with you that from a PR guy perspective, reimagining the architecture of Pine Barrens in the mold of the other Keiser/Cabot resorts makes sense. People know those brands, the content is always good. They (the group of people who's in charge here) have had a successful product and when they've added to it, it's been well received and successful. Why mess with that?

Well, two reasons in this case I think. The first is because of their strong brand. When you've created a strong brand, more than trust in the product itself, you've created trust in the people who produce it. You might say that what makes the Keiser/Cabot brand is a certain style of golf course architecture, but I'd give them more credit than that: the brand is great golf course architecture on great land, not a certain style of architecture (I'd doubt that most of the guys who go to Bandon know the difference between a Doak and a Fazio). The brand is these guys; they know how to pick 'em. Whatever they do, you know that it's going to be good because their batting average is about 1.000 in at least a dozen at-bats.

To me, that gives them the latitude to do something that's architecturally a bit different. Whatever they do, you can trust that it's going to be good because these guys have proven that they know what good is. And (2) I think that Fazio's Pine Barrens was an example of very good/great architecture and that restoring it would have been completely on-brand in this broader sense. I think it deserved their blessing. It would have added further architectural variety to their stable of courses and shown that their brand isn't just about a certain style or a small stable of architects coming from the same design tradition.

Now I wouldn't say that they should have made no changes. Adding some new back tees on the holes starting at the three-way intersection (2, 7, 12) would have shortened the walking distances. A few trees could have come down on 17 and 18. They really should have lost the right green on 12. Maybe they could have made it a bit flashier in some of the flashy spots. But they should have retained the bones of each of the holes. The course was good enough to deserve it and I think it would have shown that their brand is broader than a certain style of architecture. It's 'Guys who know what a great course is.'
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 26, 2023, 08:26:28 AM
Batting 1.000 in a dozen at bats?

Who? What were the at bats?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 26, 2023, 09:41:43 AM
Batting 1.000 in a dozen at bats?

Who? What were the at bats?

Really? You can't process a simple analogy?

How about this: engage with the substance of my posts or just say nothing about them. Either is fine with me.

Maybe I should change their font?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Charlie Goerges on January 26, 2023, 09:50:59 AM
Adding some new back tees on the holes starting at the three-way intersection (2, 7, 12) would have shortened the walking distances.




I'm not sure how adding back tees shortens walking distances. It will shorten the "dead" walk for people playing those tees, but not overall and certainly not for people not playing them. That said, I'm not opposed to a few long walks anyway.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 26, 2023, 09:51:53 AM
Batting 1.000 in a dozen at bats?

Who? What were the at bats?

Really? You can't process a simple analogy?

How about this: engage with the substance of my posts or just say nothing about them. Either is fine with me.

Maybe I should change their font?


You said "at least a dozen at bats"

About whom are you talking? The developer or the architects?

The developers have opened two golf courses on one site with several others under various stages of development. That's hardly "at least a dozen."

If the analogy is for the developers I think the substance of your post could use some further explanation. If it's for the architects, then absolutely, but your use of pronouns with several preceding possible subjects is clear as mud.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: archie_struthers on January 26, 2023, 10:25:40 AM
 :P


Some good discussion on this one, enjoying lots of the content. As to the reason for Citrus doing the redo/re-imagining It appears the general public / customer would enjoy the new more than a redo of the old. New typically trumps old , often to our chagrin. Shea-Sweeney and Kyle are kinded spirits with many of us in the appreciation of the beautifully simple. So many accoutrements by definition may no longer have a practical purpose but are ceremonial in nature. Perhaps that's why the old clubhouse and showers at some Main Line Clubs in Philly are protected by a dwindling and aging population . But boy are some of them "special".


Never visited World Woods but think I would have liked it , and most likely will like the new development Citrus brings. But memory of a tree that infuriated you or a bunker complex that didn't make sense may trigger a response in golf strategy that got you.


To Tim's point on Tom Marzolf agree that Tom Fazio hasn't been in the renovation business for a long time , but did work for his uncle George early in his career, for sure at my beloved Greate Bay in Somers Point. I would say he's "tinkered" with the powers that be at Pine Valley for the longest time. As much as the work is all but seamless for someone who hadn't been there before I've had more than a few rants about the stuff LOL    It's the good  memories  that can reverberate and often transcends the architecture









Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tim Martin on January 26, 2023, 10:34:35 AM

  It's the good  memories  that can reverberate and often transcends the architecture


Archie gets it right as usual. Many times the company and atmosphere are what you remember more than the lacy edged bunkers.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Morgan Clawson on January 26, 2023, 11:38:25 AM
It is clear that travelling golfers want and will pay for adventure golf.


From Bandon to Prairie Club to Landmand to Sand Valley to Sweetens to Cabot Cape B to Streamsong, golfers willing to travel for golf are seeking-out big and bold adventure golf experiences.


It makes good business sense that Cabot Citrus would keep the petal to the metal in their dozers and push things in that direction.

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 26, 2023, 05:34:55 PM
Batting 1.000 in a dozen at bats?

Who? What were the at bats?

Really? You can't process a simple analogy?

How about this: engage with the substance of my posts or just say nothing about them. Either is fine with me.

Maybe I should change their font?


You said "at least a dozen at bats"

About whom are you talking? The developer or the architects?

The developers have opened two golf courses on one site with several others under various stages of development. That's hardly "at least a dozen."

If the analogy is for the developers I think the substance of your post could use some further explanation. If it's for the architects, then absolutely, but your use of pronouns with several preceding possible subjects is clear as mud.

Good. Despite the snarkiness, at least I know what you're talking about now.

I'm talking about the combination of Keiser and Cowan-Dewar, aka 'Dream Golf.' I said this in my second sentence.

I know that the latter hasn't been involved in all of the former's projects, but it's clearly all one brand. I've read the same magazine about it at Bandon, Cabot, and Sand Valley.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Kyle Harris on January 26, 2023, 06:44:24 PM
Batting 1.000 in a dozen at bats?

Who? What were the at bats?

Really? You can't process a simple analogy?

How about this: engage with the substance of my posts or just say nothing about them. Either is fine with me.

Maybe I should change their font?


You said "at least a dozen at bats"

About whom are you talking? The developer or the architects?

The developers have opened two golf courses on one site with several others under various stages of development. That's hardly "at least a dozen."

If the analogy is for the developers I think the substance of your post could use some further explanation. If it's for the architects, then absolutely, but your use of pronouns with several preceding possible subjects is clear as mud.

Good. Despite the snarkiness, at least I know what you're talking about now.

I'm talking about the combination of Keiser and Cowan-Dewar, aka 'Dream Golf.' I said this in my second sentence.

I know that the latter hasn't been involved in all of the former's projects, but it's clearly all one brand. I've read the same magazine about it at Bandon, Cabot, and Sand Valley.


You might be the only person I’ve ever seen attempt to tie the success of Bandon Dunes/Sand Valley with the success of Cabot like that.


I meant no snark. Your analogy just seemed awful stretched. But to take your analogy a little farther I’d be curious which hat you think Bandon Dunes would wear on its HOF plaque. And which hat Cabot would wear.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 26, 2023, 06:55:56 PM
I am very much looking forward to the new Cabot courses.


And I won’t forget the really good times I had at WW with my Villanova buddies. I made between 5 and 10 trips there over the years and we always left with great memories. Those box lunches at the turn were special!
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Brett Meyer on January 27, 2023, 06:51:00 AM
Adding some new back tees on the holes starting at the three-way intersection (2, 7, 12) would have shortened the walking distances.




I'm not sure how adding back tees shortens walking distances. It will shorten the "dead" walk for people playing those tees, but not overall and certainly not for people not playing them. That said, I'm not opposed to a few long walks anyway.

Yes, it would shorten the 'dead' walk, not the overall walk. But my sense is that the dead walk is what people are mostly concerned about when discussing routing. The less dead walk between holes, the better.

And yes, it wouldn't shorten the walk for people not playing the back tees. But you can never have an equally short walk to all tees. Ideally, the shortest walk might be to the middle tees because that's what most people play. This is what you see on a lot of courses in the UK because the middle tees were the original tees and the back tees have been added (Walton Heath and Royal. St. George's have a lot of walkbacks to back tees).

But for me and I think for a lot of people who are concerned about this stuff, shortening the distance to the nearest set of tees, even if it's one that most people aren't playing, is a good thing.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Sean_A on January 27, 2023, 07:23:11 AM
Adding some new back tees on the holes starting at the three-way intersection (2, 7, 12) would have shortened the walking distances.




I'm not sure how adding back tees shortens walking distances. It will shorten the "dead" walk for people playing those tees, but not overall and certainly not for people not playing them. That said, I'm not opposed to a few long walks anyway.

Yes, it would shorten the 'dead' walk, not the overall walk. But my sense is that the dead walk is what people are mostly concerned about when discussing routing. The less dead walk between holes, the better.

And yes, it wouldn't shorten the walk for people not playing the back tees. But you can never have an equally short walk to all tees. Ideally, the shortest walk might be to the middle tees because that's what most people play. This is what you see on a lot of courses in the UK because the middle tees were the original tees and the back tees have been added (Walton Heath and Royal. St. George's have a lot of walkbacks to back tees).

But for me and I think for a lot of people who are concerned about this stuff, shortening the distance to the nearest set of tees, even if it's one that most people aren't playing, is a good thing.

Absolutely. The worst set ups of all are green to back tee transitions and walking back from greens for middle tees. Of course there are always exceptions, but I much prefer my general transition direction to from previous green adjacent to the next tee.

Ciao
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Ed Brzezowski on January 31, 2023, 03:08:50 PM
Had the pleasure to rate most of Grant/Sherman nines while they were under construction. Has anyone played the finished product?


From what i saw and played it left SB in the dust.


ed
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have just restored Pine Barrens?
Post by: Tom_Doak on February 01, 2023, 07:13:04 PM
Had the pleasure to rate most of Grant/Sherman nines while they were under construction. Has anyone played the finished product?


From what i saw and played it left SB in the dust.


ed


Wrong place!  Never mind . . .