Part 3: Compromise melds history and practicality<\/p>\n
My company\u2019s redesign included an increase to 5,800 square feet in overall green surface — an additional 800 square feet, in other words.\u00a0 The new surface area maintained a gentler \u201cfalse front\u201d on a four-to-seven-percent grade, while 4,500 square feet of the green now exhibits an interesting variety of one- to four-percent contours.\u00a0 The superintendent gained 3,000 square feet of new \u201ccupping\u201d area to more evenly distribute wear and tear.\u00a0 For their part, the membership was happy to see the \u201cfalse front\u201d to the green preserved.<\/p>\n
Granted, from a purely mathematical standpoint 6,500 square feet might have made more sense given the 25,000-round volume on the course.\u00a0 However, Park\u2019s greens, apropos of their era, are generally small, and 6,500 square feet would have constituted the proverbial \u201csore thumb.\u201d\u00a0 Putting surfaces on the course\u2019s other par 3s average 5,500 square feet \u2013 a dimension at which the superintendent was able to maintain top-quality conditioning of the bent\/poa greens.<\/p>\n
\u201cWill the remodeled green look out of place?\u201d\u00a0 An excellent question, one that goes to the heart of the golf course architect\u2019s design philosophy, appreciation of the game\u2019s history and traditions, and critical judgment.\u00a0\u00a0 For every sensitive interpretation of an original designer\u2019s concepts, there is, regrettably, an atrocity \u2013 the equivalent of a red crayon stripe across a classical canvas, often made in the name of \u201cprogress\u201d but conspicuous in its affront to context.<\/p>\n
On the opposite side of the ledger is blind obeisance to the original architect\u2019s drawings and exact specifications, some of which may be impossible or undesirable to preserve.\u00a0 Classical design elements are generally worth maintaining, but in a few cases existing green design is of poor quality and does not possess any attributes that warrant restoring.\u00a0 Golden Age golf course architects had bad days, too, after all.<\/p>\n
Fortunately, modern design software and its three-dimensional display capabilities allows architects and clients alike to make informed choices about putting speeds, contours, what to keep, what to tweak.<\/p>\n
In closing, don\u2019t hold on to greens that don\u2019t \u201cwork\u201d with your current putting speeds.\u00a0 Creative and carefully conceived redesign, coupled with a prudent and timely construction methodology, will yield the desired results with minimal disruption to play, as well as lowest-possible cost and emotional travail.<\/p>\n
To revert to the aforementioned residential housing analogy, you may prefer the 100-year-old house, but that doesn\u2019t mean you will be foregoing central heat and air conditioning.\u00a0 Faster putting speeds have generally added intrigue to the already-intriguing game of golf, and this seems unlikely to change any time soon.\u00a0 Neither will our devotion to the game\u2019s history.\u00a0 A reasonable synthesis of the two is achievable as long as we watch our slopes and speeds.<\/p>\n
# # #<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"