| Installment
One Installment Two Installment Three Installment Four Installment Five Installment Six Installment Seven* Installment Eight Installment Nine Installment Ten |
~The Making of The Quarry: The Giants Ridge Legend~
It’s
ideal to retain a golf course architect to select a site for the development
of a golf course. Even though
site quality determines the destiny of the golf course, most owners have
an existing piece of property and our charge is to develop the best possible
course.
The
first course at Giants Ridge was a hybrid of these two methods.
The IRRRB owned some property, but not enough for a golf course.
The resort is in a rural area (I’m not saying how rural, but the
paved road ends just beyond the clubhouse!) There is lots of undeveloped
land, but much of it is contained in Superior National Forest, but the US
Forest Service doesn’t often sell land. (It has leased land – many ski resorts
are on public land, and it considered trading land to Giants Ridge in exchange
for some even more remote land that was valuable eagle habitat, but the
process grinds slowly). Thus, the IRRRB eventually purchased several other
parcels from different landowners, resulting in a “carts only” golf course
including some long connections between holes.
If
there is any negative comment about the first course, it’s because it’s
definitely a cart course. That’s
directly because of the need to purchase several land parcels, and to a
lesser degree, because we knew that the IRRRB would likely require carts
most of the time. But, designing
a second course for the same owner is like getting a “mulligan.” We were determined to avoid any of the mistakes of our “first
shot”. We all wanted a golf
course that was longer, a better challenge for the low handicapper (We dubbed
the first course the “gentile giant” as it is designed purely as a fun resort),
and more compact and walkable, making it suitable for regional competitions
and the golf purist.
Since
the IRRRB had no available land for the second course, and would be purchasing
it from one of a host of available properties, it seemed like an ideal chance
to select a site to accommodate a favored golf course, and not the other
way around. It was quickly
decided that the resorts business plan would benefit from a second course
that was viewed as equal to the first, but wasn’t just more of the same.
Many
people ask me the ”minimum acreage required for a golf course”.
There are some publications identifying 130-150 acres as suitable
for golf development, but 160-180 acres is the norm, given a regular shape.
L shaped or unusually shaped properties really eat up acreage. I’m always reluctant to give acreage estimates without
seeing a site. It might be
an old railroad right of way, 100 feet wide and 13 miles long – 160 acres
to be sure, but not capable of even building one golf hole! I’m careful
to say 160-180 USEABLE acres.
Environmental
laws have gradually made greater portions of the site “off limits” to development
– including wetlands, archeological sites, potential habitats and even ridges
if they are part of a scenic corridor – to mention a few.
One hundred sixty “useable” acres often equates to 200 or more acres.
With additional safety buffers required for residential areas, golf
courses within housing require over 200 acres.
In fact, it has been awhile since we have designed any golf course
on significantly less than 200 acres.
The
potential for residential development was a part of the original design
program (eventually discarded by IRRRB) so we began our site search by reviewing
land ownership maps for parcels containing 400-600 acres – the minimum for
combining golf with housing. We
identified four sites based on acreage, and then began by evaluating
them for macro development issues like access to utilities, road, and irrigation
water. Only then did we look
at their ability to support a great golf course, contrary to what most golfers
might imagine. Good golf factors
include gently rolling topography, some creeks or ponds, or other natural
hazards, and a nice mixture of open and wooded areas.
One
of the sites was directly adjacent to the existing resort, and would have
utilized the existing 8th and 9th holes as the starting
holes for the new course. Unfortunately,
that land is part of Superior National Forest and is still unattainable.
A private site north of the existing course was discarded because
of power lines (which don’t exactly convey the feeling of the north woods),
a high point in the middle of the property that would be difficult to route
around (we tried!) and the need to extend utilities and road, which would
saddle the course with $3 million in infrastructure costs.
The selection quickly came down to a site across Wynne Lake and a
former sand quarry three miles south of the existing course.
I
first recommended the site across the lake, having prepared the test routing
with 12 holes bordering the lake.
One of the signature holes on the first course is the 17th,
a par 3 playing across Wynne Lake. One sure way to build a more spectacular
course is to build near a beautiful lake!
But, utilities extensions and an expensive bridge across the lake
offset cost savings of utilizing the existing clubhouse, and the site was
rocky.
The
quarry site was the final choice.
The macro issues were all in place:
it’s on the main road, it has the lowest infrastructure costs, and
it had just enough acreage for a compact golf course.
Moreover, the rugged spoils from mining operations made the land
distinct from the first course, meeting a major design goal and offering
the chance to create a north woods version of Pine Valley. It was the topsoil
source for the first course, and rock is minimal, also reducing costs.
Lastly, the site fits with the IRRRB’s mission of restoring and rehabilitating
mine sites, and given the environmental challenges of the first course,
we felt that using the course to restore scarred topography would result
in the least opposition to the golf course.
While the first course received several letters of opposition, and
encountered a year and a half in delays, environmentalists gave “two thumbs
up” to this golf course and it sailed through the environmental review process.
That’s pretty rare in this day and age.
We are
finishing the plans and will be putting it out to bid in September to begin
clearing this fall. Next month,
we’ll examine environmental issues facing golf courses, then, we’ll briefly
examine the bidding process and clearing trees for the golf course.
Since the winter months don’t allow construction this far north,
we’ll use those months to talk design philosophy – both in general and as
it applies to my design for the new course.