Economy in Golf Course Construction

By Jeff Mingay and Dave Axland

With few exceptions, most contemporary golf architects profess to be students of the past masters. Why then, are extraordinary amounts of money routinely spent on golf course construction these days? After all, the guiding principle during the interwar period, affectionately referred to as the Golden Age of Golf Design, was economy in course construction.

Obtaining the best results possible at minimum cost was paramount to the leading architects of the time, including Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who opened his landmark 1920 book, Golf Architecture, with a chapter titled “General Principles of Economy in Course Construction and Green-keeping.” The Good Doctor’s one-time partner, Perry Maxwell, frequently cited “the minimum of expense” as his first consideration in course construction as well.

Donald Ross was another thrifty Golden Age golf architect. His 1928 layout at Essex Golf & Country Club in Windsor, Ontario, Canada is an excellent example of economy in course construction. Laid-out over a featureless 115 acres, Essex possesses eighteen holes of varying lengths, each with a unique green complex demanding diversity in shot-making requirements depending on the location of the hole on any given day. Curiously, those green complexes are the course’s only significant features.

Although the club was in an enviable financial position during the late 1920s, Ross restrained from moving any more earth than was necessary to create interesting golf at Essex. He ingeniously created a system of swales meandering throughout the course to drain the property and generate excavated material to fill green sites. There are no elevated tees, peripheral mounds, or photogenic water holes at Essex, just eighteen interesting green complexes.

Constructed for $150,000 (Canadian currency), the equivalent today of about $1.645 million, the 6,703 yard par 71 layout is perennially ranked amongst Canada’s top-25 courses, and continues to exemplify how simple and economic quality course design and construction can be.

Very few courses are constructed for less than $2 million US these days. In fact, eight-figure development costs are not uncommon. Progressively, over the past half century, economy in course construction has taken a backseat to (unnecessary) extravagance, in the form of peripheral “eye candy” and other insignificant features that lend to visual drama but have no effect on the actual quality of golf.

Wild Horse Golf Club is an anomaly. Designed by Dave Axland and Dan Proctor, the bunker creators at nearby Sand Hills Golf Club, this sporty 6,805 yard par 72 layout in the tiny town of Gothenburg, Nebraska was constructed for less than $1 million US, including its state-of-the-art irrigation system. Despite the minimum of expense, Wild Horse has managed to attract its fair share of attention since opening in 1999. Currently ranked 35th on Golfweek magazine’s list of America’s Best Modern courses (built after 1960), the course occupies a property not unlike linksland, comprised of gently rolling terrain fit with natural sites for tees and greens, but more importantly, excellent soil.

The inherent quality of on-site soils is a very important factor in economizing course construction, particularly in regard to putting greens and drainage. When on-site material conducive to putting green construction is naturally available, significant cost savings are realized. The native, sandy soil at Wild Horse was so good, Axland and Proctor were enabled to construct old-fashioned “push up” style greens from on-site material, without any amendments required.

Granted, very few properties provide this ideal. In fact, most proposed sites for golf are comprised of clay, silt, stones, rocks, and other objectionable materials that require architects and course builders to construct greens with imported materials. Green construction tends to be the most costly aspect of golf course development as a result.

For more than 40 years since the United States Golf Association published its first specifications in 1960, the USGA method of green construction has been most popular. Construction of a USGA green is labour intensive, involving the “welling out” of a 18-20 inch (450-500mm) green cavity, and the installation of a subsurface drainage system covered with a layer of small gravel overlain with 2-4 inches (50-100mm) of coarse sand. The remaining depth of the green cavity (generally 12 inches or 300mm) is then filled with a specially prepared, laboratory-tested root zone mix of sand blended with a small amount of organic material (usually peat, and perhaps some topsoil).

The primary function of a USGA green is to provide a perched water table within each precisely matched layer. USGA greens also provide excellent drainage, good aeration for root development, and resistance to compaction. However, relative to “alternate” methods of green construction, the USGA method is costly. Many enterprising golf architects and course builders are utilizing less expensive, less sophisticated “alternate” methods of green construction today. The most popular “alternative” is the California method, which also involves “welling out” a 12-14 inch green cavity and installing a subsurface drainage system back-filled with gravel, but does not require installation of a middle, blanket layer of coarse sand. In their purest form, California greens are built with a root zone mix of pure, laboratory-tested sand with no amendments. However, quite frequently, the sand is blended with a small amount of organic material (usually peat).

California greens cost less to construct than USGA greens, both in materials and time, and can amount to a potential cost savings of around $110,000 US per course averaging 6,000 square foot putting surfaces. Yet another variation on the California method involves using flat drain tile, which alleviates the necessity of trenching and back filling with gravel, and adds to potential savings.

It’s also interesting to note the California method of green construction provides more artistic latitude because there are no individual layers to precisely match. In turn, the design of the putting surface can be tweaked after the green cavity is filled with the root zone mix. This allows for the creation of subtleties similar to those found in so many “push up” style greens of the Golden Age – subtleties that tend to be lost in the layering process of the USGA method.

There is no research that definitely concludes a specific method of putting green construction is superior in all situations. While the California method is conducive to some environments, the benefits provided by the USGA method are absolutely necessary in others. Neither method of green construction should be employed simply based on convenience, or without consulting experts and considering alternatives. But, any decision should be made with economy in mind.

Of course, putting green construction is only one aspect of golf course development. Another significant cost savings for courses constructed on sandy soil is that sub-surface drainage can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely.

In order to build cost-effective courses, golf architects must be willing to adjust their design style based on the inherent character of a proposed site.

At Wild Horse, Axland and Proctor attempted to do as little as possible to the natural ground and still create inspirational golf. Rather than impose preconceived ideas onto the property, they allowed the inherent landscape to suggest where golf should be played. Both architects spent an extraordinary amount of time on-site throughout the entire development process studying the landscape and tweaking original design ideas in a sincere attempt to maximize the land’s natural potential for golf. To their way of thinking, the art of golf course design involves doing what’s necessary to create interesting golf. No more, no less.

This style of design has been referred to in recent years as “minimalism,” and labelled by some as a trendy revisiting of the past. But to contemporary practitioners of the “less is more” philosophy, minimizing earthmoving by incorporating inherent features into the design of a golf course is common sense. Not only does this methodology economize construction by alleviating the necessity of large-scale earthmoving and the creation of artificial features, it also provides the course with unique character that cannot be created by man and machine. Furthermore, natural properties inherently drain well. When natural drainage schemes are disrupted by earthmoving and the creation of artificial features, the installation of an otherwise unnecessary (and expensive) sub-surface drainage system becomes unavoidable.

While the character of the Wild Horse property lent greatly to economy in construction, seemingly less interesting properties, like Essex for example, may also be conducive to high-quality golf without requiring too much in the way of earthmoving and artificial construction. Almost every natural property possesses at least a few interesting features. It’s the golf architect’s duty to make a careful, time-consuming study of a proposed site for golf, to identify and then incorporate native humps, bumps, dips, rises and other useful features into the design of the course.

In order to achieve economy in course construction, the golf architect must remain open-minded, and strive to be innovative throughout the entire development process. Preconceived ideas, theories, and formulas do not lend to economy, or artistic design. Nor, in most cases, does a reliance on convenient construction methods and “proven” design techniques.

As exemplified by the works of the past masters of the Golden Age of Golf Design, the goal is to keep the cost down and the quality up. Obtaining the best results possible at minimum expense is the ideal in golf architecture.

This article appears in Issue 6 (2003) of the Journal of the Society of Australian Golf Course Architects, Golf Architecture, and was written in collaboration with golf architect Dave Axland.

Dave Axland is a graduate of Kansas State University’s turf management program and began his career in golf design working under Bill Coore in Corpus Christi, Texas during the mid 1980s. Axland and his partner, Dan Proctor, have since designed and constructed three highly-acclaimed courses of their own – Delaware Springs in Burnet, Texas, Wild Horse in Gothenburg, Nebraska and Bayside near Ogallala, Nebraska.

Axland also continues to work with Bill Coore, and his design partner, two-time Masters Tournament winner, Ben Crenshaw.