37 grassing lines no longer make sense. A greens project should not be treated as a surface replacement if the problem is actually rootzone, drainage, shade, traffic or poor construction beneath it. That is how repeat spending happens. There is another point that deserves more attention during design: maintenance efficiency. Every architect wants their course to open looking its best. And most do. New golf courses often open like polished diamonds. The shaping is sharp, the bunkers are clean, the turf is fresh and the presentation is immaculate. But once the architect and construction team move on, the golf course remains. It has to be maintained every day within the set budget. Intentions are always high but invariably the purse strings can tighten having a detrimental effect on staffing levels, machinery and materials available. If that maintenance reality has not been considered during design, the diamond begins to lose its shine. This is where collaboration between the designer and the agronomist is so valuable from the onset of the project. It is not about diluting design ambition. It is about making sure the design can be maintained to the standard intended by the architect for decades to come. Bunker style and maintenance, grassing lines, mowing patterns, irrigation coverage, traffic routes and maintenance intensity all influence whether a course can be presented consistently once the opening spotlight has gone. A design that requires a championship-level maintenance budget will not hold up if the club only has the resources for a modest operation. That is not a criticism of the design or the club. It is simply a mismatch between ambition and reality. And that mismatch can damage the architect’s legacy! The designer’s name stays attached to the golf course long after the project team has left. If the course becomes difficult to maintain, loses definition, suffers from poor turf quality or drifts away from the original concept, this reflects on the design. For architects, early agronomic input is not just a technical safeguard. It is brand protection. It helps ensure that what is drawn can be built, what is built can be maintained, and what is maintained still reflects the original vision years later. Golf course development will always involve compromise. Budgets are real. Timelines matter. Sites throw up surprises. Weather interferes. But there is a big difference between informed compromise and uninformed compromise. The informed ones are manageable. The uninformed ones usually come back to haunt. In golf development, the most expensive mistakes are rarely the ones you can see. They are the ones buried below the surface, or built quietly into the future maintenance burden of the course. And by the time they appear, it is too late, and never cheaper to fix. Early agronomic input was the foundation of the San Roque project AGRONOMY Photo: Turfgrass “ For architects, early agronomic input is not just a technical safeguard. It is brand protection”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQ1NTk=