Springwood Players Course Final Redesign Decided! (maybe)

[BrotherDave]

For anyone curious about the fate of the notorious SPC in Burlington (technically Whitsett I think) NC, the final redesign was decided upon by the park's director b/c the original designers and some local club members were at an eternal impasse. The course is/was in a state of dysfunction after the two factions couldn't agree on how to best convert a Gold/Blue level course crammed into a multi-use park/athletic complex into a Blue/White level course crammed into a multi-use park/athletic complex. Personal opinion reflected by smilies:

Hole 1: Same
Hole 2: Same

Hole 3: Hole 3's original Gold tee (the one close to hole 2's tees) is now the Blue tee for a basket installed near the end of the woods that encompass hole 2. White tee is to be moved somewhere along the ridge line the Blue tee sits on, just shorter. Mando will still be in effect on the Blue tee to deter people from throwing into the softball field. :thmbdown:

Hole 4: Plays to Hole 3's original basket from two tees marked on the sidewalk up on the ridge. Mando on left to deter people from throwing into the softball field.

Hole 5: Original hole 5 (infamous par 2) is extinct so the original hole 4 (the last hyzer around the softball complex) is re-numbered as hole 5. Gold tee is gone, the short tee is now the Blue tee and the White tee will be installed eventually.

Hole 6: Same.

Hole 7: Long tee (now Blue) is not deemed too dangerously close to the road and stays put. Basket has been moved to lengthen and straighten hole. :\

Hole 8: Originally close to a 1000' long and primarily a fairway consisting of a thick, brier filled slope, hole 8 is dramatically shortened. The basket is pulled from the bottom, past the shelters, to in front of the shelters on the lawn. White tee is already there (near the beginning of the shelter's parking lot), Blue tee is going to be put on the bottom of the brier filled valley so that you have to throw up and over the briers onto the lawn as opposed to the location by the shoulder of the park road where you would just throw over the briers. opcorn:

Hole 9: Same.
Hole 10: Same.

Holes 11 & original/current 12: These two holes are to be combined into a par 5 that plays continuously towards the soccer fields from 11's tees to 12's new pin placement at the corner of the soccer fields. :thmbdown:

Hole 12: (Not yet in place) Tees will be in a tunnel of pines, playing out to a basket near the trashcan. Very short and much less likely to end up in a neighbor's yard (the biggest complaint of the original course).

Hole 13: The last part of the original hole 13, basket stays put, tees to be placed near the beginning of the line of pines to the right and the rise of the slope to the soccer field on the left. :\

Hole 14: Same. Proposal to combine 14 and 15 shot down.
Hole 15: Same. ^see above.
Hole 16: Same.
Hole 17: Same

Hole 18: New tees to be placed roughly across the road from hole 10's long tee which takes the bend of the road out of play (mostly) and shortens the length; basket already moved from original placement to new one near the ditch (also shortens hole). :\

 

[Tenacious EJ]

I think this design would work sooooo much better. It dismisses the back half of the course and makes for a tighter, shorter, yet more interesting round of golf.

 

[coupe]

I think this design would work sooooo much better.

Hmm … looks to me like a bunch of shared teepads, shared baskets, and crossing fairways. :thmbdown::gross:

It … makes for a tighter, shorter, yet more interesting round of golf.

As in, "Keep your head on a …*LOOKOUT!!!! … swivel"? :doh::wall:

 

[Jukeshoe]

Hmm … looks to me like a bunch of shared teepads, shared baskets, and crossing fairways. :thmbdown::gross:

No joke!

Is this what's being implemented, or an alternative layout to what Dave outlined in OP?

 

[reposado]

No joke!

Is this what's being implemented, or an alternative layout to what Dave outlined in OP?

from the way that EJ phrased it, I think he was just posting his personal preference. It does look particularly awful. The amount of walking between holes that he added to a course that already had way too much of that is crazy. that kind of layout would have people doing things like teeing off on 5 and 15, going to finish up on 5, then driving on 6 and then putting both that disc and the one they drove from 15.

 

[BrotherDave]

Hmm … looks to me like a bunch of shared teepads, shared baskets, and crossing fairways. :thmbdown::gross:

Sorry EJ, I've got to side with coupe on this one.

No joke!

Is this what's being implemented, or an alternative layout to what Dave outlined in OP?

That's his alternative. I can mock up a facsimile of what the redesigned course will look like.

 

[Tenacious EJ]

Why bother? It looks the same, plays the same, and is still dull and uninteresting. Nobody plays there hardly as it is. One of the reasons I suggested that design is because the course is so dead. I really don't think it's that difficult to figure out. It's not the first course that's ever been designed using this sort of plan. Enka High School's course (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2431) does this, and I think this course design would do it better. Coupe might not like the idea of shared pads and baskets, or crossing fare ways, but let's be honest, does anyone who's played this course think THAT will be an issue?

But let's look at the benefits. It sports a much shorter walk, for one. Who isn't tired after a round here? It also eliminates the back half of the course, meaning it eliminates all those trouble holes around the ball fields, backyards, cow pastures, and along the road. Just look at Brother Dave's original post- these are the exact holes he's clearly disappointed with, and for good reason. This "final" redesign will be anything but. It's only a matter of time before those baskets get pulled after a kid gets hit in the face from an errant throw on 13, whether onto the soccer fields or into the back yards on the other side, or until a cow gets loose because golfers have ruined the fence climbing over to get their disc on 14/15, or until a car window gets broken along 16/17. My design isn't perfect, but it does eliminate all those issues. It also uses many of the original designer's holes and those thought up by the club. Very little is my own idea. And as a bonus you're never that far from your car like you would be on 14 or 15 now, so you could play a quick 9 or 10 and be back near your car!

Now you might not like a shared basket, you might not like a crossed faraway, but they are out there. Morley Field in San Diego may be the busiest course on earth, and it features these things. Somehow they've survived. And that's an extremely busy course. This one is DEAD. And the final solution up there isn't going to change that at all. It already has some pretty dangerous issues (3's tee, for example!), and hasn't bothered to tackle the issues with throwing onto the softball fields. My course at least does try to eliminate those problems. And I've tried it out so I can tell you it's pretty fun. It's also got a few more holes in the shade so you don't burn to death while playing. And the shared tees and baskets aren't really that big an issue. If when you get to your tee you see someone playing that same hole, you wait, just like you'd do for any other course. You can see both the tees and the fare ways of the other hole from each shared hole. And because of the way it plays out, you wouldn't be behind the same group the whole time either. Does it take getting used to, sure. But it's not rocket surgery folks. Why don't you take a second glance and see what it could be, and how it could work before crapping on it because its unconventional. I'm not really sure what reposado is talking about adding walking. I'll just assume he's never played Springwood as it is now, because THAT'S a walk and a half. It is what it is, a "double loop." Is it a perfect solution, of course not, but it's more viable than the alternative. Heck, the park staff wouldn't even have to worry about mowing around the old back 8 of the course!

 

[coupe]

Once again, you're trying to defend a course that has no business being in a park that's not suited for disc golf based on a lowest common denominator argument.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. The fact that crossing fairways, shared teepees, and shared baskets exist on other, poorly designed courses does not justify allowing new poorly designed holes or courses to be installed. (Morley was installed in 1977, more than half a decade before the invention of bevel-edged discs. Shared baskets and crossing fairways may have been considered acceptable from a design and safety standpoint 40 years ago, but these days, those features don't belong in ANY public course designer's toolbox.)

Why bother? It looks the same, plays the same, and is still dull and uninteresting. Nobody plays there hardly as it is. One of the reasons I suggested that design is because the course is so dead. … Coupe might not like the idea of shared pads and baskets, or crossing fare ways, but let's be honest, does anyone who's played this course think THAT will be an issue?

I could ask you the same question. If the course is as dead as you say it is, why bother redesigning it? Why not simply pull the baskets and put them in a park better suited for disc golf instead of trying to put lipstick on a pig?

Here's the thing you seem to be missing: the whole point of redesigning the course is to INCREASE player traffic, which, if successful, will exacerbate the safety issues created by shared baskets/teepads and crossing fairways. If the goal of the redesign ISN'T to increase traffic, then what is it, and why should the city pay for it?

I get that you live next door to the park, you've invested innumerable hours into the course as it currently exists and into your proposed redesign, and you're trying to ensure that the course stays in the ground, but it you didn't, or if the course weren't already in the ground, would you consider it a SAFE, acceptable design?

 

[Tenacious EJ]

So it is your position that changing holes 11/12 and adding one more tunnel hole after is going to turn the tide and make Springwood popular? Because the rest of the course is already how you've described it, and very few folks are playing it. Don't see that happening. You've done virtually nothing to change it and haven't made it any safer. I'm not sure why you are going to such pains to point out the dangers to other players while ignoring the much more real dangers to other park-goers and civilians, some of whom AREN'T EVEN IN THE PARK! The present course, and the one with a few minor changes, HAS NOT made the course ANY safer! 13 is unsafe, always has been. Moving the tees a few feet won't make a difference. There's a trampoline on the other side of the fence along 13 that's just asking for a diving disc to land in while kids are playing. The tee for 3 is in the fare way for 2. Holes 3 & 4 are still quite hazardous to folks on the softball fields.

But as for my design, I don't think it will be unsafe. If it was a matter of not being able to see the other players I could understand your point, but I don't see that being a problem here. Even if the course traffic doubled or even tripled I don't think it would be an issue. If you know what the course is like going in, and there are proper warnings, I think you would be fine. And this is from someone who, like you said, cares about course safety AND park safety. And you're right, if I was coming to this park with a clean slate, I'd say it does not fit 18 holes (in fact, I DID say that!). Probably 9, 12 at most, but not well. But that's taking a conventional approach. This is obviously not that, but it is an opportunity for Burlington to save face and not eat 9 baskets, which I feel someday will be the case as half the course is dug up. It's a chance to have 18 holes in the city that you could play half of on a lunch hour, without walking 3 miles and without ignoring the safety of the public. If you don't like it, you aren't required to play it. Many people might hate it, but I guarantee many more people hate what ya got now.

 

[Tenacious EJ]

FYI, here is your map for the Finalized Plan.

 

[Tenacious EJ]

Here are the top and bottom halves so you can get a closer look. Mind you, that area to the right of 13 is no longer empty- there are houses with backyards all along the hole now. Also, along 17 houses are being built so there is about 5 ft of sparse foliage separating the fairway of 17 with those backyards.

 

[Pbmercil]

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

Lol are you guys really going to get into this in ANOTHER thread? Thanks cool by me.

 

[reposado]

Here are the top and bottom halves so you can get a closer look. Mind you, that area to the right of 13 is no longer empty- there are houses with backyards all along the hole now. Also, along 17 houses are being built so there is about 5 ft of sparse foliage separating the fairway of 17 with those backyards.

i don't think anyone is saying that doesn't look terrible. because those soccer field holes look pretty bad

 

[Tenacious EJ]

The trees on the right side of 13 are taller now, and fuller. There is about 20 usable ft of fairway. When they have soccer games on the weekends, people are sitting along the left side of 13. Yeah, I live across the street. Who wouldn't love to have a course within sight of your house? But when I saw the original design I tried to talk sense into the Parks and Rec director.

Like I said, I don't know if you've played it, but there are some loooong walks on this course! There is 500 ft between 16 and 17, and currently 700 ft between 12 and 13.

 

[reposado]

The trees on the right side of 13 are taller now, and fuller. There is about 20 usable ft of fairway. When they have soccer games on the weekends, people are sitting along the left side of 13. Yeah, I live across the street. Who wouldn't love to have a course within sight of your house? But when I saw the original design I tried to talk sense into the Parks and Rec director.

Like I said, I don't know if you've played it, but there are some loooong walks on this course! There is 500 ft between 16 and 17, and currently 700 ft between 12 and 13.

yeah. i played it when it first opened. it was fun with an empty park. and there were long walks then. the new plan that shortens the holes is going to be even more between holes walking.

i think your plan is on the right track in terms of eliminating the soccer field. i just dont know about looping around the main complex twice.

 

[Tenacious EJ]

Really doesn't shorten the holes, just the walks between. The biggest thing is not putting the same hole out there from the same pad- that's what I was trying to avoid. I think I succeeded, although, again, I didn't invent the bulk of these holes. The local club did. Only 3 are holes of my own design. The double loop isn't my invention either. It's just an ingenious way to approach an 18 holes on limited land.

 

[coupe]

So it is your position that changing holes 11/12 and adding one more tunnel hole after is going to turn the tide and make Springwood popular? Because the rest of the course is already how you've described it, and very few folks are playing it. Don't see that happening. You've done virtually nothing to change it and haven't made it any safer. I'm not sure why you are going to such pains to point out the dangers to other players while ignoring the much more real dangers to other park-goers and civilians, some of whom AREN'T EVEN IN THE PARK! The present course, and the one with a few minor changes, HAS NOT made the course ANY safer! 13 is unsafe, always has been. Moving the tees a few feet won't make a difference. There's a trampoline on the other side of the fence along 13 that's just asking for a diving disc to land in while kids are playing. The tee for 3 is in the fare way for 2. Holes 3 & 4 are still quite hazardous to folks on the softball fields.

But as for my design, I don't think it will be unsafe. If it was a matter of not being able to see the other players I could understand your point, but I don't see that being a problem here. Even if the course traffic doubled or even tripled I don't think it would be an issue. If you know what the course is like going in, and there are proper warnings, I think you would be fine. And this is from someone who, like you said, cares about course safety AND park safety. And you're right, if I was coming to this park with a clean slate, I'd say it does not fit 18 holes (in fact, I DID say that!). Probably 9, 12 at most, but not well. But that's taking a conventional approach. This is obviously not that, but it is an opportunity for Burlington to save face and not eat 9 baskets, which I feel someday will be the case as half the course is dug up. It's a chance to have 18 holes in the city that you could play half of on a lunch hour, without walking 3 miles and without ignoring the safety of the public. If you don't like it, you aren't required to play it. Many people might hate it, but I guarantee many more people hate what ya got now.

Sorry, buddy, but you've clearly mistaken me for someone else. I had no part in the initial design, and have had no part in any of the proposed redesigns. What a pity: all your anger and bile … wasted.

Fact is, installing a course at Springwood was a bad idea from the get-go, and NONE of the redesign proposals even begin to address the fundamental problem, which is that the park is simply not suitable for an 18 hole course, and may not even be suitable for a 9 hole course.

 

[DavidSauls]

I do believe I've enjoyed this course more than any other course that I've never played. I hope the new design works out.....though part of me is just waiting for the next chapter.

 

[BraveThrower43]

Fact is, installing a course at Springwood was a bad idea from the get-go, and NONE of the redesign proposals even begin to address the fundamental problem, which is that the park is simply not suitable for an 18 hole course, and may not even be suitable for a 9 hole course.

Agree with this 100%. I just wish the parks department would just find a more suitable facility for a course. But after all the issues they have had with this one I bet they'll stay away from disc golf for a while.

 

[Pbmercil]

Agree with this 100%. I just wish the parks department would just find a more suitable facility for a course. But after all the issues they have had with this one I bet they'll stay away from disc golf for a while.

And that's the thing that makes this such a cautionary tale. Some overly enthusiastic locals talk a niave parks department into a project and it opens a whole can of worms and ends up making disc golf look bad. Happens in a lot of places, unfortunately. #growthesport