We posted a story a few weeks ago on architects supporting GEO guidelines for sustainable golf. The story generated a lot of response – some very heated.
While responses ran the gamut, here are three responses that stuck out:
“These proposed big and beautiful "natural courses", still use massive amounts of water, require lot's of dangerous chemicals that leach into the environment and occupy far to much land. Try a new approach, "thinking inside the box", creating a more practical & appealing venue for the average golfer, then you can honestly use the "sustainable" word and maybe help grow the game.”
“While I hope this is a step forward to reduce the impact of development on the environment, but I fear this will only add to the expense and increase the cost for players.”
“Although the GEO's environmental guidelines are a step in the right direction, they fall well short when applied to the term "sustainable facilities".
Instead of addressing "sustainable golf" with some topical application fluff, try designing to a more practical growth initiative.”
Comments
On our Golf course we have 3 man-made lakes that provide us with all of the water needed for irrigation, so that would alleviate the "massive amounts of water" being used. We work very closely with the Audubon Society and as far as the chemicals are concerned, we are very concerned about the environment (we live in it too!) and we are very careful with the chemicals that we use on our golf course.
Add new comment