Candyroot Lodge, a new public golf facility in the sand hills outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, marked the end of its first week of construction with an Instagram post. Mike Koprowski, who collaborated with Kyle Franz at Broomsedge Golf Club and joined Andy Johnson on the Fried Egg Golf Podcast last year, is designing Candyroot's first course.

Initially, Koprowski was engaged by Candyroot's owners to build a single course, tentatively named Downbonnie. Since announcing that venture in May, however, the owners have brought on additional investors and developed bigger ambitions. Koprowski now tells me that Candyroot will feature multiple regulation layouts (three or four), plus a short course. An architect has not yet been selected for the second course, but interviews are ongoing.

If Candyroot Lodge follows through on its plans, it would be one of the largest and most exciting public-golf projects of the 2020s undertaken by developers not named Keiser.

Here are three recently announced renovation projects that caught my eye:

Todd Eckenrode is restoring William P. Bell's mid-1920s design at Annandale Golf Club in Pasadena, California. Annandale has good potential (the historical aerials are tantalizing, but sadly not much can be done to bring back the property's former vistas and openness), and Eckenrode knows Bell and California Golden Age architecture as well as anyone in the industry. This is a project to track.

Trey Kemp, a very capable Dallas-based golf architect, has started the first phase of his master plan for Hogan Park Golf Course, a 36-hole municipal facility in Midland, Texas. Hogan Park is an important hub of the game in the growing but somewhat golf-poor Midland-Odessa region. Over the past decade, Kemp has developed a specialty in reviving municipal courses in Texas. His work at Stevens Park and Rockwood Park in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been especially well received.

Architect Nick Campanelli and influential golf writer Bradley Klein have been engaged to renovate Willie Park Jr.'s design at Shuttle Meadow Country Club outside of Hartford, Connecticut. Campanelli and Klein plan to adapt some ideas from Huntercombe Golf Club, Park's strange masterwork in the English heathlands. Golf Course Architecture has a thorough writeup on the project.

I recently noticed on a local course that they're maintaining rough around the bunkers (both fairway and green side) at a higher height than their regular rough. I left my rough ruler at home, but my guess is rough is maintained at 2.5" throughout the course and 3.5" around the bunkers at width of 1 to 2 feet. I'm not sure I've noticed this at other clubs and I am struggling to figure out why they're doing this (course in question has no shortage of financial resources)

Garrett and others,

I've enjoyed listening to your reflections on your trip to Surrey/Berkshire and Kent. I was wondering if you could say a bit more about what fascinated you so much about RSG and Deal and why you had them seemingly higher than Sunningdale or St George's Hill. I play most of my golf on the west links of North Berwick, so maybe I'm spoiled by links and heathland feels like a change of pace, but I'm much more enamoured by the heathland than the links of southern England. That isn't to say that Kent courses aren't fantastic, but the routing, greens, and turf around Surrey only compete with the Sandbelt in my opinion. Is it a case of preferring links? Or is it something about the greens at RSG that put it over the top for you?

Josh

Kansas City Country Club posted some drone footage of its A.W. Tillinghast-designed course, which recently underwent a historical renovation by Andrew Green. Lots of cool-looking holes out there. I'm not a fan of the all-green-everywhere turf presentation, but just about every club does it these days, so I can't fault KCCC specifically.

Videos:

Front Nine

Back Nine

Hear ye, hear ye! Golf.com has published its latest ranking of the top 100 golf courses in the world! And it's... remarkably similar to the 2023 edition!

Seriously, what's the point of going through this exercise every two years? The list has barely changed.

Oh, right. Golf media outlets need to sell magazines and drive website traffic in November.

Also: I need something to talk about, and here I am. I'm part of the problem.

Anyway, I spent about 10 minutes comparing the 2023 and 2025 lists, and here are the main differences I spotted (I may have missed a few):

New-course debuts:

• Childress Hall (Upper) at 73
• CapRock Ranch at 84
• Te Arai (North) at 98

Some of my colleagues have been to Tom Doak's Upper Course at Childress Hall, which opened last December, and they tell me that the hype is real. Amazing golf course. But I remain opposed to the idea of ranking a course ahead of Old Town Club and Machrihanish before it's even a year old. At least give the place time to grow in fully.

Double-digit risers:

• New South Wales from 64 to 26
• Royal Troon from 66 to 53
• The Lido from 68 to 48
• St. George's Hill from 71 to 57
• Lofoten Links from 88 to 66
• Bandon Trails from 90 to 76
• Royal Melbourne (East) from 92 to 82
• Shanqin Bay from 95 to 64

The Lido appears to be holding strong after a big debut on the 2023 list. It now out-ranks every Dream Golf course except for Pacific Dunes.

New South Wales recently underwent a renovation by Mackenzie & Ebert and seems to be reaping the benefits.

Double-digit droppers:

• Ballyneal from 51 to 63
• Cabot Cliffs from 52 to 78
• Cape Kidnappers from 55 to 65
• Woodhall Spa from 58 to 74
• Rye from 72 to 90
• Rock Creek Cattle Co. from 73 to 88
• Cabot Links from 79 to 96
• Winged Foot (East) from 80 to 91
• Ohoopee Match Club from 81 to 99
• Les Bordes (New) from 83 to off the list

I wouldn't read much into any of these declines (or into the rises I mentioned earlier, for that matter). A lot of the reshuffling from year to year is basically random. But I do think the new-car smell is starting to wear off of some of the modern courses listed above. The really good ones will bounce back in the panel's esteem.

Since I find this ranking somewhat boring, I'll try to spice things up: what do you think is the most overrated course on the list?

I'll stake my flag on No. 60, the East Course at Oak Hill Country Club.

Hello everyone,

With the holiday next week, I will be doing a general mailbag with PJ, I will pull some questions from last week's architecture focused ones into the podcast but just wanted to put a call out for any questions. Thanks!

The National Links Trust announced yesterday that Rock Creek Park Golf Course, a municipal facility in Washington, D.C., is now closed for the first phase of a "full-scale rehabilitation project." I detailed the plans for this project back in 2023. The National Links Trust holds the lease to operate D.C.'s three National Park Service-owned golf courses: Rock Creek Park, Langston Golf Course, and East Potomac Golf Links.

From the press release:

"Currently, we are continuing our adaptive management approach to invasive vine, shrub, and tree removal and finishing site work before we begin vertical construction on the new, modern maintenance facility and clubhouse, driving range, and putting course. Vertical construction will begin in the coming weeks.

"Next spring, our intention is to reopen at least nine holes of golf with a modified routing to accommodate for clubhouse and maintenance facility construction. The holes that reopen will continue to improve in playability and conditions, like we saw this year, as the turf receives more sunlight and better airflow and the corridors expand to their historic widths."

Whereas phase one of the Rock Creek overhaul will focus on the property's buildings and practice facilities, phase two will include Gil Hanse's redesign of the golf course. Hanse plans to split the current 18-hole course into a nine-hole regulation course and a nine-hole par-3 layout.

The news that work has begun at Rock Creek comes amid concerning chatter out of NLT-managed East Potomac Golf Links, where the Trump administration is creating an enormous mound out of rubble from the ongoing East Wing renovation project.

This week I will be recording a new architecture mailbag pod with Garrett.

Fire away any questions you have.

Thanks

Andy

Pinehurst No. 2 is considered by many to be the magnum opus of Donald Ross. People like the Fried Egg's very own Garrett Morrison have written about the wonderful routing that takes full advantage of the subtle natural topography. Walter Travis, Pinehurst member and 5x North and South Amateur Champion described Pinehurst as having "scientific" bunkering. But we all know that the greens are the star of the show when you go and play it. With that being said, it seems to be pretty much accepted at this point that the greens on No. 2 are not original to Ross (or at least drastically more severe). Pete Dye, who was stationed at nearby Fort Bragg during his Army years had a CO that was an avid golfer, and Pete had the opportunity to go and play No. 2 with him many times. He claims that the greens were much flatter in the 1940s and that the domed greens that we know today are due to decades of top dressing. This should track, as the original "greens" at Pinehurst were all flat, and sand covered squares. Ross and Frank Maples were not able to convert all 18 greens to grass until the 1930s. Bradford Becken, President of the Donald Ross society wrote in his book The Golf Architecture of Donald Ross: "As with the rest of Ross' work, there is considerable variety to his green designs. Many Ross fans associate the turtleback greens found on Pinehurst 2 as emblematic of his work, but this is not the case. in fact, looking at the body of his available drawings, such greens appear to be more of an exception, leading some to attribute the shape to years of top dressing and other maintenance practices rather than what was originally envisioned by Ross."

The Question that this is leading me to is this: Why Pinehurst No. 2 specifically? Why did top dressing not effect the greens on No. 1, No. 3 (which does have some crowned greens, but nothing like No. 2), Pine Needles, Mid Pines, SPGC, etc...? Same playing surfaces, same soil composition, conceivably same general maintenance practices. So why would the greens on No. 2 specifically be top dressed in a way that creates greens so extreme that it has mistakenly became a characteristic of Donald Ross?

So my club is undergoing a massive practice area renovation. I definitely did not think that the old practice area/driving range was bad, but I was excited about having some more short game area options, as I really enjoy going out and chipping. However, when I saw the video of what was going to be opening, I got really excited. I’ll link the video below, if you feel like devoting a few minutes to it.

My questions/topics of discussion here are twofold. First off, Keith Foster designed this practice area (he also did the restoration of one of our courses). Is it commonplace for a golf course architect to also design the practice facilities? I’ve never really thought about it, but when say Doak or C&C do a design/build are they also designing the practice area; Or is it usually just a case of parceling off a 300 yard x 300 yard area and the club does what they want with it? I suppose it could vary club to club, but I can't think of a high number of examples where the practice area seemed intentionally designed instead of just plopped down. Keith Foster has a relationship with the club, which would help to get him involved in this, but he also had a bit of legal trouble a few years back, and this might be him trying to tiptoe back in the game. I wonder how many established architects would take the job of designing a practice area?

Secondly, how important is a practice area to your overall enjoyment of a golf course? I don't know if we have any raters here, but if you visited a club and you began your visit with a trip to a practice facility that really wowed you, would it be difficult to not carry those feelings into your round and potentially inform your rating? I have visited some incredible, highly rated clubs that had terrible practice facilities, so maybe it doesn't matter? I do think that we are sort of at the beginning of clubs really paying attention to their practice facilities, many golden age designs are on tighter parcels of land and don't really have the space to devote to a massive improvement. However, at clubs that do have the space, and might have a little money to spend I wonder if we'll start to see more of this kind of thing?

Link, if interested:

https://youtu.be/E06tZk8KJoo

On Thursday, November 13, Fried Egg Golf obtained an email to members from North Berwick Golf Club in East Lothian, Scotland, announcing that the club had hired U.S.-based designer Gil Hanse as its consulting architect.

From the email:

"Beginning in 2026, Gil will work closely with us to develop a Master Plan for the West Links, ensuring its heritage is preserved while preparing for the future."

North Berwick's West Links is a revered course, home to the much imitated "Redan" par 3 and "Pit" par 4, along with many other unique holes. Golf architect and longtime North Berwick member James Duncan mused on the magic of the West Links in this Fried Egg Golf video.

More from the club's announcement:

"Gil's strength lies in honoring the heritage of the course, restoring key features, while remaining sensitive to modern play. This thoughtful approach ensures the West Links retains its character while evolving for the future. Continuity and consistency will come through minor refinements, with no major changes anticipated. A critical priority, however, is addressing coastal erosion through robust contingencies and protective measures to mitigate future risks from the advancing sea."

The email also mentions that Hanse's hiring came after "a rigorous selection process, including on-course evaluations and consultations with other leading architects."

For the past few years, North Berwick has employed Clyde Johnson, a UK-based architect and Tom Doak associate, to assist with projects like the restoration of the front-left bunker on the Redan hole. Johnson is a terrific young talent, and from a personal standpoint, I feel bad for him. His recent work on the West Links has been very well received.

Philosophically, the move from Johnson to Hanse is more or less lateral. Both are historically minded architects. Plus, as the portion of the email that I bolded indicates, Hanse's alterations to the course are expected to be, like Johnson's, careful and subtle.

In terms of public relations, however, Hanse is obviously a bigger name. He also commands higher fees, in general.

This decision by North Berwick might be an indicator of a broader sea change in British and Irish golf. Over the last several years, visitor rates at top links clubs, even at those that do not host Open Championships, have skyrocketed. Golf tourism in Great Britain and Ireland has become a big, lucrative business. Many clubs have more money to spend than they ever have, and some have chosen to invest a portion of that windfall back into their courses. Royal Dornoch Golf Club's decision to roll with King Collins Dormer's out-of-the-box plan to overhaul its Struie Course is an example of this trend.

But I'm skeptical that more expensive, ambitious architecture will improve British and Irish links courses. Some places don't really need to change. So I hope Hanse uses a light touch at North Berwick.

Iowa has around 250 9-hole courses. The majority of which are rather basic but fun and cheap. I recently was able to visit the in progress Silo Club by Kevin Hargrave. It's a great looking strategic 9er with many options, including teeing grounds with different angles and elevations.

All this to ask. How do you all compare 9 vs 18? I know many are not into rankings but someone asked me once grown in where I think it might rank in state. I didn't really know how to address it and other great 9-holers in the state or even across the country compared to their 18 hole counterparts. I'm inclined to remove hole quantities from the equation at all, but doing something great 18 times seems like it should carry slightly more weight than 9.

Jason Bruno (aka "Links Nation") caused a bit of a stir on X earlier this week when he posted some fresh shots of Harbour Town Golf Links, which recently reopened after a historical renovation by Love Golf Design. The controversy revolved around a pair of revetted green-side bunkers in one photo.

Some commenters complained that Harbour Town architect Pete Dye never built revetted bunkers. (He did — at Harbour Town. They just didn't last very long because the sod stacks collapsed. Ultimately Dye replaced the revetted walls with the turfed-over walls that became a mainstay of his later designs.)

Others objected to the use of artificial materials in the sod stacks.

For the most part, though, the critics just didn't seem to like the look of the bunkers. Which is fair, but we should probably wait until the bunkers have had a chance to mature before rendering a final judgment.

In an April 2025 edition of Design Notebook, Scot Sherman, lead designer at Love Golf Design, gave me some insight into the thinking and technical process behind bringing back these bunkers:

Scot: We’re working on some details that really speak to what Pete did originally that didn’t last real long. He did some sod-stacking to several bunkers out there, and from the pictures and from recollections of others, some of that stacking was with Bahia and or St. Augustine grass, and it didn’t last long. And natural sod-stacking usually has to be replaced every three or four or five years, and [Harbour Town] just didn’t do it and [eventually] just grassed the faces. So again, in a tip of the cap to [Dye], we’re going to go ahead and do some of these that were originally stacked, but we’re going to do it in a little bit of a modern context. We think we could do something that’ll last a little longer. We have an artificial product, and we’re going to alternate artificial stacking with natural sod. We really don’t want it to look artificial, but we also want there to be hints of the sod-stacking. So we’re going to do a row of the artificial, a row of Celebration [Bermudagrass] sod, a row of the artificial, a row of the Celebration, and it’ll fuzz a little bit, and you’ll be able to discern the stacking.

Garrett: So the outcome of this sod-stacking process — will it look like a revetted bunker, like you would see in Scotland?

Scot: It’ll have a little bit different appearance. It won’t be that clean revetment like you’re used to seeing, and nor was Pete’s original sod-stacking. It’s going to be a little fuzzier, a little more ragged.Between ourselves and the owner and the old pictures that we have from the late 60s — the original tournament there that Mr. Palmer won — we’re going to put some of them back. I don’t know that we’re putting all of the ones we know about back, but some of that’s going to be a field decision. For example, there were a couple [sod-stacked bunkers] behind No. 9 green. Those are going to go back for sure. We’re putting back the dreaded deep pot bunker left of 14 green.

"Restoring" a golf course always involves tricky decisions like this one. If you want to honor Dye's vision, do you try to recapture the course that existed on opening day, including the parts that didn't end up being sustainable because of some technical deficit? Or you do pay tribute to the architectural refinements of the ensuing years — which, in Harbour Town's case, were overseen by the original architect and a long-tenured, well-respected construction company?

Or do you simply trust your own taste and go with what you think is the better option?

I'm personally a skeptic of the new revetted bunkers at Harbour Town. But not because I think they dishonor Pete Dye. They just don't look all that great to me. But I'm not too worked up about it because ultimately it's a fairly minor aesthetic issue.

These past several days have been rich with cross-discussion between FEGC and Golf Club Atlas! There's now a thread discussing the subject I raised in this week's edition of Design Notebook.

By far the best reply, in my opinion, comes from Mike Young, who has turned into something of a pen pal of mine over the years. Mike designed and continues to own and operate The Fields Golf Club in LaGrange, Georgia. He has influenced my thinking about golf architecture and maintenance deeply. The last time I interviewed him was in March 2024, when we discussed the ins and outs of building and running a mom-n-pop golf course. I find him to be a unique and important voice in the industry.

So it's no surprise that I found myself nodding along vigorously with his contribution to the GCA thread:

"I'm not sure original or unoriginal should be the question. The question should be are [the courses] sustainable and can the game continue to be played on them. If not then why does it matter. Subtlety seems to be gone no matter the 'style' and the abundance of money has ideas being tried that may have been thought of earlier but could not or would not be implemented int he past due to agronomic issues or playability issues.... There is a lot of good young talent out there and the overabundance of money available today may be more of an issue when it comes to originality than we think."

Mike also says that "a good routing with subtle, strategic greens and bunkering can always stand the test of time if it can be maintained."

Right on. I think this is a logical extension of my own statement that an important, under-discussed task of a golf architect is to "prepare a ground for the game." Part of preparing a ground for the game is ensuring that the game can be played on it affordably and sustainably into the future.

If I could write my essay again, I'd probably add a section about the importance of "innovating" in the arenas of economical construction and maintenance. The industry has learned an incredible amount about golf course maintenance over the past several decades. Because of these knowledge gains, architects now have the ability to build the most affordable, sustainable golf courses the game has ever seen. But the problem is we're lacking owners and developers for whom that is a primary objective.

To be clear, I don't think Mike is saying golf architecture shouldn't be bold or innovative. He's just pointing out, accurately, that if it can't be maintained without great expense and effort, there's no real point to the initial boldness or innovation.

Anyway, always listen to Mike Young.