A lot of the older courses that have a major tree component weren't originally designed that way. Oakmont was a prime example of that. It was originally designed to be mostly treeless, but, over the years, became heavily wooded. They went back to the original design about a decade ago, which you can see today.
Being heavily wooded often will serve to slow play, where you have a large contingent of players that are average to below average. A place like Augusta National can get away with having a lot of trees due to a membership that knows the course and that uses caddies. Beyond that, it makes maintenance much more expensive and time consuming. If you wanted to renovate the existing IU course, by improving drainage, rebuilding tees/greens, rebuilding bunkers, etc., without removing trees, the green fees would probably need to be in excess of $100, in order to properly fund maintenance. Again, some courses can get away with that, where there is a well-funded membership or high green fees.
In a perfect world, I don't think that you are totally off-base. The existing layout could be very interesting with a substantial amount of work. I don't think that it is practical for what we are looking for, a well-maintained, challenging course, that is reasonably priced for the students and general public. There is nothing wrong with preserving older courses, but the existing IU layout is far from classic and deserving of such care. If the existing IU course was akin to the Course at Yale, for example, with significant architectural characteristics, that would be a different story.
There is a reason why there aren't a ton of heavily wooded courses in Indiana, as opposed to more open courses. Most of the terrain in Indiana has more prairie type characteristics, versus the northeast, pacific northwest, etc.
I have fond memories of the existing IU course. Played it a ton as a student, and played there during my bachelor party weekend. Despite those memories, I'm not sad to see it go. It's time that IU stepped up to the plate and had a facility that is comparable or better than it's peers.
they flat out ruined Oakmont when they clear cut it imo. what a disaster.
there's a reason you don't see many other great courses following that complete boondoggle.
the greens at IU did fine.
thick rough and sand slow down play way more than trees.
the reason most new courses in Indiana don't have trees as a major design component, is because they are being built on former farm land.
as for green fees, 12 mil would more than renovate the current course quite nicely thank you, and sand adds more expense than trees.
saying starting from scratch rather than renovating is cheaper, or significantly less expensive to maintain, i don't believe for a second.
your greens fee argument is total BS.
all that said, if renovating the current IU course, as i've stated before, i would definitely thin out some of the trees lining the fairways.
architects would much rather build their own course and sign their own name to it, and have another notch on their resume', than renovate an existing course and not have it be their design, no matter how great it could be, for the same reason an artist would much rather hang their own painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, than renovate a master.
the new course will be very nice no doubt.. but it will be just another formula course like all the other very nice new formula courses all over central Indiana and everywhere else, and not something truly great, which the carved out of a forest current course, if renovated correctly, would be.
no need to drive down from Indy or Carmel or up from Louisville to play the new IU course, when you can have that same experience at a dozen or more other courses much closer. whereas renovating the current course correctly would have offered something really great and far more unique, a "destination course", that you won't find elsewhere anywhere close.
