Feature Interview with Dave Axland is posted

[Ran Morrissett]

If I was a jillionaire and had control of a fine piece of property, I would invite four or five architects to come see it. Bunker Hill would be one of the firms contacted.

If I had a good piece of property but the project was not particularly well funded, I would again invite four or five architects to come see it. I wouldn't waste the time of architects that charge over $X (pick a number $300,000 or whatever) for a design fee as the modest project wouldn't support it.

One firm FOR SURE would be invited under either scenario and that's Bunker Hill.

Thus, we are delighted to do a Feature Interview with one of its two principals - Dave Axland (the other principal is Dan Proctor).

Not only does Bunker Hill do great design work, their approach to design is economical (i.e. the numbers actually make sense!). Take Wild Horse for instance. It is #18 in Golf Week's new modern ranking. And yet on average, the courses within ten spots up or down of it cost at least seven fold plus to build what Wild Horse did. Sure, Dave and Dan had sandy soil and other factors in their favor but the fact still remains that they did it. If it's so darn easy, where are the other high quality designs done at such reasonable cost??

Let's hope that we can organize a Wild Horse get-together this summer. With some luck on timing, perhaps Dave or Dan could join us - I'm sure that it would be a highly instructive day for all, not to mention a ton of fun.

Cheers,

[brad_miller]

great job Ran, the more the world knows about Bunker Hill the better. low cost, fun to play, many options, ground game, respect for the dead guys, good for golf and good for the local community.

[RJ_Daley]

I never met Dave Axeland. Yet, I felt like I knew him before this interview, and nothing he said in the interview surprised me. I have had the pleasure of meeting a couple of his associates and various people that worked with him in support capacities like the supers of SH, WH and BS.  The consistency of what folks say about this Bunkerhill gang is remarkable.  This band of golf design-constructors that have grown up loosely around the Coore-core (   ) is the biggest bunch of non-egotistical folks I have ever seen.  Their reputation for dilligence about their work and doing things with craftsmanship until the work seems right has become a hallmark of their trade.   I love how they have this collaborative working circle that is now also cross pollinating with Doak's team because the end results are more shared knowledge and construction technique information that will only produce more superior golf courses for us all.  

One of the strongest cultural icons of the prairie along the North Platte and Sand Hills regions is that of Buffalo Bill Cody.  He was a master horseman, rifleman, and scout who lived by a frontiersman's code and had a spiritual relationship with the land out there.  Those were the skills that were valued in that era.  The days of the fronteir are over.  Not many modern folks have the need for those skills except cattle ranchers.  Now we recreate.  We hunt and fish and have found golf is a new pass time for the prairie.  Marksmanship and enjoying the souting aspect of the hunt are still there in the recreational form.  Golf, has come with a skill set that originated in an ancient game on similar land, and came with traditions and honorable rules too.  We golfers want to keep in touch with the natural ground from some deep down psyche in our make-ups so we now value those recreationalist skills across natural ground.  Yet, someone has to have the talent and vision to prepare the ground to emmulate the natural prairie to some recognisable extent so we can enjoy that feeling when we play.  I for one, have come to see guys like Dave and Dan and their buddies like Mike, Jack, Rod as fellows with the new skill sets but the old values like Buffalo Bill.  Instead of horses, they use dozers; instead of scouting, they do routing.  But, they have a basic personality that seems to carry on the old values and relationships of the frontiersmen.  

Now some of you that haven't met any of these fellows might think I have gone overboard in characterising the rugged and humble personalities and qualities of this bunch of prairie golf builders.  But, how many of the associates in Fazio's or Jones's team are you ever going to find spending a workless winter out on the cold lone prairie feeding and tending cattle til the golf work picks up again?  And, how many of them even could or would enjoy that circumstance for the opportunity to reconnect with the land?  

[Slag Bandoon]

Many, many wise words.  Dave sure makes it sound easy.  

[Sandy_Barrens_Jr.]

Phenominal, phenominal, phenominal!

Mr. Axland's interview is informative, subtle and instructive. I give him a Siskel & Ebert thumbs-up!

Is it me, or does it seem that building a golf course with Dave and Dan might be one of the funnest experiences one could ever hope for?

I played golf once with a guy named, Laserman, and all's he could talk about was Dave Axland this, and Dave Axland that! It would take him hours to address and hit the ball. You couldn't get him to shut-up! Now I see why! Mr. Axland is an icon!

Ran, you forgot to list Sinaloa GC as a Bunker Hill project.

Gotta go. Lots of dunes to take care of.

[Tim Weiman]

Ran,

Your interview with Dave Axeland is yet another example of what sets Golfclubatlas apart. Great work.

As for Dave himself, it is very nice to know that there are such people working in the business.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Fantastic interview.  I especially liked how he drew Garden City Golf Club into the discussion about flat sites.  So many people use a flat site as an excuse for moving tons of dirt yet Dave seems like someone who can appreciate the qualities of a flat site and make it interesting without all the dirt movement.  I have rarely seen a flat site.  Usually, people whom can not appreciate the subtle contours and the quality of those contours deem sites flat and justify moving dirt because of it, I know I used to be in that frame of mind.

I played San Saba many times.  In fact, when I recieved info about last years Archipalooza it said you could discuss a golf hole that interested you and was not well known.  Had I done that I seriously considered hole #9 at Saba.  At the time I played there only 9 holes existed.  #9 was a par 5 with water in front of the green.  The fairway had trees on both sides and descended to the lake.  Usually the matches were tight coming down to this hole, and everyone was on edge because of the tee shot.  If you hit the big tee shot then you could make a good go at the green in two.  There was tremendous anticipation with every tee shot, and then tremendous anticipation for every one who hit a good tee shot as they made a go at the green.  All this coming at the end of the day, with the anticipation for a big steak dinner and plenty of Jack Daniels waiting at the ranch.  I can remember only one other hole a par three over a bend in the river, but as Dave said the course is a lot of fun.  

Back to the interview it was also a pleasure to read about the team concept that the CC people have developed.  Very special and unique.

[George Pazin]

Another great interview.

Thank you Dave Axland for taking the time to give thoughtful answers.

Look forward to playing some of your courses soon.

[GeoffreyC]

Thanks to Ran and Dave for adding to the incredible content of this site.

The great collaborative efforts of their group is very evident from this interview.  Its not surprising therefore that the quality of their work reflects their philosophy for building golf courses.

I loved Wild Horse, Sand Hills and Friars Head and I look forward to seeing more of Dave's work alone and with C & C.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

l am about to read the opinion piece, but I doubt his golf game is discussed much.  Dave can hit a wood-wood about as far as anyone can hit a metal "wood."  He usually just carries a 3 wood.
One day at Sinaloa we agreed on a location for the 1st tee.  My starter said he turned around to help a customer.  When he looked back out the window, to his amazement, Dave had already bulldozed and shaped the 1st tee.  To this day it has remained the same and drains properly.  Only Larry McMurtry (spelling) could do justice to Dan and Dave.

[A_Clay_Man]

Good stuff!

I was wondering if someone could elaborate on these two aspects. The latter more so than the former.

"Good surface drainage and the desire to keep back line heights in check was a goal."

Also, I hope to someday hear the story of the convex bunker on 5 at WH. Not only the construction story which Dick told us about, but also if the origins of that bunker were features seen on the way to SH.

thanx

[Jason Hines]

Excellent job Ran,

I have been waiting for this interview with anticipation.  You really can see the spirit Dick spoke of as well as the values Dave Axland professes on every square inch at WH.

I would love it if anyone can pass on information/progress about the Hermsmeyer project in Ainsworth, I about started jumping up and down with excitement when I read that part. (I must be ready for spring!!)

Jason

[A_Clay_Man]

I too was glad to see the Hermsmeyer reference. And I'll bet we could get more than a few frustrated wannabe daves to meet near the south dakota border for some earth turning and hands on experience in the field. Maybe we could set a record for construction, start to finish?

[Doug Wright]

the Hermsmeyer project in Ainsworth, I about started jumping up and down with excitement when I read that part.
Jason

Jason, You need to get a life!  

I certainly wish Paul H well with his project. He's certainly working with the pros--Nebraska with 2 of the Top 18 Modern--talk about disproportionate!

All the Best,

[Dedicated Soldier]

What exactly does this quote mean?

"One of the worst things that you can have happen as a designer is to get exactly what you expect"

Do these guys not have any idea what they're going to do when they sign a contract? How does a developer invest millions of dollars without knowing what to expect?

I realize this guy is some kind of "God" here but really, are we to believe this is the way it works? Sorry, I just don't buy it. You guys are going to be sucking wind in a few years.

[brad_miller]

DS, by the time C&C, Doak and "all the others-we love on GCA" have signed a contract they have already spent more time ON SITE then most of the other guys we are clearly biased against. Here's a bet, come 2006 the top 10 modern courses will all be from the C&C, Doak school with the exception of one or two PDye courses. Hope I lose this bet to JN doing his best work yet at Bayberry, which property is next to NGLA.

?Didn't both Bill Coore and Tom Doak work for Dye?

[A_Clay_Man]

This will be the meanest post I have ever attempted so those who don't want to lower their opinion of me ( as if ) please stop reading now.... Ok Now.... I mean it NOW!

Hey dedicated soldier- I'd rather be sucking wind in few years that suck what your sucking now.

[Dave Axland]

A friend of mine called today and said that I might want to check out the discussion group and respond to a couple of questions. Its a good day for it in that here in Plymouth, MA we are getting another foot or so of snow.
If one more person tells me that the winters south of Boston are getting mild they may have to hunt for cover!


In response to the person who took offense to the statement about 'getting exactly what you expect'.

I read this one and was reminded of what a developer once told us,(this was in a good way). He said that in some ways it was actually more difficult to commit to C&C because you are not quite sure what kind of golf course you might end up having. It was an interesting comment.

That thought is probably more fun to say than is reality, but I can understand the perception.

The basic golf course concept is discussed at length with owners, with enough game planning for the process to be efficient and cost effective. It is just that you hesitate to state things with too much detail in that the final product may be better or different than you invisioned due to site study and changes to it as a result of ongoing work.

At Friars Head Kenny Bakst suggested shifting the fourth green. It made good sense,(building locations, etc.). The result was a better hole setting and the opportunity for a shorter 5th. On the same job Jeff Bradley was asked to build a bunker system at the 9th green. The design input to him was to think about two or three smaller bunkers on the left side. The end result was a bit different than expected and yet better than any preconcieved idea.

I have been to a number of meetings for C&C. When asked about the budget numbers and how we can ensure doing what we say that we are going to do, it ends up coming down to trust. That is one of the reasons we aren't able to do certain jobs, for municipalities or others - talk about an interesting experience, filling out an RFP. We do all our work on a time and materials basis based off 'field design', with limited formal plans and no bonding. No written guarantees about cost or quality.  

[RJ_Daley]

I don't think DS must be flogged in public.  I do believe that underlying his post there is some sort of professional jealousy or skepticism about the notion that a sort of cult like following of these proteges of the Coore-Crenshaw lineage has been growing.  As I mentioned above, you can add Renaissance associates to that list due to some mingling.

DS seems most incredulous about the notion that perhaps Bunkerhill just goes out in the field and meander willy-nilly around a piece of ground until something strikes them as a good hole, then rough it out and move on to an undermined next hole.  It seems DS is contrary and sideways about the possibility that there has been some more extemporaneous creativity on projects like Wild Horse and perhaps the front side of Bayside.  I really can't say that is true (or false).  

But, I know that Axeland is valued by C&C for his excellent field management of the construction process, and that doesn't indicate he is just meandering around out there without a clue.  In fact, when he works for C&C, at places like Kapalua, or FH, 'm quite certain that they approached the projects with plenty of formal documents and construction-design plans to meet permit processes, etc.  But, thank goodness these fellows do seem to be masters of adjusting on the fly.  

I think there are two different types of architects-designers-constructors out there.  There are those that place huge emphasis on documents, plan drawings, and buttoned down process that is run from an office like a business; and there are those that have a more on-site, on-the-ground focus and less chain of command between the designer-builders.  The latter don't build a number of golf courses at a time or in one year.  They don't live or operate in the hustling business world.  They won't make a lot of serious money in their careers.  And, as DS alludes to, they may not receive big multi-million dollar corporate project interests, because they do things the way they do and it is naturally contrary to the big corporate projects.  Such projects are bottom line oriented and need the security of the big name - big business GCA firms like Fazio, Nicklaus, Palmer and the like to market and sell the project.  Other business focused GCA firms model after that growth and competition side of the business.  There is room and need out there for both approaches.  

But, it would be a little far fetched to think that some of the masterful work Bunker Hill or the rest of the loose associations and combinations of design-builders will have their work "blowing or sucking" in the wind.  They will be there for those that recognise craftsmanship and really thoughtful golf design at a rational price for a very long time to come.  Quality never goes out of style.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Dedicated Soldier,

Is Sucking Wind the new project where the logo's going to be a silouette of an overdressed architect, blueprint under arm, pointing at dirt?

Dave,
You spent a long summer at Riviera working on the bunkers with Dan. Are there any design/construction elements you picked up there that, nearly 10 years later, you appreciate now more than ever. Drainage? Greens? Routing? Shaping?
Regards,
Geoff

[Michael Moore]

All very interesting . . .

Not getting what you expected reminds me of something I read in an interview (certainly not the monosyllabic one featured on this site) with Pete Dye. If I remember correctly, he was boasting about never having signed a contract.

Is this really true? Does it just mean that an underling signed the contract, or does it mean that Mr. Dye preferred to work unfettered by legal obligations? He said that he always got paid . . .

[A_Clay_Man]

I wonder what Jill Ran was refering to?

Also, I guess I over-reacted to our anon DS but you see I don't ever want to hire a guy who's gonna cost me $35 mil with all the i's dotted a t's crossed. I'd much rather gamble on a handshake with a proven artist like dave and dan for a fraction of a fraction of $35 mil.
And I think the market will take a lot longer to rebound to the point where principles will throw around that kind of doe, scratch, moolah.

Dave- Could you please give me a clue to the back line hieghts in check line?

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Very well written post.

I can't understand why Dedicated Soldier thinks there should be a single formula or approach to designing and building a golf course.

It is well known that people like Dave Axeland, C&C, Renaissance, etc., don't expect to be a fit for every project.

So what? Their work speaks for itself. Anyone who prefers a different methodology can go elsewhere. The "boys" should do their own thing.

[Dave_Axland]

A Clay Man,

Regarding the comments about good surface drainage and back line green heights/fills and greens construction.

Maybe I should have just said - we tried to go with the ground more so than usual in order to have faster surface drainage without making large fills. We wanted more 'low profile' greens with feeding slopes.

Our greens construction method at Delaware Springs included using heavier soil than what is typically used with most methods of greens construction. As with any heavy soil green, they will perform best if you can get excessive water off them quickly or at least avoid any 'bird baths'. There is more artistic freedom with these greens in that you dont have to match layers and yet they do not drain well internally.

On the 13th green at Delaware Springs for example, lets assume that the natural ground worked away from the tee at 4 percent. Just to level that green up on that line of play would have resulted in 4 feet of fill at back of green if it were 100 feet deep. To give a carry shot along that line of play some support would require an additional 4 feet of fill if you were looking for a 4 percent slope towards the tee. All the sudden you would have 8 feet of fill at the back of the green.

This example doesn't make much 'field' sense because of independent contour etc. It is about the easiest way for me to describe what it takes from a fill standpoint when you go against the natural ground. Within the greens system we wanted to provide variety. When given slopes that were workable we didn't go out of our way to fight them.  We tried to keep the greens low and also well drained.

[Dave_Axland]

Geoff Shackelford,

One of the interview questions asked about architects who have had an influence on Bunker Hill work. George Thomas was listed.

Even though it has been a long time since the Riviera job, I can still remember many of the bunker configurations. Bunker placement and the fill work at Riviera were a great lesson. Iv'e seldom seen significant earthmoving done so well as out there. Thomas and and Billy Bell made some large fills that you can't detect.

The National Golf Links and Riviera get referenced the most when thinking about fun and interesting golf.