News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Don_Mahaffey

Surface Drainage
« on: July 24, 2004, 10:56:42 AM »
Is it just me or does it seem that often one barometer we use to judge a modern course good/great or OK/fair is how the designer used existing surface drainage to route the course?

Isn't the use of existing surface drainage where an architect lets his artistic side shine through?

And if a course is designed and routed with an extensive underground drainage system, then didn’t  the architect take the science/engineering approach?

It would seem the golden agers used a lot more art then science, is that why we favor their designs?

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2004, 12:06:29 PM »
Don,

Interesting observation. I don't know how many people judge the architecture based on natural vs. engineered water removal. Certainly it is much easier nowadays to incorporate engineered drainage than in the golden age. Having said that, I am currently working with an architect that will do everything possible to avoid engineered drainage, and it starts with the routing of the course. The process continues through clearing and shaping, making sure we haven't buggered anything up that will hinder natural drainage.

Conversely, I worked at a Dye course in NC that incorporated so much engineered drainage it was unbelievable, really. Was it a bad course for it? I don't think so, but certainly the more manufactured the course, so it would go for drainage.

Could it be that the overall opinions expressed here, i.e. natural look, less is more, etc., has lead you to your conclusion that we judge a courses greatness based on surface drainage?

If I make the assumption that TPC Sawgrass is a great golf course, and if I assume that there is a liberal amount of engineered drainage (I have never played there, thus the assumptions), would that be a fair example that would contradict your conclusion?

Great question, I need to take lessons from you on how to post topics that aren't silly!

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2004, 12:20:34 PM »
It seems to me that the drainage characteristics of a course seem to evolve.

When I think over the Flynn courses I have played, however, it does seem that his routing certainly considered the drainage features; so maybe it isn't just that easy to say.

Certainly, a big consideration in course design.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2004, 12:21:08 PM »
Didn't the golden era architects have to approach this concept of routing a golf course artfully using existing and natrual drainage patterns, out of necessity?  They didn't have the affordable-efficient mechanical means to pound something into the ground with heavy equipment and efficient pumps and the like.  They had to respect and negotiate with what Mother Nature presented.  So, of course we look upon that artful and careful work with a favorable eye and we recognise the subtleties and detail of that work as being superior.  

In my view it is the difference between old time careful craftsmanship and new age efficient and mass manufacturing techniques is apparent.  Whether it is a desk or chair done in the old time craftsman like ways VS a knock off mass produced version; or a golf course built over a far longer time frame with close attention paid to details of natural drainage incorporated in the routing VS mass grading and drainage forced on the property... all these things are descernable to those who take the time to learn and appreciate such matters.

But some folks like the mass produced items due to personal taste and perhaps affordability.  Some golf courses are provided on property that wouldn't have supported one in earlier times.  Some are affordable because of mass production equipment capabilities, yet ironically, some cost far more to play for all the extra work and cost of material that had to be utilized.  

Give me a naturally laid out, minimal construction - maximumly conceived routing and drainage design any day.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2004, 10:24:43 PM »
RJ

You hit the nail on the head!  Kittansett, for example, has great drainage problems - now, which they never had before the 1938 hurricane.  But the original design had ditches and flow into basins which out flowed to the bay.  Environmentalists restrict this current condition!

Merion's famous 11th, Bobby Jones hole, floods because the town built a culvert which couldn't carry the water out of the lowland, using the club land as a dam for down stream.

Evolution vs design?  How can one come up with a total answer?

Willie

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2004, 10:03:40 AM »
Don,

Routing and Design Features are separate issues, IMHO.

I seriously doubt any practicing architect routes a course ignoring basic drainage patterns. Greens and Tees on hills, or cut in upslopes to keep them out of major drainage is key.  On a rolling site, obviously, some fairways will cross drainage swales.  

In bridge engineering, there is an old rule of thumb that the cost of piers should equal the cost of spans.  I find the same is true in draining golf courses - the cost of earthmoving versus the cost of drainage ought to be about equal!  

If in a swale, I could raise the fairway with 50,000 yards of earth, keep it as it, and add $50,000 worth of pipe, or raise it slightly, like an enginner would raise a road to keep surface water from flowing across it (there for car safety, in golf, to keep the critical fw turf from getting too much water) and probably spend less, and keep the land more natural by adding a few basins where we have interupted natural flow.

On flat sites like TPC, more catch basins are inevitable.  If you assume that we wouldn't grade any ridges in the center of the fairway higher than 4 feet, to preserve vison down the fairway, and a minimum slope of 3% on the fairway, then on a perfectly flat site, maximum flow lines would be 132 feet, and you would need a basin about every 266 feet!  Dye actually used more FW slope, and 2-4 foot ridges, and if I recall, basins are about every 80 feet there - probably influenced by ease of construction - 4 20 foot sections of pipe, and then slap on the basin, and grade to it......I could be wrong, but I paced off several there, and 80 feet seemed typical.

Basins in the fairway are also typical on a wooded site, since you would have to take down too many trees to get the drainage out in the far rough.

In housing, the golf course will be put primarily in swales so the houses can have a view down to the course.  There, you accept that you have to take on a lot of drainage from above, and plan for it.

As to the 1938 hurricane, that - and other drainage data is availalbe to us now, and of course, we try to plan the course for as bad a flood event as budget allows, a luxury old designers didn't have, or didn't consider.  

Many forget that the old, "natural" courses have added drainage practically every year that they have been in existence to continually correct problems they experience.  I sent my first computer draftsman to the Cornish/Graves seminar, as he was an Indian fellow with no knowledge of golf.  Our drainage budgets were from $100-200K at the time.  He noticed that Geoff said golf course drainage should be $50K, and asked about the difference.  Geoff's response was that if you add in all the drainage the super adds in the first five years, it probably totaled the same amount......It's an ongoing process, and I, for one, don't see the problems in trying to anticipate those when building the course in the first place.  

I also suspect that the lower relative cost of PVC pipe shapes designers thought process.  When the old guys had to lift concrete or clay pipe with a crane (which was necessary into the 70's) it was too expensive for golf course budgets.  With the lightweight plastic pipes, the unit prices are so low - and really haven't gone up in ten years, it becomes a much more cost effective solution.  For that matter, earthmoving is a real bargain compared to the old days (back to the 70's for me, unit prices haven't budged - the cost of horses and scoops would be astronmical in todays prices) and if you take the two together, it really does shape modern design thinking.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2004, 07:13:11 PM »
"It would seem the golden agers used a lot more art then science, is that why we favor their designs?"

Yes, it is! They took more time on the land analyzing this question of natural drainage patterns and how it'd effect their architecture! Some modern designers can't be bothered to look at the land. Why even consider the land, it takes too much time, and they can work all these things out by plugging in their computers and CAD systems on underground drainage designs everywhere and earth moving anything that's naturally sheet drainage problematic anyway. Plus doing things this way is more expensive and you earn more money that way!

How can anyone serisously expect some of these modern architects to hang out on the land in a deluge to see what happens. Not just that but natural drainage and hydrology is way too complex. Do you seriously think they can handle complex principles such as water flows downhill and seeks the path of least resistance? Do you think these guys really want ot hang out on the land endless measuring things the way the old guys did? No way! That's way too complex, way to time consuming and way too much to ask!

Just kidding boys---I promise!
 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2004, 07:14:56 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2004, 09:54:24 PM »
Don,

I think modern architects have greater constraints on what they can do with surface water, and as such, surface drainage becomes more complicated.

Old Marsh might be a great example.

They were not allowed to let surface water drain off of the golf course by natural means, and had to create, at great expense, a substitute system.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2004, 11:00:03 PM »

...Why even consider the land, it takes too much time, and they can work all these things out by plugging in their computers and CAD systems.....

How can anyone serisously expect some of these modern architects to hang out on the land in a deluge to see what happens.

....Do you seriously think they can handle complex principles such as water flows downhill and seeks the path of least resistance?

Do you think these guys really want ot hang out on the land endless measuring things the way the old guys did? No way!  


Good to hear you are joking Mr. Paul! :D

A few comments-

CAD is just another way to draw the plans, once the brainwork is done.  CAD alone does nothing!

Just to show what an exciting guy I am, I have (on a few occaisions) stood in the rains to see exactly how (I understand the downhill part) and HOW HARD water flows in a big rain.  The biggest ever came in monsoon season in Indonesia.  They had downsized my engineered pipes, and they all overflowed, along with a few of the fairways washing away, necessitating rebuilding.....

I suspect we modern designers, designing with more science, and less art, spend a lot more time in the process overall measuring things like drainage, flows, et al.  

And, I will say it again, I doubt anyone working today simply ignores drainage flows, period.  They are still integral to routing, although, as I said before, sometimes we accept holes in valleys to improve housing, knowing our drainage problems increase.

I will also say again that any course that left the architects control without much drainage had it added as soon as the superintendent took over! And' that's in any era of design.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2004, 01:21:48 PM »
Jeff:

You, my friend, violated one of the fundamentals of all drainage principles:

"No Build Golf Course in Indonesia in Monsoon Season!"

Jeff_McDowell

Re:Surface Drainage
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2004, 02:05:15 PM »
I forgot who told me this, but it was an older and wiser gentleman. They said that courses built 20 to 50 years could open in pretty rough shape with not great turf quality. The golfers really didn't care that much, and the golfers knew conditions would get better.

Nowadays, golfers expect great turf quality on opening day.

My point with all this is that I feel a lot of drainage is added in an effort to stop erosion during grow-in. If you let water run over land more than about 200' (depending on the soil and slope), erosion gullies start to form. A small depression with a catch basin eliminates this risk. Erosion control blanket helps, but it has it's weaknesses.

I've never seen a cost\benefit analysis of adding pipe during construction versus regrading and seeding during grow-in, but I bet in some cases it's best to add the pipe.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back