working with the land & discovering golf holes

[Michael Dugger]

In a few short and simple sentences, what does this mean to you when it comes to GCA.  Please be creative.

[Tim Weiman]

mdugger:

I'm no expert, but I think it means studying what the property offers and trying to imagine golf holes without resorting to massive earth movement.

For an excellent illustration, check out the before and after pictures of #9 at Cypress Point as presented in Geoff Shackelford's "Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club". Page 42 has the "before"; page 120 has an "after" shot.

[RJ_Daley]

Not unlike many contributors here, I have done this several times as a hobbiest, and one false start of an actual GC homesite development.  I find property that appears interesting and for sale, and first seek all the best topo relief and aerial photography available and make several working copies.  Then I begin a long series of site walks with the rolled up topo in hand.  I locate interesting features and mark them out on the map or aerial.  I then go back to a drafting table and begin to 'connect the dots' so to speak, trying different routings that provide an interesting golf journey throughout the property.  Then I go back and forth from the walkabouts on the land during the day, to the drafting table at night until sensible routes for a golf course come together.  I also take photos of the features I find on the ground, and take angles and line of play photos into those features so that I can remember their look as I draft the route using compass and ruler to scale.  And, I might add, I try to spend time on those properties at significant rain events or snow melts to watch it drain and figure that information into my route.

I have done this seriously about 5 times.  I know that TEPaul has done this dilligently with the Androssan Farm property and probably others.  I'm sure that this sort of hobby activity is shared by many others to some degree or other.  Us GCA freaks are obsessed that way.  Look how many folks send in contest designs when Whitten runs that feature in the magazine.  Just give an armchair archie the time and a topo and access to the land, and they will go nuts.

[Forrest Richardson]

I can tell you there is a real sense of discovery. I'm sure much like an early explorer discovering land -- or a scientist discovering a solution -- or a doctor discovering a hidden disease. When I "see" a golf hole there is a moment of excitement, of wondering whether it can be built efficiently, and whether it will come out as good as it feels. This feeling then moves toward doubt: Will it be liked? Will it be destructive to the neighboring land? Will the client buy off on it? The more doubts, the more stubborn I become. Finally, if I have enough doubts I know it must be worthwhile, otherwise why would I be spending so much time on it.

[Steve Wilson]

Kelly Blake Moran talked about his at length at Alpine on Jan. 11th.  In fact his entire presentation was a disquisition on how he was transformed from a builder or constructor of golf holes into a discoverer of them.  

I would think that one of the blessings of a found golf hole versus a created one is the amount of micro detail that nature would provide for the found hole.  Just my impression, but I would think the process of creating golf holes from a blank canvas would lend itself to a repititiveness that is less satisfying than the infinite randomness of nature.  

Found holes are a product of evolution, created ones are products of intelligent design.

[A_Clay_Man]

I was gonna post this on the cigar thread but that suckers gettin scary.

Dick's description sounds like the perverbial 'love for the game' way to make a course. I take afront to the hyperbole evident in Mr. Jone's marketing quotations.

But the one thing I'd like to interject is that as Pat states over and over again, restrictions to the architect blah blah blah.

What's the difference, to the archie, between a physical restriction and one that is thrusted upon them by either regulators or principles? i.e. here at Pinon I understand that the college president who was leasing the land to the city for $1 a year was emphatic that the courses access be on a certain road, therefore really handcuffing the routing, and the end result was a facility that is less than perfect or, as JN once said "horrible".

[Forrest Richardson]

People-issued restrictions are often times changeable. While physical restrictions must be fought with machinery and money -- or avoided. Of course, I've tried to accomplish the prior with the latter, too.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Physical restrictions are fought with good routing plans.  tom Fazio and rees jones fight physical restrictions with machinary and money.  as a clay man pointed out on the rees jones thread which is in orbit, there is much there that speaks to mduggers thread here.  I will insert some of my comments from that thread that pretain to mduggers request.  First, I have a whole website devoted to working with the land, so I can not keep it short.  Instead, I will paste here what I said about Rees which provisdes a good contrast to working with the land: "My other problem with the Rees piece is that he is assuming a virtue he does not possess(sic).  It pisses me off because walking the land, letting the land drive the design process is something I believe in deeply, and having practiced it for the last 8 years. I see no possible way that his disfiguring of the land is a result of his committment to walking the land, working with nature.  I have spent a tremendous amount of time on the land, and it just does not seem possible to develop his style from those experiences, I would say my style is much more subdued compared to his because I spend so much time on the virgin land before construction begins, and still i think I have been too heavy handed in the final result..."
  
"People can excuse bad design by citing environmental factors, but I think ultimately the final design is impacted by the talent and creativity of the architect far more than any other factor you can name.  Environmental constraints is a crutch that is used all too often to excuse bad design.  The owner or developer is another crutch that is used all too often to excuse a lackluster effort by the architect.  It compares to Brad Klein's effort to somewhat excuse Pete Dye's big budgets by blaming the shapers who go too far in interpreting Pete's intentions thus requiring Pete to undo all their work to get back to what he intended.  Really?  Damn, if we could just control those bad shapers golf could be more affordable.  

With that type of reporting, you need GCA in hopes somebody will pursue the truth, because it is not happening in the golf magazines. No? "

Designing to the land which begins with the most important document, the routing plan, is a personal committemnt, not a marketing slogan.  If the personal committemnt is not there then I think the results will be hollow, which is what you see happening with Rees.  

What exactly designing to the land means can be hard to nail down because we each see something slightly different when on the land.  As mdugger said as a requirement for responding here, please be creative!  Yes please be creative, but do it while you are on the land, not in your office.

[Tony Ristola]

Kelly:  Hear, hear.

Perhaps it's one reason you don't see the Codes of Ethics posted on the architect's associations web sites.

[Forrest Richardson]

Kelly -- I enjoy your ideas. "Land-based design" and "site experience" are very important. I've made a strong case that our intgerection with "land" and "sites" is much more than physical. In your web site you focus on the physical, as you do in the post above. The physical is important, I agree.

But let's discuss the influences that are not so physical in their beginning, but become physical later on. At St. Andrews have we a physical condition...or one brought about by centuries of conditions at the hands of decisions, good and bad? The encroachment of the town and its passageways are now regarded as brilliant, but were they always? At Cypress Point Club are we only left now with the physical land, or are some of our cherished spots there as a result of Mr. Morse and his disallowance of what might have been an even greater routing? At Oakmont was the original railroad and then the turnpike a deal-breaker? Or is it now a topic of conversation?

Integration, avoidance, machinery, and money are all means to overcome a constraint. Bel-Air is a tremendous routing made so by a clever (and stubborn) set of visionaries.

Far too often the constraints of people and policy are regarded as poor influences to golf. While many times it is the seemingly adverse which causes us to stop and see something different. Do you agree?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tony -- I meant to ask you what you might be looking for in your post about ethics? Are you suggesting that architects do not publish their adopted ethics beceuse they do not regularly live up to them? Or just what?

[Michael Dugger]

If I may.....since I started this thread.  I would like to switch-gears, so to speak.  Hopefully some of you will offer up some ideas.

Thus far a lot has been said about working with what the land has to offer.  

I would like to know what some of you people think about "poor" pieces of land.  Thinking along the lines of Doak's recent work at Texas Tech.  Can you express some thoughts on what you are 'going for' when you are working on a piece of land that has little to offer.  Let's say it is dead flat and featureless.

Let's say you are Fazio looking over Shadow Creek or Black Diamond Ranch.  You are Pete Dye at Whistling Straits.

We all know there are many different design styles out there.  Why do, or should, we like one more than another?  

Considering my distaste for Rees Jones golf courses, if I was answering this question I would say that in creation we SHOULD go for an emulation of nature.  The philosophy of Dr. Mackenzie.  

Is the 'Good Doctor" correct?

Should we try to emulate nature....I.E. randomness, ruggedness, irregular shapes and lines.  

Or I am just crazy.....and is Rees Jones 'style' just as artistic as Mike Devries and C & C??

Is it fair to say he 'raped' Sandpines by imprinting his, IMHO, 'unartistic' style on the place?

[Forrest Richardson]

mdugger -- Look at the land, but also beyond. To vistas, to what will border the course when it is done. To the history, the people, the culture. To the story of what was going on there before golf. Then, to creating movement that will go beyond sufficient. Then all the things that go with golf: randomness, ruggedness, softness, variety, anticipation, surprise, differentiation, drama, etc. Sometimes it is to look natural, and sometimes it isn't.

"We don't plan land, it's already planned for us. We design it." [D. Muirhead]

[Tony Ristola]

Forrest:  To answer your question: Yes.  

Now a question for you:  Is it too far a stretch to make that statement?  Why shouldn't the public know exactly, and in their own words how the associations define "high standards"?  
  

Consider the following from the EIGCA site:

The European Institute of Golf Course Architects represents Europe's most qualified and experienced golf course designers.

Members of the Institute have shown through their skill, experience and training that they are able to design and supervise the construction of golf courses to the highest standards.

In addition the Institute's main objectives are;

... To define and demand ethical and responsible professional conduct among its members...

END

Once again, is it too much to define what these standards are?  The measurement scale?

[Jeff_Lewis]

Consider Talking Stick. I would think that most would consider this table top a relatively difficult piece of land on which to design an interesting golf course. And Crenshaw/Coore accomplished it twice! The bunkers and green complexes create all the interest. They recognized the futility of trying to create an overall environment from scratch. They took what the land gave them. Brilliant stuff.

[Joel_Stewart]

What architect isn't using this term?  It's a mantra thats been going around for a couple of years now.  For some reason I believe it was started by Fazio.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tony -- Perhaps another thread, which I'm sure would be of interest to many. I believe if you contact any association of architects; golf, boiler rooms, or steam ships, you will be given whatever that particular organization has decided are its objectives. Ethical and responsible professional conduct seems like very good objectives to me, although there are many others. I would endorse both, even if they were not fully defined. I have a good idea what these terms mean. I would tend to seek these qualities in anyone I was hiring to design a golf course...boiler room or a steam ship.

So, what are the relationships you feel most precious in golf architecture relative to land? I'm interested to know.

[Up_North_Pro]

Until the comment from Forrest, I thought the comments were driven by Ross, Tillie and the like 100 years ago when they had their pick of the litter with available land.  Forrest talks about using native surrounding features to influence the general style of the type of golf course to be fit into the land.  I believe that an architect should be able to form a golf course (even on featureless land) into interesting golf by paying attention to neighboring land forms.  I don't know how the people in an area can influence golf course features, though.    

[Forrest Richardson]

The backdrop of the charming town of St. Andrews and its people may not form a "feature" as we tend to think of one -- a bunker, rise, hollow or other 'golf' hazard -- but it forms a feature strong enough to change the heartrate and stoke a fire in the belly of any who come before it to play golf.

[tmb]

In refernce to the subject, I offer Eddie Hackett...Ballyliffin, Old...Carne..Connemara...Donegal...Old Head...etc...

[Tony Ristola]

Forrest:  "what are the relationships you feel most precious in golf architecture relative to land?"

This requires two answers:

1.  Pre construction: I don't know until I get to the property and study it thoroughly.  I look for chances to provide variety, flow, beauty and opportunity to create something unique...along with an emphasis on the short shots (it's all we had at one course I grew up playing)...cliches I know, but backed up by those I've worked for, and the manner I've chosen to work.

2.Construction:  The most precious relationship is being there...on the land...with the workers...comminucating the vision daily...interpreting the plans I've personally drawn.  It's a combination of planning and Ross' advice "Design on land, not on paper."  To steal a line from Pete Dye which I believe in fully, "Plans are the starting point", not the end.  

As for the general framework: I'll say that my goals have been to try and provide a golf course I would have enjoyed playing as an eager junior golfer.  It doesn't have to be as tough as nails, but I attempt to hit on those elements in Part 1 above...a course which will examine all aspects of a golfer's game so if someone wants to become a complete golfer...they can.  If the course isn't too busy they can take a handful of balls and a few clubs a'la John Ball and hit fun shots.  I know I was partially handicapped by the courses I grew up playing...I don't want to handicap anyone if I can help it, including and especially the investor.

RJ basically summed up the procedure I use early on.  Grab a plastic covered topo/base map, section it in quandrants and do the same with an aerial if available at the time.  In my pack-sack I've got cameras, laser, permanent markers, a dictaphone, water and some grub.  I walk, walk, walk...making notes on the maps (sketching and scribbling ideas on the back) of features, and ideas, while spitting a constant diatribe of what I see and anything which comes to mind on the dictaphone...it's a constant conversation.  

The topography may suggest ideas, the soils, the vegetation, the wind, the property adjacent.  I'll sit at points for a long while and just look around...as I'm limited in the way I work, there is no rush to get it done with a power-walk and move on somewhere else.  From there I take all the info and start grinding out potential routings, potential themes...perhaps it's something that hit me square between the eyes, or something more subtle which revealed itself over time.  Once the routing is solid (and permitted) other design ideas often occur when the machines are on site, and as I'm there daily...I can grasp onto every opportunity which presents itself and implement it as construction progresses...not after it has been built according to plan...which may mean the opportunity has been long erased, or implementing it may mean two holes will either look similar, play similar and therefore the idea may not be usable because the other holes may be too far along to alter.

Time on-site before, during and after construction, communcation with authorities, the developer and the constructors...observation and monitoring during construction are what I find to be the critical elements relative to the land, to the project, to the future members and or guests, and the investor.

The asset of time.

[Steve Lang]

Did this in jr High.. we'd take our 7 irons and some balls and go out into the neighborhood and local fields near and part of the university of toledo and make up golf holes, using trees as flags.. Nothing beats holing out from 30 yards!

[Forrest Richardson]

Steve -- That is fun. I had a 3-hole course in my 8,500 square foot backyard. Called in a tournament result one Saturday and it ran in the Arizona Republic Newspaper the next morning! The sports desk asked me where "Forest River" was located and I just said it was a short course surrounded by hedges -- not a lie.

Tony -- What about the land's influence AFTER a course is built (i.e., the Future.)? I like your "pre-construction" and "construction" thoughts -- very well put. But golf courses are living entities. We bring a child into the world and right then you have both "pre-constructed" and "constructed" -- what next?

One of the truly wonderful things about golf courses is that they are never done -- I've said this on GCA more times than I can recall, but courses change, evolve, become, fall apart, mature, develop attitudes, become ragged, get clipped to excess, fall apart some more, get butchered, get improved, become "restored", get copied, get changed for good reasons, get changed for bad reasons, etc., etc., etc.

Along the lines of my thoughts about culture and people, these are the most colorful of a golf course's changing landscapes. We saw this at Bethpage -- how wonderful the landscape was with lots of people and, now, a history goes with the course whenever it speaks. I'd say that, in Bethpage's specific case, the recent past accounts for 25% of what is there in terms of space and feel -- the whole landscape, if you will.

To discover golf holes I feel we need to think beyond dirt and water and growth -- to also consider the "ants" who will dot the landscape from now until well past our tenure.

Land is not only the physical

One of the greatest gifts we can give a golf course is personality. Allow it to become, instead of tryign to get it all done by some chosen day when we have to give the keys to the owner.

[Tony Ristola]

Forrest:  You're right on about post-construction.  It's the gaping hole in the Masters works and is this gaping hole still exists today.  I did mention "Time on-site before, during and after construction" though.

Due to my limited involvement I do have the time to go back after construction...and have.  I work with supers to achieve goals, to fine tune.  If they have questions I'm always available, and will make time to visit.  Of course some will run with the ball afterwards without my input.  As more work is accomplished, and I'm picking and choosing clients perhaps I'll get total respect for the vision of the project from the Owners after I leave.  Only time will tell.

I have photo documentary of each project before, during and after construction, and have partially written books for these projects (writing is liking pulling teeth without anesthesia) and hope to finish them in the near future (though I've been claiming this for some time...years actually...my brother is constantly on my case to get them done.)  These books are intended for the Owners, the committees, the membership, the superintendent and those interested about how the course was thought out, put together, how it should be maintained, do's and do not's, potential future changes and stories of interest...so in 30 years a membership can look back and know what I was thinking, why decisions were made, how the course should and should not evolve.  Now that I've spilled the beans, I guess I'd better spend less time on here and get to work on finishing these efforts.  Part of the problem of birthing these books was how to develop the them and make them interesting.  Not being a professional writer, this took a long time to realize.  Luckily I've got a brother who's an excellent writer and pretty good editor and has an interest in seeing these things come to fruition.  I fully intend to fill the gaping holes on each project.

[Brian Phillips]

I mentioned this on the 'cigar' thread but I would like to bring up payment.

The EIGCA members usually encourage a pecentage of construction cost as the payment fee for designs.  Forrest does the ASGCA also have this policy and if so do you think is ethical?

Jeremy and myself never ever charge that way and we only charge a lump sum plus expenses so that the client knows what the final payment will be.

If an architect is paid a % of construction costs does this not encourage more construction and less routing...?

Brian Phillips