Thank you gentlemen for a fine interchange discussion of your various core beliefs and methodology as professional designers working in an era of intense demand for efficient yet artistic design results. The level of your utilization of the CADD tools and where you place their importance is very interesting. What it says to me, as a complete novice who has only had very limitted exposure to AutoCadd, is that the technology in the right hands (all of you included above - and not trying to kiss up to any of you
) can and will produce great golf course design on an efficient basis for large project management and integration with the bigger engineering picture. (i.e. courses as part of large track planned development units of housing and suburban settings).
It is obvious that some of the designers above weigh more towards the emphasis of "in field" powers of observation, see the land-feel the land through your eye and pen-route and shape upon the land as you go with personal communication with your shapers, with minimal input from CAdd. That school seems to be the design-builders of limitted production per year, like Doak, C&C, Hanse, KBM and that whole gang (acknowleging that Doak seems to be entering greater production fequency). While, others are seeming to say that Cadd gives you all the technical inputs and calculations to free you up to also be on the land more than just sit infront of the screen. Yet, technical plans and documentation are needed in the bigger commercial projects for plan acceptance by regulatory/zoning agencies, and developer understandintg and interpretation and cost efficiency.
It seems you have the two extreems of "on-the-ground or in-the-dirt" design like Sand Hills or Barnbougle Dunes, and you have the big project integrated with planned developments like The Villages or Reynolds Plantation, etc.
Where it gets interesting to me is the crossover projects where, "in-the-dirt" is the appropriate method for the kind of land and scope of the project, like Dismal River to be done by Nicklaus. In that case is too much technology and documentation counter productive? Compared that to something like Cuscowilla, which I assume needed detailed technical drawings and plans to be integrated with the golf course design, more so than C&Cs more typical approaches. Did C&C have to bring on more outside technical consulting to get all that approved and to work efficiently from an engineering prospective?
Tom Doak, has the joint effort for Sebonack bridged some kind of gap in that regard? Could it be that you do the "in-the-dirt" routings and details-aesthetics, playability to contouring and surface drainage schemes; whereas JN's team approves golf strategy and his firm prepares technical documentation for regulatory and client reviews? Or, does that stir a pot that shouldn't be messed with?
BTW, does Brandon look like the actor, Eric McCormak or what? Those are som fine drawings Brandon!
