Instructions?

[JESII]

Did/do architects leave guidelines or instructions for maintenance practices at a golf course after they finish building it?

Is there evidence of the "golden age" guys doing this?

Do the modern guys do this at all, or do they generally collaborate enough with the superintendent that it would not be necessary?

If there are any instructions left behind, are they intended to last for the life of the course, or is the responsibility of a "maintenance meld" generally left to the course's people?

[TEPaul]

"Did/do architects leave guidelines or instructions for maintenance practices at a golf course after they finish building it?"

Not much and certainly not enough.

"Is there evidence of the "golden age" guys doing this?"

I don't think much but Flynn, for one, returned quite a bit and he was apparently interested in agronomic evolution over an extended time, particularly with bunker surrounds. It's probably not surprising as in the teens some thought of him as perhaps the most progressive greenkeeper to be found (Merion).

"Do the modern guys do this at all, or do they generally collaborate enough with the superintendent to be that it would not be necessary?"

Some probably more than others. One never knows what some feel. There was a super who grew-in on both a C&C course and a Rees Jones course and he once said Rees was so much more super-user friendly than C&C. But with a course like Hidden Creek certainly and maybe Friar's it seems the supers feel that C&C couldn't have been (and maybe continue to be) really user friendly---although growing in fescue in the heat of NJ ain't easy--but Jeff Riggs is good.

"If there are any instructions left behind, are they intended to last for the life of the course, or is the responsibility of a "maintenance meld" generally left to the course's people?"

I'd love to see any architect leave a full blown maintenance master plan behind (with his hoped for intentions) on his way out of town after construction ends and grow-in progresses. I've never actually seen such a written thing though. Most of the time owners probably just don't get it anyway. Guys like Bakst and Hansen surely do though. It was really interesting talking with Ken Bakst about this very subject and great to see how intensely interested he is in it going forward.

[George Pazin]

One of the many positive attributes of Applebrook is that Gil Hanse is (or at least was, when we toured the course) on the Green Committee. Seems like a great idea.

Didn't Tom D utilize Dave Wilbur (I miss his posts on here, btw) to develop a fairly comprehensive agronomic plan for Pacific Dunes?

[Andy Levett]

MacKenzie used to give clubs copies of his book Golf Architecture, specifically telling the recipients they would find it useful for the future upkeep of the course. (Perhaps he had a stack of unsold copies in his cellar. Perhaps they're still there...hmmm)

[Jari Rasinkangas]

Did/do architects leave guidelines or instructions for maintenance practices at a golf course after they finish building it?

Do the modern guys do this at all, or do they generally collaborate enough with the superintendent that it would not be necessary?

To give instructions after construction is too late.  A new project should hire a super before the construction begins.  When this is done the super should be in close contact with the architect to discuss about the local conditions.  A good architect has always the local conditions and the building materials in mind when designing the course.  You cannot do punch bowl greens in cold climates, what is the desired green speed, which grass species can be used etc.  The super should gather all needed information during the construction so that when grow-in period starts the maintenance methods are clear.

If there are any instructions left behind, are they intended to last for the life of the course, or is the responsibility of a "maintenance meld" generally left to the course's people?

There should be two kinds of instructions.  First the instructions for grow-in period and then the instructions for "normal maintenance".  When construction goes on the super has to start getting ready for the grow-in.  This period has to be planned very carefully so that the course will mature as quickly as possible.  You have to know when is the perfect seeding period, how to irrigate and fertilize the new seeds correctly, when to start mowing, how to prevent erosion problems etc.  When the maturing phase goes on the super has to change the maintenance routines all the time a bit by bit until the course opens.  On some cases it will take even a couple of years after construction when the maintenance routines will settle as normal maintenence.

If the architect knows the local conditions the instruction package is a good idea but if the local climate is very different more responsibility has to be on super.

Jari

[JESII]

What happens when the architect and super are not on the same page with regards to local conditions and maintenance requirements?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JES, also

Typically I threaten to burn their house down, which can be effective in disputes.

[Jari Rasinkangas]

JES,

If there is a conflict with the architect and super I would try to search a third opinion from some consultant.  But I guess the architect usually wins.

If the local climate is very different than the architect has ever worked with he should not try to force own opinions.  The local knowledge always wins in the end.

Jari

[JESII]

JES,

If the local climate is very different than the architect has ever worked with he should not try to force own opinions.  The local knowledge always wins in the end.

Jari

Does arson qualify as forcing ones own opinion? Or is that simply viewed as gentle persuasion ?



Is there any consideration for how the course will evolve, over say, 20 or 30 years. Odds are the superintendent will have moved on. Perhaps one of his/her assistants continue on with the original maintenance intent, but is it truly realistic to assume this would be the case?  

[Jari Rasinkangas]

In 20 or 30 years it is very common to have different problems so there are always some changes going on with maintenance.  New turf varieties, fertilizers, machinery etc. are developed.

If you are lucky the super has written the history of the construction and maintenance routines.  It always helps if you know what has been done or tried before.

And of course there is the notorius greenkeeping committe that always try to change something.  

Jari

[Joe Hancock]

I'll chime in that Mike DeVries is very, very concerned about the course maintenance before the construction even begins. It is a constant point of discussion throughout construction, and is an issue after the course is grassed. He won't tell the super how to achieve the desired results, he just expresses his expectations.

Maintenance and design are intertwined. If an architect doesn't show concern for maintenance issues, I'd be surprised. Also, if the super doesn't have any concern for the design it usually leads to mediocrity.

Lastly, if the super tells the architect "I think we're on the same page...", they aren't.

Joe

[JESII]

Thanks Joe,

That is what I had in mind, the architect leaving suggested playing condition expectations. A collaborative effort would seem the most effective, as opposed to one hand or the other making all the decisions and recommendations.

"He won't tell the super how to achieve the desired results, he just expresses his expectations."

This is the confirmation I sought, and would be surprised as well if it were less than a very common occurrance in golf course construction.  Thanks again.