Architects: Why do you post here? And drainage...

[paul cowley]

 I think Tom Doak had a good post....for me though, this site was/is/has become a place where I can write things that I can see in front of me, as before this site, I never knew how to start a computer or type....my own type writen word still excites me visually, purely because I did it, not nessessarily for its content...my prior path being more primative [although I have learned to use the CAP key of late ].

 I feel no real need to express or debate much here with others, as I go through enough internal dialogue with myself to suffice.

 I do enjoy the discourse and collection of remarkable minds found here.....both those in the business and out.......this site really has alot to learn from.

[Mike Nuzzo]

To the original question...

I've learned a lot here from the other professionals and have "seen" lots of courses through some very knowledgable eyes (more than I would have been able to in my lifetime).

And now I have several new friends to say hello to, here and in person.

Cheers

[cary lichtenstein]

Jeff:

I took the time to read all your posts regarding The Quarry at Giants Ridge and found them refreshing and very educational. Thanks for taking the time and energy to educate us

Cary

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:  We've done a few courses on poorly drained soils:  Beechtree, Quail Crossing, both courses at Stonewall, Charlotte Golf Links, parts of Sands Point, The Rawls Course, Cape Kidnappers, and Stone Eagle, to name them.  It's certainly tougher than working in sand and one reason I don't mind being considered a "sand specialist" if it will keep us working there.

The only two courses of those which have more than $100,000 of artificial drainage are The Rawls Course (because it was dead flat and we needed the water to move) and Stone Eagle (because it's very steep and we needed the water to slow down).  Then again, I'd never heard Jeff's rule of thumb about the piers and spans of bridges, but I'd say he's right on ... those two plus Charlotte Golf Links are the only courses listed above where we moved more than 100,000 cubic yards of earth.

I know of several courses that put in more than a million dollars worth of drainage if you care to know the names; Whistling Straits for one.  Hell I remember four years ago that Dana Fry told me that was his standard line item for new projects.

Jeff B:  I know I'm lucky to be getting the sites I get.  But I do think the business has gotten too complicated recently by architects trying to outdo each other.  

I looked at the plans for Kemper Lakes a couple of years back, and was struck to see that there was practically no earthmoving done on site other than bringing fill to tee and green locations and for a few fairway bunkers.  Tell me how many of those high-end daily fees in the 1990's achieved a better product by moving another 350,000 yards?  That's where your rule of thumb comes into play ... the extra cost of earthmoving isn't so much, but if you also put in a half million in drainage and a half million more in irrigation because you tore up more ground, now we're at a different price point entirely.

Lower standards plus more detail work would equal better courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

This discussion seems familiar.  In many cases, I still use the KL standard for grading, other than I might build a small ridge outside a fw to cut off drainage coming from what may be a future subdivision, since it may drain well now, but I plan for the future.

Taking care of drainage (and all other tech stuff to make a golf course function) still, IHMO, fits in the minimalist mode, even  if the base line for minimalism rises for factor discussed from a half century ago.  Outdoing someone else surely does not.

[Scott Witter]

Tom,

Thanks for your detailed course reference guide I guess I wasn't too far off.

$100K for drainage on a flat site...I'm curious, how far do you let surface water flow before picking it up and sending it underground?

Not surprised about Whistling Straits in the least and regarding Dana Fry, hasn't it been his MO to approach sites with this over the top attitude...don't get me wrong, I think he is very talented, but it seems at times the excessiveness just isn't necessary.

I'm not sure I follow you entirely on the lower standards thought...This is a bit of a blanket statement.  Can you define, or set some parameters for your meaning of lower standards in this case?  I have my hunch, but would rather hear it from you.  I think it does go more or less hand-in-hand, but executing those details and knowing when and where to use them in the most effectiveand responsible manner to save money, to produce a better product and to account for the balancing act Jeff and I have been discussing, I believe is good for the industry and not an over-complication of the profession nor a strike against minimalism.  I think you would agree that it largely depends on who is behind the decision making and if they are fully qualified and understand the consequences/liabilities at both ends.

[Ian Andrew]

Why do you post here?

I post here for:

1. the historical information many possess
2. to find out what some architects are doing and what I should go see
3. to test ideas and see what people think of certain holes and strategies
4. but mostly for entertainment, most of the site is fluff.

[paul cowley]

....somehow this thread has at least in part drifted to the least exciting [but arguably the most important] part of GCA….drainage.
And since Tom, Scott and Jeff are exchanging stories and facts, coupled with the fact that I am at 35,000 ft with nowhere to go, I thought I might join in with some of my best stories.

 On a course outside Hilton Head, the owner, in his haste to get thru the permit process, signed up for, ‘zero degradation’ of the nearby Okatie river…..this is a river that runs mocha brown with silt after a 1” rain event….we could only have one outfall on a 600 acre tract that was divided into three drainage basins, surrounded by wetlands that we could not use for runoff. Well, after about 2.2 million in engineering and construction, we were able to deliver a Goldbergian prodigy…..all the surface water was collected in each basin and then connected to the eventual outfall by major sub surface piping that was allowed to connect to each basin area thru the wetlands…..the wetland connection between the middle and the last basin area consisted of twin 60” pipe…the concrete outfall alone cost 60 or 80 thousand….the entire course consisted of the poorest draining soils in the area…we had D8’s pulling pans etc…..we had ‘real’ time monitoring during construction that forced us to shut down if any silt or turbidity was detected.

I have not been back, one can only enjoy so much on one piece of dirt, but I do know SC has relaxed their requirements …maybe because of us!

 On a better note a course we rebuilt on the Georgia coast was a far better experience.
 It was originally a Joe Lee course built 25 years earlier on a modest budget….crowned fairways with runoff to the sides and minimal subsurface drainage. The course was built before the subdivision, which was typical of the day, generally double loaded with houses, which, as they were built, dumped their water to the rear most of the time…..and the course was tight, the crowned affect not an enjoyable strategy.
 I decided to employ new subsurface centerline drainage…..moving the earth from the center of the fairways elsewhere…went from convex to concave generally, maybe 200,000 yds…we brought all the golf course and  subdivision water to one outfall….the largest pipe was a 60” .... the new course became challenging for the right reasons, and it is now the most popular member’s choice of the three they have to choose from at Sea Island….all for only 1.2 million in new drainage!

...landed...shop talk over, have a nice day




 

[Forrest Richardson]

I drop in and post because I find many of the opinions eye-opening. Some are snoozers, but Ian makes a good point: It always is entertaining.

---

As for Tom D.'s comment about ASGCA making this more complicated, I really can't agree with this notion.

The Society supports minimalistic approaches. Many of our members do not create lavish plans, nor do they provide detailed green plans or get involved with engineering. However...the ASGCA member respects these procedures and has the knowledge to know when they are called for on a project. If that is complication, then so be it. At the end of an era the course undertaken with a balanced approach to great design and professional input will likely stand the test of time in many ways — it will not wash away...it will be agronomically better...and it will be efficient to maintain. If the person in charge of design does not have knowledge about all aspects of golf courses — great ideas and simplicity included —  the results can be problematic.

[Adam_F_Collins]

....somehow this thread has at least in part drifted to the least exciting [but arguably the most important] part of GCA….drainage. ....landed, shop talk over ...have a nice day

The shop talk is quite interesting. I don't mind the drift. The best conversations end up somewhere different than where they started...

[paul cowley]

...well good adam, and if you like shop talk how about a little break....I mean have you heard the one about the ASGCA guy, the brain surgeon and the topless waitress on a deserted isle?...while there was this ASGCA guy who was stranded on a deserted island off Myrtlebeach with a............ya know, on second thought,  maybe I better save this one for Forrest to retell at Pinehurst   .....

[Rick Baril]

Greetings,
Since you ask - I check in occasionally but "real" life precludes being a regular. Since I am a sporadic "lurker" it doesn't make too much sense to post - like being a conversation sniper; interjecting a comment and leaving the discussion for a few weeks...  

Regarding the drainage discussion - There is a significant difference between a golf course with rolling topography and sandy soil in the middle of Nebraska (for example) and golf course on a flat site with clay soil - surrounded by houses in a flood prone urban area.  


(I'm carefully guarding against exceeding the 40 post threshold!)