Natural Vs Man Made

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

We could just agree to disagree, but there is something deeper here and this is it:

The style of design one chooses is more than just about strategy and playability and golfing interest.  It has ramifications for permitting, for environmental concerns, and for the maintenance of the golf course, too.

One good thing about minimalism is that it's less disruptive to the natural environment.  Every part of the course where we don't disturb topsoil is more healthy, and requires less outside input to become a well-maintained golf course.  Pacific Dunes looks like it's been there for a long time, in part because most of the soil HAS been there, undisturbed, for a long time.

You can please the land and build interesting golf holes at the same time.  That's my point, and that's been my point all along.

Every designer falls in love with his own approach, including me.  But I don't see how deciding to push MORE dirt around to build a great golf hole is considered LESS egotistical.  

Tom:

That makes a lot of sense.
And I am not looking to argue for arguement's sake.
We could agree to disagree but I don't disagree with anything that you just wrote.

But going back to the original disagreement, I don't think that all sites would allow for such a magnificient finished product using similar techniques or style.

And in those circumstances, I think it is unfair to say that pleasing the public by pushing some dirt around and creating a feature or two, even if they aren't of a minamalist nature, is less important, or less correct or less within the guidelines of the charter that you referenced, than leaving the land largely as it was.

-Ted

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

As it happens, in the flat areas of the site I did need to do a substantial amount of earthmoving just to provide drainage.  However, some other naturally draining hillsides were, in my opinion, too steep and prone to erosion, so I did do some fw grading even there, for different reasons. In the first case, not having adequate drainage would surely keep them from having fine turf.  While I agree that not disturbing topsoil is generally best, first things first, and drainage is No. 1, 1A and 1B in golf course architecture, as you know.

However, my original post really had nothing to do with how much dirt was pushed around, but rather how the dirt was pushed around...... This thread is really about placing features artistically, like MacKenzie did.  Boiled down to its most simplistic form, the features people notice are attractive bunkers and bunker patterns, although I did mention a few other features.  So, the idea that I didn't build some visual bunkers on holes with topo and trees meant those holes are not as likely to be popular with the masses, based on my experience.

So, it really is about the basic philosophy of do we build for a small number of "in the know" golfers, trying to educate the rest, or give folks what they want?  Room for both of course.

As to your maintenance justification for minimalism, does disturbing, say, 2 more acres to build 5 fairway bunkers in an attractive pattern truly detract from the possibility of a well maintained course?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  By this point I was so caught up in my philosophical debate with Ted that I had completely forgotten the original case you posited.  My apologies.  I wasn't intending to comment on your work there -- I've only seen one of your courses -- but just to make a general point that some of the people who choose to move mountains of earth around, must have a healthy ego to make that decision.

I concur that there are many circumstances where parts of the property are too flat or too steep to provide interesting golf, and then earthmoving is the only practical solution.  Heck, we had to grade about 80% of the site at Stone Eagle because it was so steep, but we were able to leave enough rock outcroppings and natural features around the edges that people can't tell how much we did do.

But as to your second-to-last paragraph about building for "a small number of in-the-know golfers ... or give folks what they want," I'm not sure where that comes from.  I've never intended my work to be appreciated only by a small number of in-the-know golfers, and I'm sure my clients don't want that, either.  I've just chosen to captivate them with a cool routing and good esthetics and beautiful greens and bunkers, instead of mass ex.  It's working out for me so far.

And to your last paragraph, no, adding five fairway bunkers doesn't have anything to do with maintenance (other than bunkers cost a bit to maintain).  I was just saying if you disturb three acres of fairway for grading instead of thirty, there's a big difference there.  I've been on construction sites where someone had stipped an acre of topsoil so they could build up a fairway by 1-2 feet, and I just can't understand the rationale for that.

[Mark Brown]

Tom,

To survive financially most architects have to understand that they're in the entertainment business, or they're just pumping up the developer's ego.

"They're not the fortunate ones, they're not the Senator's son"  If you recognize this you're old.

Then hopefully you get some projects that the developer's not hands on and you can do some things you really want to do. Life is all about making trade-offs. Like Sebonac.

Cheers.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

One good thing about minimalism is that it's less disruptive to the natural environment.  Every part of the course where we don't disturb topsoil is more healthy, and requires less outside input to become a well-maintained golf course.  

Pacific Dunes looks like it's been there for a long time, in part because most of the soil HAS been there, undisturbed, for a long time.

You can please the land and build interesting golf holes at the same time.  That's my point, and that's been my point all along.

Every designer falls in love with his own approach, including me.  But I don't see how deciding to push MORE dirt around to build a great golf hole is considered LESS egotistical.  


How do you reconcile the above statements in the context of your golf course in Lubbock ?[/color]
 

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  The site in Lubbock was darned near dead flat, if we had turfed it the way it was it would be one giant puddle or a lot of little ones.  We pretty much had to grade the whole site just to get the water to go somewhere, and to make a golf course that was interesting to play.

For the construction, we divided the course into five parts, stripped the topsoil on Parts A and B and stockpiled it, and then started moving earth and shaping.  But when we finished shaping part A, we stripped the topsoil from part C and put it right down on part A and spread it out, so that the last three parts of topsoil didn't sit in a pile for a month and lose all the soil biology which helps grass to grow.

That was all I could think of doing on that site in order to promote healthier plant growth.

The Rawls Course was not a normal project for us but we felt it was worth doing at that time.  It certainly helped us get better at moving earth so that when we had tricky sites like Cape Kidnappers or Stone Eagle we had a few tricks up our sleeves.

P.S. to Mark:  I am just old enough to recognize that.  But I wasn't born into this business any more than you or Jeff.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The point of my question was to emphasize the site specific demands that are sometimes beyond your control.

The Rawls course and Shadow Creek are but two examples where the architect couldn't let the land remain as is.

The styles chosen to accomplish this differ, but neither effort could be labeled minimalism.

You did what you had to do in order to produce the best product, and that sometimes entails moving dirt.

Even at Pacific Dunes you had to cap a fairway or two, but, that didn't taint the product or the process.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  I think I covered that subject adequately in post #55 above.  Not all sites (and certainly not all parts of all sites) are conducive to a no-grading approach, and I've never said that they were.  

In fact I have never said that I won't build anything if it's not a "minimalist" course.  I don't like to restrict myself, and I really don't like others putting restrictions on me.  That would have been hypocritical, considering that The Legends was my second course.

However, I don't believe it's appropriate or necessary to move 200,000 or 400,000 cubic yards of earth on a site that's good for golf; and apparently I have a looser definition of a good site than some other designers.

[Tony Ristola]

Jeff,
Do you remember this one?
Paraphrasing:
"There has been so much earthmoving, courses are beginning to look too much alike."

I know the manner of earth moving doesn't have to be walls of dirt along the fairways.

Got back from a trip to Thailand, where there was a lot of activity in the 1990's, before the Asain Tiger's had their economic slip. Having visited and played a number of courses, it fit that (old) quote of yours above perfectly. It was "mammary mound central".  

It'll be interesting to see their next generation courses.

Played Royal Hua Hin, constructed by a Scottish engineer who was building a railroad at the time. Took 6 years to build, opened in 1924. Some interesting and enjoyable golf to be had. First green was like Raynor's double plateau, back-to-back par-3's; smallish greens, some crowned. Its simplicity was refreshing after all the busy-ness of the other tracks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

Good to hear from you.

Frankly, I don't remember the quotes you listed.  I am getting older, and I don't remember much of anything anymore.....

[Tony Ristola]

Would have been surprised, as it's about 10 years old, one line from a GCNews article if I remember right. I liked it, was so true, and it stuck in my bean.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

At least I can say that in the case referenced, the course doesn't look too much like others, or at least it doesn't play that way.  I used earthmoving on a flat site to recreate

a Dell hole (shaped like a computer....)
a Redan (on a Par 4)
a Biaritz (also on a Par 4)
a "T" shaped green like Harbor Town 14, but with a backboard on the fat part to increase the dilemma of going for the front pin,
a "Dustpan" green modelled after the Pittsburgh Field Club green and
an "L" shaped green around a tree.  

Two greens in this area are not done yet, but will be an elevated postage stamp and a long skinny green along a creek.

There is very little flanking mounding. The point is, these holes have more play interest than many courses that gent has seen around here, even if man made, vs. the natural that might have been on a flat site.  No apologies on my part to the minimalists for moving earth to do that.

[archie_struthers]

Natural vs. man made, wonder how many will be able to discern this Sunday on the red carpet?

In building Twisted Dune we anticipated that we could recover most of our expense of construction while improving a marginal sites elevation change by selling the fill we generated. Atlantic City needed millions of tons material to stabilize the H-Tract, where the Borgata now stands, and
we provided a great deal of it.
 
This was certainly an unusual economic incentive, which subject to taste may have helped the golf course design!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I don't think anyone would look at what you did and declare it natural, but, the results were positive irrespective of the collateral financial issue.

If the purpose is to create an interesting, challenging golf course, I don't see the harm of man's hand doing it.

I wouldn't call the Twisted Dunes site ideal or good, but, the product is.

[Forrest Richardson]

My only problem with "minimalism" occurs when it oversteps rational thinking. At a "minimalism" course I visited — which was terrific — I was struck by how much better a few areas could have been had more earth been moved. It would not have cost much at all. Maybe $20,000 tops. But that shaping would have lasted longer than anything — the mowing lines, the bunker edges, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  I'd love to hear more about your specific example of that -- in private, if you don't want to criticize whichever architect you are talking about in public -- but, I would encourage you to speak out in public so the whole board can weigh in on whether you are right in believing the course would have been improved by earthmoving, or not.

[Forrest Richardson]

The example I was referring to is Rustic Canyon. I am a big fan of the course...but not the "after-thought" practice range, the view of it from the finishing hole, or a few of the views from the opening holes which look down on residential rooftops. I cannot be specific without another visit, but I have always felt that a bit more earthmoving could have made for a few slightly better holes. Not just views, but perhaps more meaty landforms which could pass as being natural in that low valley — and would add to the subtle work in the fairways on a majority of the holes.

I am a fairly hard critic, however. And, as I said, I am a big fan of Rustic. I had a few great visits while Gil and Jim were there working. It came out great despite this critique. Without another visit I would be hard pressed to be any more specific. Besides...it's probably best that I don't go around trying to re-think the work of my peers.

I also wish, Tom, that you moved more dirt at Apache Stronghold's finishing hole. Of course, had you, we would not get to see your handy work at landscaping with palm trees and your hotel architecture.