Has debris removal stifled architectural creativity ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A number of older courses used features inherent in the land, and, a number of older courses used debris and excess dirt to create unique and interesting features.

Have earth moving equipment and larger budgets allowed architects the luxury of removing debris from the golf course thus eliminating the need to come up with creative ways to use and incorporate the excess materials in the design of the golf course ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Do you mean things like the semi-prevalent Ross mounds that're probably turfed over rocks and such?

If so, yeah, that sort of thing is probably long lost history now.

How about stripping all the topsoil off sites so they can be shaped like most do now? Do you think any of the old guys did that?

[Michael Moore]

Does earth moving equipment afford the removal of debris from the course? Yes.

Does this eliminate the need to incorporate debris? Yes.

So far, so good.

Does the horse and plow method of construction foster greater creativity than the internal combustion method? Quite the opposite. An architect with a backhoe can create more than an architect with a team of donkeys.

Likewise, Mr. Holmes with his 350 yard drives, has many more options on the course than I do.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

In building the Mines GC, we didn't remove any of the stumps and debris left over from 90 acres of clearing. We dug very deep holes to bury them.

We try not to use the debris in sensitive areas because no matter how much cover you put on top of the bury hole, there will be decomposition over time. The key is to keep oxygen away from the woody material, so we try to get at least 5 feet of material back on top of anything we bury.

I think the creativity is in how you effectively and efficiently deal with debris overall, not in how you build a mound or feature that you know will deteriorate over time.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

There's no creativity involved when the debris is removed.

As to decomposition and sinking, at a course I'm familiar with, it's been 15 years and the mounds, which are buried trees, haven't sunk at all.

Today, it seems that a site can be cleansed of its debris rather then incorporating it in the form of interesting features.

I wonder if the 4th hole at Somerset Hills, named "Dolomites" is a product of debris piling ?

At other "Golden Age" courses I see debris mounds used in interesting form and function.

Is massive earth moving inversely proportional to the creativity of the architect ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

You're thinking in terms of man made features and I'm thinking in terms of economy of construction. Nowadays (is that a word?) one can "creatively" put a feature in anywhere they want to. Having some debris to bury doesn't make the feature any more creative, only the process by which it came into existance. I'm saying that just because you won't be able to find our bury holes doesn't mean we didn't deal with them creatively.

!5 years isn't very long into the life of a golf course...or debris pile.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're thinking in terms of man made features and I'm thinking in terms of economy of construction.

They're synonyomous.

Nowadays (is that a word?) one can "creatively" put a feature in anywhere they want to.

Having some debris to bury doesn't make the feature any more creative, only the process by which it came into existance.

"Neccesity is the Mother of invention.

Having to dispose of debris challenged the architect's creativity, carting it away relieves him of that need.

I'm saying that just because you won't be able to find our bury holes doesn't mean we didn't deal with them creatively.

Digging holes to bury debris was expensive and not too creative, using the debris above ground to create interesting features is creative.

!5 years isn't very long into the life of a golf course...or debris pile.

It's not a short time either.

Where have you seen debris piles comprised of materials subject to decay where the pile has lost a substantive amount of its form or height ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

You're thinking in terms of man made features and I'm thinking in terms of economy of construction.

They're synonyomous.

Only in your own comprehension of the situation.

Nowadays (is that a word?) one can "creatively" put a feature in anywhere they want to.

Having some debris to bury doesn't make the feature any more creative, only the process by which it came into existance.

"Neccesity is the Mother of invention.

Having to dispose of debris challenged the architect's creativity, carting it away relieves him of that need.

Why are you assuming any debris is being hauled off in my example?

I'm saying that just because you won't be able to find our bury holes doesn't mean we didn't deal with them creatively.

Digging holes to bury debris was expensive and not too creative, using the debris above ground to create interesting features is creative.

Once again, only in your minds eye. If the terrain is terrific on it's own, and only stands to degenerate with added above ground features, then the creativity is in making the debris disappear without anyone the wiser.

!5 years isn't very long into the life of a golf course...or debris pile.

It's not a short time either.

Where have you seen debris piles comprised of materials subject to decay where the pile has lost a substantive amount of its form or height ?

If 15 years is neither a long time nor a short time in the context of biological deterioration, why did you use that number as an example? I have seen several courses, both here in Michigan and in NC that had to remediate areas that had changes in the terrain over the years due to "bury piles".

Pat,

I don't have the polished ability to be argumentative. If I haven't answered your questions above, at least allow me to thank you for inspiring me to learn how to do colored text!

Joe

p.s. hauling away debris is very expensive, so my take on finding a place for it on site without much relocation is that it requires a great deal of creativity and construction experience. It doesn't have to be poking out of the gound to have an impact on the final design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're thinking in terms of man made features and I'm thinking in terms of economy of construction.

They're synonyomous.

Only in your own comprehension of the situation.

So now you're telling me how I think, and what I comprehend.
I thought that my wife was the only one who could claim that ability.[/color]

Nowadays (is that a word?) one can "creatively" put a feature in anywhere they want to.

Having some debris to bury doesn't make the feature any more creative, only the process by which it came into existance.

"Neccesity is the Mother of invention.

Having to dispose of debris challenged the architect's creativity, carting it away relieves him of that need.

Why are you assuming any debris is being hauled off in my example?

I didn't, you said that you buried it in holes[/color]

I'm saying that just because you won't be able to find our bury holes doesn't mean we didn't deal with them creatively.

Digging holes to bury debris was expensive and not too creative, using the debris above ground to create interesting features is creative.

Once again, only in your minds eye. If the terrain is terrific on it's own, and only stands to degenerate with added above ground features, then the creativity is in making the debris disappear without anyone the wiser.


Then what do you do with the excess dirt obtained by excavating the holes ?

And, why do you feel that debris must be piled where it's found ?[/color]


!5 years isn't very long into the life of a golf course...or debris pile.

It's not a short time either.

Where have you seen debris piles comprised of materials subject to decay where the pile has lost a substantive amount of its form or height ?

If 15 years is neither a long time nor a short time in the context of biological deterioration, why did you use that number as an example?

It's rather simple.  Because that's the amount of time that's transpired since the debris was piled and covered with dirt.[/color]


I have seen several courses, both here in Michigan and in NC that had to remediate areas that had changes in the terrain over the years due to "bury piles". [/color]

How old were the "bury piles" and what was in them ?

Pat,

I don't have the polished ability to be argumentative. If I haven't answered your questions above, at least allow me to thank you for inspiring me to learn how to do colored text!

Joe, I've taken the liberty of bolding your green text, as it's almost unreadable without bolding.

p.s. hauling away debris is very expensive, so my take on finding a place for it on site without much relocation is that it requires a great deal of creativity and construction experience.

I think that was the thrust of my original post.[/color]

It doesn't have to be poking out of the gound to have an impact on the final design.

True, but then you really can't say that it's a visible, creative use of the debris.

I know that AWT buried huge boulders in the fairways at Alpine.  Certainly this was a creative use of debris that isn't visible.   Others have made unique, visible features from debris, and that's more along the lines of the intent of this post.[/color]  

[TEPaul]

"Pat,
I don't have the polished ability to be argumentative. If I haven't answered your questions above, at least allow me to thank you for inspiring me to learn how to do colored text!"

Joe:

Arguing with Patrick Mucci doesn't need some polished ability to be argumentative, only stamina and staying power. Most all of us respond to the things he says on here with polished ability and informative and correct answers but that has no effect on Pat at all.

Not just that but did you see what he did with your green text? If I were you I'd think about suing him for that. That's called Trextpassing, and it's punishable by being incarerated anywhere in Northern New Jersey for up to a year!

[Joe Hancock]

Tom P,

I was content, thinking I had as close to an agreement as I have ever had with Pat. He and I aren't that far apart on this issue, but he is more adept at using a legalistic approach with the discussion. Besides, "polished" isn't one of the adjectives people use when describing me. "Butt Boy Supreme", however, has been used more than once.

Pat must have gone back and edited whatever changes he made to my post, knowing I would invoke any and all federal and international laws regarding such text hijacking.

Hope the sun is shining in your part of the world,

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

Out of the necessity of carrying out my duties as TEPaul's legal guardian and trustee, I've had to appear in many courts, from municipal to federal, hence, through years of experience, I"ve picked up a tendency to communicate in a lawyerly way.

My experiences on his behalf are quite diverse.

From defenses that range from local "flashings" to federal "crossing of state lines with the intent to ........."   I've been there for him, defending him.

I promised his dear Mother that I'd look after him, and with the exception of him being lost and stranded in the Denver Airport in June of 2005, I've done and admirable job.

In order to keep him out of trouble, and he's seen plenty, I sereptitiously got him interested in Golf Course Architecture, and the rest is history.

At the present time, although he's deprived of sharp instruments, he's allowed a computer at his new residence at Happydale Farms.

The review board meets to discuss his release every June, and I'm hoping that more contributors, such as yourself, will speak or write letters of recommendation on his behalf, in an attempt to at least arrange for the approval of weekend furloughs.

Thanks for your efforts.

P.S.  Continue to humor him.  Continue to support any position
       he takes, especially against me.   As my ward, he's
       developed a resentment toward my authority and wisdom
       and needs all the moral support he can get.
       It's extremely rehabilitative.

[Joe Perches]

In order to keep him out of trouble, and he's seen plenty, I sereptitiously got him interested in Golf Course Architecture, and the rest is history.

At the present time, although he's deprived of sharp instruments, he's allowed a computer at his new residence at Happydale Farms.

The review board meets to discuss his release every June, and I'm hoping that more contributors, such as yourself, will speak or write letters of recommendation on his behalf, in an attempt to at least arrange for the approval of weekend furloughs.

Do you have an address?

[Dave Bourgeois]

I actually thought of debris removal when playing the Green Course @ Bethpage this past weekend.  It seemed that the fill from the excavated bunkers was used to make mounding in parts of the fairways and as surrounds/internal contours to the green sites. I found it refreshing to see the mounds tied in to the strategies of the holes and not as containing a hole.  It was also interesting to see greens that were not pushed up and mostly laid in the on the land and tied in with the extra dirt.  Needless to say I enjoyed the course and I agree with Patrick that modern construction eliminates the necessity of being creative with debris.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

How far removed were the mounds from the bunkers ?

[Joe Hancock]

Is excavated materiel synonamous with debris in this discussion?

Joe

[Dave Bourgeois]

Patrick,

The mounding was fairly close to the bunkers with the exception of a set of mounds on the right side of the fairway on par 5 #7.  Some mounds very well could have been stumps or rocks.  

Joe,

That's a good question, and makes me ask how one deals with that sort of excavated material today.  If most of it is plowed or graded (not sure this is the right term) into the fairway/rough with equipment, then I feel that it is certainly treated differently now compared to then.  I'm not sure if that makes it debris, but it seems that way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

Do you define "excavated material" as dirt that grass can grow in ?

What would you consider "excavated material" besides rocks ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Besides rock, excavated material would be soil, as I see it. There are very few soils that are so poor that grass won't grow on it. There are always exceptions, however.

When we're discussing debris, and I think you intended this from the beginning, we are discussing woody material from the clearing process.

These details aren't really all that important to the initial discussion, excepting the fact that rocks don't rot. The creativity which you brought into question is what I'm saying still exists, just in a different world than 100 years ago.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

My original thoughts were with materials (undefined) that would be hauled away if not for the inconvenience and expense.