[LBaker]

I enjoy visiting the new golf courses that are built today.  Some of them are maintenance whores, but there are a few that are managable.  

What happened to designing courses using the natural contours of the site and building the course from a maintenance stand point.  Playing conditions are important but having grass instead of dirt should be the first priority with all architects.  Defending par at the green with some of these new deep and steep bunkers is like trying to climb out of a well without a rope.  Imagine the up keep of that type of bunker.  

I would like to see the superintendent more involved with the design of a course.  

[Kyle Harris]

Heyyy Lindsey,

You raise a fairly decent point here and I am inclined to agree. To some extent, architects have experience as superintendents (you well know that William Flynn was the superintendent of Merion for some time, for example). Flynn's designs are probably the most effecient in terms of design (look at how well Huntingdon Valley drains, as we've discussed at length before). Manufacturer's and Rolling Green are two other prime examples of how Flynn builds courses that are maintainable. Flynn was not without fault, however, and again, just look at how a lot his bunkers were bermed on the high side after the fact to keep water out.

What continues to baffle me is the amount of static (in terms of time) design that is built into golf courses. Why don't new courses have 5, 10, 20, etc. year plans built into them at open? Why no contingencies?

I guess part of the reason lies in a complete lack of competent oversight for architects.

Golf architectural malpractice just doesn't exist.

As for steep bunkers being unmaintainable...

YES, YOU CAN!  

[Tim Copeland]

Some builders dont feel the supt should be involved.....just take what he is given and dont worry about the supt job being easier.


“Remember that the purpose of a renovation or new project isn’t to make the superintendent’s job easier; it’s to make the golf course better. A superintendent needs to keep that mindset while he listens to the architect and figures out how to maintain what the architect has implemented and designed and what the contractor has implemented, rather than why he can’t maintain those things.” – Tom Shapland, regional president of Wadsworth Golf Construction and president of the Golf Course Builders Association of America.

[Kyle Harris]

Some builders dont feel the supt should be involved.....just take what he is given and dont worry about the supt job being easier.


“Remember that the purpose of a renovation or new project isn’t to make the superintendent’s job easier; it’s to make the golf course better. A superintendent needs to keep that mindset while he listens to the architect and figures out how to maintain what the architect has implemented and designed and what the contractor has implemented, rather than why he can’t maintain those things.” – Tom Shapland, regional president of Wadsworth Golf Construction and president of the Golf Course Builders Association of America.

Tim,

To me, that is an unneccesarily dangerous precedent. By this logic, anything goes and the person willing to put the time and expense to maintain it will get the job.

How is this attitude good for the game?

Furthermore, why doesn't the architect set maintenance standards like stimp readings for his greens?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think this is a great subject. Mike Young raised it while we were touring Madison Lakes back in April. He certainly understands this issue. I think there are many areas to discuss here but a large number of courses today are built with current Real Estate sales and values in mind and not the long term economics of the golf course or its maintenance. There are architects that get it and defer to their clients interests and instructions and some that maybe do not get it. I would like to here some of the more artist architects on here talk about these issues. As we all know many of the beautiful bunkers are harder and more expensive to maintain than ones with less facing and sand only in the bottom. That is only the beginning of this discussion.

[Tim Copeland]

Some builders dont feel the supt should be involved.....just take what he is given and dont worry about the supt job being easier.


“Remember that the purpose of a renovation or new project isn’t to make the superintendent’s job easier; it’s to make the golf course better. A superintendent needs to keep that mindset while he listens to the architect and figures out how to maintain what the architect has implemented and designed and what the contractor has implemented, rather than why he can’t maintain those things.” – Tom Shapland, regional president of Wadsworth Golf Construction and president of the Golf Course Builders Association of America.

Tim,

To me, that is an unneccesarily dangerous precedent. By this logic, anything goes and the person willing to put the time and expense to maintain it will get the job.

How is this attitude good for the game?

Furthermore, why doesn't the architect set maintenance standards like stimp readings for his greens?

Kyle,

This guy and I do not share the same ideas about course construction and architecture.  Some builders care about bottom line only and could care less about the finished product.  They just want another shot for their webpage.

More gems from Mr Shapland.......“With a partial renovation, sometimes a superintendent can get overly involved with the construction aspect and lose sight of his primary job of keeping the rest of the golf course playable and in good shape,” Shapland says.

http://www.golfcoursenews.com/articles/article.asp?MagID=1&ID=646&IssueID=42

[Lou_Duran]

The objective of building a golf course is seldom if ever to make life easy for the superintendent and his staff.  Courses are built for a variety of customers and the maintenance required should be designed into the course accordingly.

In the Dallas area, despite similar names, two courses at opposite ends of the scale come to mind.  Mansfield National was built turnkey for $5MM to serve the economically sensitive golfer.  Green fees range from $25 - $40.  Ease of maintenance was designed into the course as were the choice of grasses.

Dallas National was built for a reported $30MM and it probably poses a multitude of agronomic and maintenance nightmares to its superintendent.  The customers it was designed for and successfully attracted are able to fund the higher costs resulting from the site, architecture, and much higher levels of required conditioning.  I would be willing to bet that the superintendent at Dallas National makes double or more than his counterpart at Mansfield National.

From the standpoint of the superintendent, as long as the budget is reflective of expectations, I am sure he would rather work at the more upscale property.  Fortunately, the architects I know clearly have in mind the type of maintenance a course will require and the clients' objectives.
 

   

[Steve Burrows]

Certainly the opinions of Tom Shapland on this subject should be heeded, but isn't there more than a little conflict of interest in him offering such advice?  He's part of a construction firm and it behooves him to continue working, and since he is concerned mostly with the product while it is being built, he only has the slightest vested interest in the product after he leaves the job site (that he did what he was asked to do as well as he possibly could).  

However, such a view (if we assume that this is how a given construction firm is thinking) is selfish and irresponsible.  We owe it to those that come after us to understand the consequences of our actions.  For example, the notion of environmentally sustainable actions exists only because in times past, we acted without considering what we would do to future generations, without considering how their job would be harder because we made ours easier.  Superintendents are professionals, not wizards.  They can't grow grass at will in swamps or keep sand on a steep bunker face at all times, etc..  They are owed a course that is manageable within their budgets and their resources, even if that conflicts with a possible restoration.

[tonyt]

Lou has the point I think.

Whilst not ecouraging design and construction that doesn't care about the work involved for future maintenance, one aspect of affordability and practicality is that it may go hand in hand with the affordability and practicality of the business model and membership.

In every field of work, some in the industry have tougher jobs than others in the same industry. That is part and parcel with diversity and different needs or demands of a business or entity. As long as those creating such an entity are aware of these additional demands and are able to plan and allocate resources accordingly.

[LBaker]

looking towards the future of a newly constructed course, the membership does want a renovation of some bunkers, tees or greens 5 to 10 years later.  Make the right designs now and benefit for years to come.  it's that easy.  

I can see add ons but to fix something that was built not to long ago is bad business and poor planning.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its interesting that on this day I get chided for considering maintenance in design in one thread, and in another, several particpants chide gca's in general for lack of attention to same!  

And in one day on golf club atlas, we have Bradley Anderson advocating government intervention in topsoil stripping, and now Kyle thinks golf course architects need "competent oversight?"  Yeah, thats all we need is another government program that helps absolutely on one.  

Speaking for my fellow gca's, I think that we get the right amount of oversight from the client, their management companies and their superintendents.  And the industry is so small, that the idea of registration and state supervision of the qualifications and work of same wouldn't be cost effective for any state.

BTW, the ASGCA, GCSAA and GCBAA, of which Mr. Shapland is the current president, all endorse having supers on board as soon as possible.  I can't think of any individual in the industry who doesn't endorse that idea, and of working together, and within reason, trying to accomodate the super and work within the management companies guidelines.

While there are cases of design teams not meshing together, it can be the fault of any of the many components.  When there are problems with superintendents, they stem from them not understanding construction contracts, and  demanding that the contractor to put any material or design in the project, not originally called for.  In other cases, they know what they want, but are cowed by the big names and depth of experience of their gca or contractor.  Sometimes they make reasonable requests, but just too late to be implemented.  Its all in the human side of getting a golf course built.

A typical example is situations where budget has forced us to use cheaper California greens instead of USGA.  The super comes aboard, and lobbies for the more expensive USGA type. Most courses are built on too small a budget anyway, and sadly, if the money isn't there, it isn't there.  

Most make a plan to work with what they are getting, and its really a matter of degrees as I pointed out on another thread.  However, a few complain that 'there is no way to maintain this golf course", and not coincidentally, absovling themselves (at least in their own mind) about any later turf problems.  Luckily, the supers like that are few and far between, and most continue to do more with less.

I know Tom Shapland, and he is a class act and very accomodating, perhaps more than most Contractors. For example, they just contacted us to go back to Newton, KS for a one year check up, when getting most contractors back to a project to fix settled trenches and the like is a chore.  I think his point, perhaps not well made, was that supers do have other chores, and clubs somehow expect them to be in two places at one time during construction.  I have known them to get so interested in construction (it is a fun change) that they do neglect their other responsibilities.  He was just drawing on some similar experiences he had when answering those questions.

Kyle,

If golf course architecture malpractice doesn't exist, why do I pay over $10K per year on malpractice premiums?

[Bill Brightly]

I think this is a very good thread. I don't care how large the budget is, there is always a limit to how many man hours are spent on every course. If the crew is spending 50 hours a week grooming purley artistic touches, that's 50 less hours that could be spent elsewhere...even fixing divots. (Thats why most superintendents hate flowers...) So I think to  be a truly great architect, you must build a great course that can be maintained with a reasonable ongoing maintenace budget. Otherwise, your spending future dollars for the club, or forcing the club to make very difficult choices on where to spend their time and money.

I get the sense that TD has this in mind when he builds. I'd love to gear his comments.

[Mike_Young]

I think this is a very good thread. I don't care how large the budget is, there is always a limit to how many man hours are spent on every course. If the crew is spending 50 hours a week grooming purley artistic touches, that's 50 less hours that could be spent elsewhere...even fixing divots. (Thats why most superintendents hate flowers...) So I think to  be a truly great architect, you must build a great course that can be maintained with a reasonable ongoing maintenace budget. Otherwise, your spending future dollars for the club, or forcing the club to make very difficult choices on where to spend their time and money.

I get the sense that TD has this in mind when he builds. I'd love to gear his comments.

How many of the top 100 on any list worried about making sure the features were supt friendly as opposed to aesthetically marketable friendly.....maintenance is there for golf and not golf there for maintenance.....the supts I know and like to have on my courses figure out a way....
Mike

[Kyle Harris]

Its interesting that on this day I get chided for considering maintenance in design in one thread, and in another, several particpants chide gca's in general for lack of attention to same!  

And in one day on golf club atlas, we have Bradley Anderson advocating government intervention in topsoil stripping, and now Kyle thinks golf course architects need "competent oversight?"  Yeah, thats all we need is another government program that helps absolutely on one.  

Speaking for my fellow gca's, I think that we get the right amount of oversight from the client, their management companies and their superintendents.  And the industry is so small, that the idea of registration and state supervision of the qualifications and work of same wouldn't be cost effective for any state.

BTW, the ASGCA, GCSAA and GCBAA, of which Mr. Shapland is the current president, all endorse having supers on board as soon as possible.  I can't think of any individual in the industry who doesn't endorse that idea, and of working together, and within reason, trying to accomodate the super and work within the management companies guidelines.

While there are cases of design teams not meshing together, it can be the fault of any of the many components.  When there are problems with superintendents, they stem from them not understanding construction contracts, and  demanding that the contractor to put any material or design in the project, not originally called for.  In other cases, they know what they want, but are cowed by the big names and depth of experience of their gca or contractor.  Sometimes they make reasonable requests, but just too late to be implemented.  Its all in the human side of getting a golf course built.

A typical example is situations where budget has forced us to use cheaper California greens instead of USGA.  The super comes aboard, and lobbies for the more expensive USGA type. Most courses are built on too small a budget anyway, and sadly, if the money isn't there, it isn't there.  

Most make a plan to work with what they are getting, and its really a matter of degrees as I pointed out on another thread.  However, a few complain that 'there is no way to maintain this golf course", and not coincidentally, absovling themselves (at least in their own mind) about any later turf problems.  Luckily, the supers like that are few and far between, and most continue to do more with less.

I know Tom Shapland, and he is a class act and very accomodating, perhaps more than most Contractors. For example, they just contacted us to go back to Newton, KS for a one year check up, when getting most contractors back to a project to fix settled trenches and the like is a chore.  I think his point, perhaps not well made, was that supers do have other chores, and clubs somehow expect them to be in two places at one time during construction.  I have known them to get so interested in construction (it is a fun change) that they do neglect their other responsibilities.  He was just drawing on some similar experiences he had when answering those questions.

Kyle,

If golf course architecture malpractice doesn't exist, why do I pay over $10K per year on malpractice premiums?

Jeff,

I'll plead ignorance on this subject. What sort of malpractice does that cover?

Does a membership that is not satisfied with the work done to a golf course based on maintenance or other objective quality control standards have any recourse against such an architect if the work is deemed to be done incompetantly?

Who foots the bill for the subsequent changes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Technically, its errors and omissions insurance, which covers us for any lawsuit alleging we had a defective design, that someone got hurt on a course as a result, etc.  

I have only been sued twice, both for rejecting obviously dead grass as part of my contracted responsibility to the Owner.  In both cases, that cost the supplier/contractor lots of money, and they said I engaged in "tortuous conduct" and sued, seemingly to protect their right to foist inferior grass on the Owner!  In both cases, my insurance paid fairly nominal nuisance settlements.

$hit happens.......and isn't America wonderful?

In the normal process, a gca will present plans to the Owner at preliminary, design development, and again at final construction drawings for their approval.  Then, during construction, they will have weekly meetings to go over the process.  Usually, somewhere in there, those on the Owners side should get a pretty good idea whether they are getting what they want design wise, whose parameters ought to include their maintenance program.

As has been detailed here, the consultant and contractors can get frustrated when membership can't agree among themselves, or when one maverick won't let his pet idea die, even if others have decided otherwise.

As to construction QC, usually the super is the day to day guy, reporting to the gca who has to make the sometimes difficult call to reject work of the contractor.  In the cases cited above, I felt I was more liable if I didn't reject obviously dead grass.  


I can't recall too many legal cases based on opinions of design or maintenance, since "Easy to Maintain" or "High Quality Design" are very subjective and difficult to prove in court.  More likely scenario is not paying the final part of the bill, giving bad recommendations, etc., if through the process above the club feels its not getting sufficient cooperation out of the gca.  I also can't recall too many cases where the gca has been asked to foot the bill for any changes that clearly weren't defects, like poor drainage, dams washing out, etc.

While the tendency is for those who aren't happy to be louder than those who are, I suspect that the % of projects where the Owner is truly dissatisfied with gca or contractors performance is nominal to small.  

A higher % of dissatisfaction comes from trying to get the gca and contractor to do every thing as cheap as possible or doing it in house or inexperienced personnel to save money. The step by step process with approvals usually makes it clear that the Owner took on the responsibility of cutting the budget, picking materials, etc.  However, some won't accept the consequences of those short sighted decisions, saying "I hired you as an expert (and then ignored me, quite sure you knew better)

Whats amazing to me after 29 years in the business is that it never seems to change.......

[Steve Burrows]

"How many of the top 100 on any list worried about making sure the features were supt friendly as opposed to aesthetically marketable friendly.....maintenance is there for golf and not golf there for maintenance.....the supts I know and like to have on my courses figure out a way..."

Mike, two main points of concern here:

First, why be hung up on only the top 100 courses (on which ever list you decide to choose from)?  Think big picture.  Who cares about the top tier when most never get to experience them?  There is such a small percentage of the total number of golf courses (maybe only a few percent in America alone) who have the resources dedicated to maintaining perhaps less than friendly design decisions made prior to the current superintendents arrival.  Many of the rest are lucky if they have one, or maybe two, reliable triplex mowers for greens, let alone the resources to focus on what might be referred to as vanities (fly-mowing, hand-raking bunkers, etc.).

Second, with respect to superintendents "figur[ing] out a way."  Again, it's not that easy.  Think of it in terms of design.  Imagine that Steve Wynn had approached you, or anyone else, to do EXACTLY what Fazio did at Shadow Creek, but gave you only $2 million, instead of the astronomical numbers that actually designed and constructed the course.  Just being smart would probably not be enough.  Similarly, superintendents generally invite a challenge, but they are also realists.

[Bill Brightly]

"How many of the top 100 on any list worried about making sure the features were supt friendly as opposed to aesthetically marketable friendly.....maintenance is there for golf and not golf there for maintenance.....the supts I know and like to have on my courses figure out a way...."

Mike, first of, to use the phrase "sup't friendly" implies that the superintendent is lazy or cheap. I'm sure they are not. Rather, the question should be is the design "BUDGET friendly." It sounds like Jeff Brauer gets this concept.

I'm the grounds chair at a very good old dead guy course. We have a very healthy grounds budget and a great sup't, but there's never enough money to get to everything we'd like to do. To use steep sand-faced bunkers as an example (which I love the look of...) if our crew had to spend 50 hourse hand raking these beauties every week, that's 50 less hours where the crew could doing something else. I'm sure there are other good examples.

All I'm saying is that the cost of ongoing maintenance is an element of design.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply and apologies for my ignorance on your context. I appreciate your patience.

Mike Young,

I think your thoughts regarding the Top 100 are more of an indictment of the prediliction toward what I'll call "maintenance nightmare" courses than anything.

"How many architects are more worried about aesthetics than superintendents," is a great question and to follow it up with "maintenance is there for golf and not golf there for maintenance" is almost ironic. The suppositions seems to be that good golf is aesthetically pleasing.

If solid, fundamentally sound golf needed such a high expenditure in maintenance from the beginning, this game would not have lasted out of the 19th century.

To borrow and paraphrase a line from Jurassic Park, there are architects out there that seem so preoccupied with whether or not they can do something that they forget about the question of whether or not they should do something.

Remember, all this cost and budget will eventually trickle down to the green fee or dues paying golfer.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()