[Jeff_Mingay]

Ironically I was researching something else and came across two interesting quotes relative to this thread. For your interest, I couldn't resist posting them:

1. From the Casa de Camop web site: "(Pete) Dye's hands-on approach is unique; there are no plans for any of the courses he has built 'its just me out there pointing my finger and saying dump the dirt there and there,' says Dye."

2. Taken from Dream Golf by Stephen Goodwin: re the intricacies of the tenth hole at Bandon Dunes, architect David Kidd says, "You couldn't possible draw this hole."  

Before any one responds, let me guess:

1. This is Pete building his "mad scientist" image. There's no way he builds courses that way.

2. David's wrong. The intricacies of that particular hole can be drawn  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

1.  I've seen the plans for Oak Tree, the TPC at Sawgrass, Long Cove, and the Stadium course at PGA West.  Some of them were scribbled by Pete and some of them were drawn by someone else at his direction.  Once the job started, though, Pete never looked at the plans (although Bobby Weed looked at them occasionally at Long Cove).  Joe Walser told me that at Oak Tree on the first day of construction their young project manager rolled out the plans on the first tee, and Pete rolled them back up and threw them into the back of the pickup truck and told him they wouldn't need those now.

2.  Any hole could be drawn ... you can draw the as-built of any hole as sure as you can fly the topo afterward.  The operative question is whether there is anybody out there good enough to design great golf holes in their every detail right on paper.  I believe you can only achieve a certain manufactured look from plans without field direction, and that is not the look I'm after.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adrian — Yes, I understand.

Phillippe — "...Most major landscape architecture projects have a city as a client and their interest is that the project is efficient, built with a very specific budget that is approved by accountants. So you'll need plans to back yourself up...." What do yo base your statistic? Usually it does not matter, but in this case you are leading people to believe that a majority of all major landscape projects involve public projects. I do not believe that at all.

Jeff — You cite extremes, and opinions from one element of the equation. Pete begins with a routing plan as far as I know. I have seen a few and have spoken with some of his clients. He may have someone else draw these plans...and he may well do most all of his work in the field, but some plans do exist.

Tom D. — You are probably on target; a manufactured look would occur if you tried to allow machine and detailed plans to work out 100% of the course. The element of the shaper(s) — even if a GCA opted to never show up — would thwart this look in most instances. I think the mind, hand and encouragement of the golf designer is evident in all really good work. Having said that, the "ghost writer" of the shaper, the client, the land — and the plans (no matter their level of detail) — are all part of the finished result.

[GDStudio]

1. From the Casa de Camop web site: "(Pete) Dye's hands-on approach is unique; there are no plans for any of the courses he has built 'its just me out there pointing my finger and saying dump the dirt there and there,' says Dye."

I worked on the new Kampen Course at Purdue University.  It was alot like that.  it was a blast seeing it.  I just regret I didn't knick the 6-7 drawings that did exist for the course.  Those sketchs were great.  If someone hasn't seen what he puts together, no one would believe it.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Branden,

I'd believe it, because I work with Rod Whitman. His methodology is very similar to Pete's. Probably because he worked with him for six years at various projects.

[Tony Ristola]

There are a few problems with plans:

No one will produce a perfect set.

Even if someone did, no builder left alone for days at a time will interpret the architect's vision. This common design/contruction method is like driving a car by only looking out the rear view mirror.

Opportunities reveal themselves daily. A simple test was done with groups of people...they were asked to write down all the uses of a piece of paper for 15 or 20 minutes. Then a short movie was shown. Then, not knowing it was going to happen, were asked again to write further uses. They came up with about 40% new responses. This shows that initial plans (ideas) can be substantially bettered by more thought. I guess this falls into Mackenzie's "mental labour" dept. The more time...the more thought, the less relevant the plans.

Plans are needed for permitting, when there's engineering issues that need be followed, and to produce a close estimate of the work to be done for bidding. I've found bureaucrats, when it's explained why plans won't be followed exactly, have been 100% OK with it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()