Waterfalls in the Desert

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If it looks out of character or just plain goofy as the ones do on the 18th holes at Royal New Kent, Sanctuary, Applebrook,... for example, I will down grade the course appropriately.  How much?  Can't tell you till I see it!  But a word of advice, if it's on a starting hole or a finishing hole, the damage will be more significant.  

Sorry, but just because it was "the owner" who dictated something that doesn't work/fit, doesn't mean the architect is excused from guilt!  
Mark

[Slag_Bandoon]

  "...and little streams of alkeehol come atricklin' down the rocks."
 Big Rock Candy Mountian  

   Jeff Brauer,  I like the Rushmore idea but I vote for Old Tom, CB McDonald, MacKenzie and maybe Tommy Nac busts.    (JakaB ... I'm setting up a punchline for you)  
  
   My notion is always "Hide the Water".  So, if you build the things, hide them.  And set up pay toilets on the next hole.  They'll make a fortune.  
 
   Tom Doak, you've made it this far with your methods and expertise.  Don't displace fundamentals with glitz.  Don't replace effective golf theory with distractions (false idols) from the holy playing fields.  
  Is this a corporate gig?    

[Lou_Duran]

TD, Guys,

What is it precisely about waterfalls that should preclude them from a golf course?  As Rich and others noted, if it is only kosher to incorporate features endemic to an area into a course, most of them would be quite drab.

It seems to me that if the client demands a certain features after consultation with his hired experts, it is up to the architect and contractors to incorporate them as well as possible.  If there is some elevation and slope to the land, water will run-off naturally, and perhaps it would only take some exageration of what's already there.  The par 3 #7 at the Hills of Lakeway (Nicklaus) is a beautiful hole, which looks natural, and the water fall in conjunction with the wind dictates the play.

Where I have problems with a water fall is when the budget is tight, and building it results in cutting corners on other more critical areas (such as drainage, irrigation, contouring, feature shaping, etc.), when it is superfluous to the design of the hole (little impact on shot values), and when the feature looks very artificial.  An example of the second is the water fall at Texas Star (Foster; I think #16, par 3) where one has to look toward the tee from the green to see it; and of the third, #2 at Austin CC (Pete Dye) even though it comes directly into play.

So Tom, if the client wants it after deliberate consultation, build it as best as you can.  You could provide him a hard copy of this thread, but I doubt that it would have a major impact as we are not very representative of the average golf consumer.  In any event, after Red Raider, you are no longer a minimalist.  You seem to be to be practicing what Mike Young is alluding to in another thread, augmenting what nature gives you in each unigue region or locale.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with this approach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

This is a no brainer.

The client has retained you to build a good golf course.
They are paying you.
They may have other projects in the future.
They want a waterfall or water features
You have the creativity and talent to produce these features

When in ROME, or PALM SPRINGS........

JUST DO IT.  

[Slag_Bandoon]

 "We have the motive which is money and the body which is dead!!!"

  Rod Stieger -  In The Heat of the Night

[BCrosby]

Come to think of it, Mucci is right. Golf courses in a desert are so completely artifical, so unlike anything else around them, go ahead and build the waterfall. No harm, no foul.

Or you might go the next step and conclude that all golf courses are artifical constructs anyway and that concerns about "naturalism" are a waste of time.

An interesting idea. Go down that road and literally thousands of unique design options open up. A small ranch style home built at a diagonal in a landing area. High tension wires that take away the aerial game. A car repair shop that abuts a green.

I could go on.

Bob  

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Pat Mucci got across what I was trying to say.  You have the talent to set the standard for what a golf course waterfall should be.  Do it and make it great!

[Tom Doak]

Well, first of all, I'm not doing this job "for the money" as some intimated.  There is a lot of money involved, but it's going to be a hard job to pull off as there is a lot of rock involved.  Most of all, it's a chance to create a GREAT golf course in a place which really has none and in a setting not quite like any other great course, and set the world on its ear.

Waterfalls in the desert might well be just another example of Mike Young's "regional" architecture.  If you're paying a lot of money to belong to a golf course stuck out in the desert, where it's 90 or 110 degrees every afternoon, a bit of water here and there might take on a different meaning.  And though it's not the "look" which purists prefer, it may be functional and add to (or at least not detract from) the strategy and interest of the golf.

Whatever water features we do will be dammed-up ravines which cross the site already, so as playing elements and forced-carry hazards they're not changing at all.  The client wants water in some of them instead of the stark rock, and that's their prerogative.  I've demurred about it to no avail, so my new approach is to embrace them and even push them to overdo it, so they'll back off to something that's cost-effective and tasteful.

If y'all don't like waterfalls, then just boycott the place.  But when we build it, I'm pretty sure you're going to hear a lot about it.

P.S.  How come no one ever said anything about the waterfall at Applebrook until this thread?

[George Pazin]

People have said plenty about the Applebrook waterfall - both in person & on line - but I don't really have the energy to dig it all up.

Jim Kennedy -

I was always under the impression that water usage was the main reason golf courses in the desert cost so much to play. If they're paying for the water, I don't see any problems. Of course, in drought conditions, I'd think they would therefore become cost prohibitive & likely go under.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom D

The Applebrook waterfall was in fact brought up when the course was first discussed last fall.  You must have missed that conversation.  As I remember it the consensus seemed to be that the course was so outstanding that who cared about the waterfall.

Build a course half as good in the desert and I, for one, won't care if it includes ten waterfalls, three fountains, a windmill and/or a clown's nose.

Good luck.

Rich(ard)

[Neal_Meagher]

Tom,

Ok, I think we've established that, with a few exceptions, most here understand the realities of the marketplace and that it is up to the designer to give the client the best product.  And in this case a waterfall is part of what your client wants.  

However........................................................

If you must do it, I know you want to do it right.  In my opinion, where most go wrong with building waterfalls and the primary thing that most object to whether they know it or not, is in the way they are constructed.  Most are some sort of a conglomeration of stacked rocks, some rounded, some jagged, sometimes blasted or found on-site and sometimes imported.

This is not the best way (I should know, I've done it this way too many times before).

Your absolutely best bet is to call Philip diGiacomo who works out of Van Nuys, CA and is absolutely THE best in the business of creating rock features out of reinforced concrete.  Now, everyone reading this who are now going "argggghhhhhhhhhh......." let me explain.

His method revolves around an innate understanding of how nature creates eroded rock, rivulets, discoloration due to layering, etc.  He is quite simply fantastic at this kind of work and it is the only way to guarantee that this waterfall looks, feels and smells like it belongs in this setting.  Believe me.

At least you should call him, Tom.  Have him send you some info on the work he has done and I think you will see what I mean.

The way I see it, this is the best way to least compromise your principles and beliefs while still respecting your client's desires.

Please email me and I will happily give you his number.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I'm not against waterfalls, I just don't really care for features that look forced onto a property.  Generally waterfalls are one of those "forced" features.  How many of the greatest courses have waterfalls incorporated into their design?  Not too many are there!  There must be a reason why!  The three waterfalls I mentioned above all look out of place and distract from the design.  

But if you can design one that "fits in", go for it!  However, if it turns out to be like the one running down the right side of #18 at Valhalla that looks like you could go tubing on it, expect to pay the price  

My guess is that the owner wants the water features because he/she wants something dramatic.  Good luck!
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I spoke to the owner/developer about the waterfall at Applebrook.

I discussed it with Gil Hanse

I discussed it on this site.

The waterfall isn't nearly as objectionable as the housing on
the 18th hole.  In fact, you barely notice the waterfall.  
But the condo's and houses sure stick out worse than a sore thumb.

Gil designed and built a wonderful golf course.  
The owner/developers diminished the look of the golf course by building on the border of the property.  
But, it was their money, their project, their golf course.

Be thankful that they aren't forcing you to create an eyesore, and I don't consider integrated water features an eyesore.

No one ever complains about the water feature on the 16th hole at GCGC, even though I would like to see it returned to bunkering.

I'm sure you can creatively integrate the water features in non-obtrusive ways, then everybody wins.

If the waterfall or water features can be made to fit in,
and they don't hinder the strategy or playability of the golf course, it's not the worse thing in the world,
and far preferable to large dwellings any day of the week.

[Matt_Cohn]

I'm all for this natural site thing too. And it's true that there aren't really any waterfalls in Palm Desert.

Neither is there any grass.

How natural do you want it to be?!

Look, I would trust Mr. Doak to do the right kind of waterfall, wouldn't you? They're cool looking and relaxing, and if they're done in the right way, I think they can be a lot of fun. I'm all for it.

[A_Clay_Man]

An ultra-exclusive club that has a Great course? snif snif

How long will it be till they call you back to tone it down?

Not doing it for the money? C'mon

You should charge double for the waterfall!

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

You suggest that if waterfalls were built at the request of the project sponsor the architect would not be "excused from guilt".

What is "guilt"?

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
What I meant is that the architect is as guilty or in other words "as responsible" as the owner for putting the feature in.  If it turns out as bad as the one at Royal New Kent for example, I hold Mike Strantz accountable.  It's his design right!  
Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I was just making the point of how much water it takes to maintain a course in the area. The 101 courses use up the same amount of water per year as 1,100,000 people. If I were living in this area, which is totally dependent on its aquifer, I might raise some serious questions about the need for ANY type of development that uses 400mil+ gals of groundwater per year, paid for or not.

[George Pazin]

Jim -

Point well taken - I'd be concerned too if I lived in the desert. I guess my point was simply in regards to the study. I'd prefer it be up to the market - i.e. through the cost of water versus the consumer demand for high priced golf (or hosuing, for that matter) - to determine whether or not a project moves forward. I'm not a fan of "studys" - too many politics to consider.

Mark Fine -

I seem to recall many a post where you have said others were too hard on an architect, they didn't know what he had to put up with - a thread on Driving The Green comes to mind! Now you're giving Tom Doak a rough time over a waterfall that hasn't even been built yet - that sounds like Doak bashing to me!   Thanks for the update on your First Tee project, by the way - I've been looking for that thread to request just that. Best of luck as it develops.

[ed_getka]

Neal,
 Did the guy in VanNuys do the Maderas waterfall?

Tom,
 Y'all? You've been in Texas too long!

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry, I'm in an ornery mood and I'm not buying it...

Each of us, in our personal and professional lives often are asked to choose between what we believe is right and what we are willing to compromise on in the interest of commerce and professional success.

We weigh each of the factors involved and often end up making 55/45 decisions in good faith, but that doesn't mean that the principles we supposedly espoused don't start eroding over time with each "little" stray from our fundamental belief system.

Let's look at rock music in the 1970s.  Any rock musician practicing at that time might have been tempted to release a "disco" single to keep chart momentum, to increase name recognition and sales, and to feed the kids.  All perfectly understandable and acceptable reasons for the vast majority of those musicians at the time who were mostly hacks (I use that term in the most complimentary way...meaning those who were mostly followers rather than leaders of their art form).  Rod Stewart did it, ELO did it, as did many others.

However, there were a few who kept to their beliefs no matter what the commercial whims and fads of the marketplace dictated.  They may not have ended up as the biggest sellers, or the most popular, but for the most part, you can still listen to their music 30 years later and it has a sort of timelessness that makes listening to it today as vital and immediate as it did back then.  

Would Bruce Springsteen have released a disco single?  Would Coore and Crenshaw build a waterfall?

I think that's the fundamental question you should be asking yourself, Tom.  

Success is nice and comfortable....relevance and artistic integrity are remembered.

[George Pazin]

Ah, Mike, would that life were so simply black & white!

Tom D indicated in a later post that there were other factors that were leading him to take the job. It then becomes a question of whether those factors outweigh the issue of the waterfall.

Kind of funny that I'm arguing for practicality over principle - I generally consider myself to be ruled almost exclusively by principle. Don't know why I'm favoring realistic compromise in this instance - I suppose it's the realities associated with being a business owner for 8+ years. I personally don't think this is a big enough issue to make a stand on, if the other factors are indeed true.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim,
To set the record straight, 400 million gallons is more then 1,200 acre feet of water. In AZ those of us on groundwater are restricted to less then 5 acre feet per acre of turf a year. Thus, a 100 acre golf course must use less then 500 acre feet in a year. Any course that used more then twice that would be a bog, worse then any wet conditions complained about here. If your really concerned about water conservation, I suggest you write about the thousands of acres in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys that are farmed and flood irrigated the old fashioned way, even when new conservation technologies exist. Of course, you wouldn't mind paying a lot more for your vegetables as long as they were grown in an area where irrigation is not needed, right?

I once tried to partner up with an environmental organization to re vegetate to native an area that had been bladed. While doing the work I was constantly reminded what a polluter I was because I used 32 different pesticides on my course. When I explained that wasn't true and I had the records to prove it, I was informed that the study had been done by a reputable University and it had to be correct. Before putting to much faith in any "research", I've learned it's always best to know what theory it's trying to prove.

[Mike_Cirba]

George;

Yep, it's the 55/45% compromise, weighing all factors and coming down on the "plus" side of the ledger.

And for most of us lesser mortals, we HAVE to make those choices, even if it means hedging our dogmatic positions.

But, if I had the talent and vision of a Tom Doak, I can tell you that I'd tell the developer where to stick his waterfall.  

Was all that time and energy put into Pacific Dunes to grease the skids for these kind of jobs where Tom sounds like he's asking us to help him to rationalize something that clearly troubles him??

[Mike_Cirba]

Personally, if I were Tom, I'd rather fail doing what I wanted to do than achieve success based on what someone who obviously doesn't understand the art is asking him to do.

Is it all just commerce?  

He seems to be asking us for either a blessing or condemnation, so let's get real folks....how the hell do you build "the best waterfall" in the freakin' desert??