[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's stick to the "dictate" aspect first.

Does the soil dictate the architecture ?

As courses moved inland and drainage became more of a problem, did the soil dictate the amount of dirt moved, and in turn the architecture ?

[Joel_Stewart]

Previously I would have said yes but with the money these developers have I now say no.    A course like Whistling Straits is a good example, trucking in thousands of truckloads of sand.

Look at the picture below which I posted on another thread..   There is no soil, it mainly rock and rock hard clay.  USGA spec greens being built.



Now look at the result.   Pure sod on top, looks perfect.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

Your question is really about drainage.

I wish that I could figure out how to post pictures on this site, because I have a really cool photo of an Alison drainage as-built schematic from the 1920's from a great clay based soil course that is unbelievably sophisticated - as sophisticated as any of the irrigation systems of our best inland golf courses today.

Drainage technology was far ahead of irrigation technology back in those days. I would wager that our best inland golf courses have tile systems that no one even knows about.

[paul cowley]

If a designer is smart, and a budget is a consideration, well then yes, it does have influence.....otherwise "soil" has little relevance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a designer is smart, and a budget is a consideration, well then yes, it does have influence.....otherwise "soil" has little relevance.

Paul,

Are you saying that the potential need to elevate tees, greens, bunkers and other features is irrelevant on soil that doesn't drain well ?

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think the site has always dictated the amount of dirt that would need to be moved in order to make the overall course acceptable and included there would be a variance based on the style of architecture as to how the greens, tees bunkers etc were designed.  I also think that for many of us that do not work on sand that much there is usually a layer of soil that may be from 6 inches to 2 feet in depth before reaching a material that can be used to build features.  I never build any features out of topsoil but I do replace the topsoil on top of most rough grades when applicable.  Now after having built a course in such an environment, one usually tries to limit the distance water can travel over ground before being captured in a catch basin.  And ideally one would shape fairways and features that can move water toward the rough edge whereby it is easier to hide catch basin features etc.
Now, having said all of the above, if one has a sand site , hardly any of the above described applications would be needed.  And on sand , in theory, one would probably not need to raise tees greens etc if they chose not.....AND one could probably do the same in the heavy soils.....it would all come down to $$$$$. IMHO.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

Does the "soil" dictate and/or influence the architecture ?

Please bear with me as you know I am not an architect nor for that matter do I know much about soil, but I do believe we are our own worst enemies when it comes to sighting new golf courses.

I can hear some of you moaning already wondering what useful point I might add to the construction or architectural debate, but I feel that the process of locating/designing/constructing a golf course has become too complicated.

I fully understand that over the years good/ideal sites are becoming harder to find, but does that justify building a course in an inappropriate location. Is it wise or sensible to ship in hundreds of truckloads of alien material to build these courses? Will it have an effect on the surrounding landscape or water table? Then of course is the cost of maintenance of these imported bespoke  soil/sand/grasses. Looking at the photos that Joel posted I wonder if the end does justify the means.

The fundamentals, I expect are really down to drainage and irrigation, leading with drainage. Yet as The Save the World groups put more pressure on our politicians to save and conserve the world’s resources and to promote more environmental awareness, water consumption and irrigation will become the bigger issue in years to come. This will be a major part of future expenditure to maintain these courses. However if Developers and Owners have big budgets and money is not a problem in the construction process, will it then become an on going concern regards maintenance and the future viability of the course?

I would indeed think that soil will influence the Architecture, but which soil, native or imported?

[TEPaul]

With a C.B. Macdonald at NGLA and particularly Hugh Wilson at Merion, soil, soil structure and such was way more than 50% of what they did think about. With Wilson it may've been more like 80-85%---and still both of them made some pretty drastic mistakes right out of the box.

But that was then and this is now. Architects and all their supporting casts and resources today understand this subject about a thousand times better than Macdonald and Wilson did back in the early teens.

You would've thought that George Crump would've picked up on their grow-in mistakes because his course was in grow-in 3-4 years after them, but nope, he went through the same thing.

All three of those great courses had massive grow-in failures and had to wait a year or more to resolve it. The interesting thing is at first NGLA's and Pine Valley's soil couldn't sustain good turf because it was way too sandy and drained too fast (not enough water retention), while Wilson's course and his compacted farmland soil had too much water retention to sustain good turf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Melvyn,

What constitutes an "inappropriate site" ?

TEPaul,

Are you sure that it was "sandy" soil that caused the problems at NGLA ?

CBM indicates that the land was laden with swamps and bogs.

He also indicates that the land was "impoverished" in many places and that they had to add about 10,000 loads of good soil including manure"

I may try to take some core samples in the off areas, the woods, to determine the nature of the native soil on the golf course.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

An inappropriate location

Each site would need to be assessed on its own merits or should I say lack of merit. However IMHO a site that needs a major amount of reforming or in a location that is environment unsuitable. In short perhaps sites that need massive amounts of effort and money to make them into a golf course. 

I want to see golf courses succeed but I am starting to wonder if the guy who pays for it all in the end  “The Golfer” is getting value for money. Particularly with the environmental restrictions that may be about to be introduced in the next few years and the effect they may have on the day to day maintenance costs required on these inappropriate locations.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Are you sure that it was "sandy" soil that caused the problems at NGLA ?"

Pat:

I'm positive. That's why he needed some thousands of cart-loads or soil (binder) after the fact. That problem was discussed from time to time about NGLA in the Wilson/Piper and Oakley "agronomy" letters. Crump essentially had the same grow-in problems after the fact. The two who lent a lot of help to Pine Valley  during its "grow-in" dilemmas in an advisory capacity were Alan and Hugh Wilson. Hugh Wilson actually became Pine Valley's Green Chairman to get the course over the hump. In a real way they lent Flynn to Pine Valley to resolve that and the final stage of construction to get the last four holes into play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

An inappropriate location

Each site would need to be assessed on its own merits or should I say lack of merit. However IMHO a site that needs a major amount of reforming or in a location that is environment unsuitable. In short perhaps sites that need massive amounts of effort and money to make them into a golf course. 

I want to see golf courses succeed but I am starting to wonder if the guy who pays for it all in the end  “The Golfer” is getting value for money. Particularly with the environmental restrictions that may be about to be introduced in the next few years and the effect they may have on the day to day maintenance costs required on these inappropriate locations.

Melvyn,

I'm still not sure what you mean by an inappropriate site.

Could you list five (5) of them for me.

[Kyle Harris]

Patrick

An inappropriate location

Each site would need to be assessed on its own merits or should I say lack of merit. However IMHO a site that needs a major amount of reforming or in a location that is environment unsuitable. In short perhaps sites that need massive amounts of effort and money to make them into a golf course. 

I want to see golf courses succeed but I am starting to wonder if the guy who pays for it all in the end  “The Golfer” is getting value for money. Particularly with the environmental restrictions that may be about to be introduced in the next few years and the effect they may have on the day to day maintenance costs required on these inappropriate locations.

Melvyn,

I'm still not sure what you mean by an inappropriate site.

Could you list five (5) of them for me.

Here's a start Pat:

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Are you sure that it was "sandy" soil that caused the problems at NGLA ?"

Pat:

I'm positive. That's why he needed some thousands of cart-loads or soil (binder) after the fact. That problem was discussed from time to time about NGLA in the Wilson/Piper and Oakley "agronomy" letters.

Crump essentially had the same grow-in problems after the fact. The two who lent a lot of help to Pine Valley during its "grow-in" dilemmas in an advisory capacity were Alan and Hugh Wilson.
Hugh Wilson actually became Pine Valley's Green Chairman to get the course over the hump.
In a real way they lent Flynn to Pine Valley to resolve that and the final stage of construction to get the last four holes into play.

I'm familiar with Pine Valley's sandy soil, but, CBM describes the land at NGLA as laden with bogs and swamps.

That doesn't sound like sandy soil to me.

If the soil was so sandy on most of the site, it would seem an ideal site to obtain the sand needed to fill in the bogs and swamps.

In fact, there's a pit to the far right of the 5th fairway that looked like it was excavated.
That pit was probably on the Sebonack property and may not be there any longer.

In addition, I can't imagine CBM taking enormous amounts of sand to contstruct the foot pad for the 8th green.  I don't believe it could be stabilized if it were sand.

Core samples from far off the playing corridors would seem to be the best source for determining the content or composition of the soil.

So many of the green sites are heavily constructed, and I just can't imagine that they were constructed out of nothing but sand.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

I am not going to start listing courses but I will mention one.

The Castle Course at St Andrews is one. I believe the site of the new course was totally incorrect. The location, from memory was just fields near a little Church near Boarhills.

This sloping field site has swallow up the £2.5 million budget to try and produce a links course for St Andrews. As I mentioned in my previous post Land Fit for Purpose, the old saying of a ‘pig’s ear into a silk purse’ springs to mind.

If the land requires millions of dollars/pounds to be thrown at the site to make it into a golf course, then in my opinion, something has drastically gone wrong and that site should never have been considered let alone chosen.

We need to be sensible with budgets. To burdening a club with a massive start-up debt is just plain irresponsible. I feel that there is a strong case for naturalism as used by the early designers, particularly if it can reduce construction costs. I presume that the on going maintenance costs for a course that has been manufactured is more expensive than a course which has been produced using minimal remodelling.   

We have seen on recent posts the price of Green Fees and how that has been received. I am not complaining about the Architect or the Designer but what I consider a waste of money by building a course in what may not be a very hospitable place.

The cost of construction and maintenance will have to be paid by the poor old Golfer and I believe that some care and consideration should be made for the these people.

The last Guy in the line has to pick up the tab for all this investment and guess who he is, well his is not one of the top Pros, nor the PGA Tour guys, but just Mr & Mrs Average and their children, so why do we expecting them to keep digging deeper in their pockets for a round of golf.

Let’s face it, we are not short of talent Architects/Designers, I believe we are starting to loose our way and need to refocus on golf. All the original competitions and championships took place on a normal course, not a Championship Course. I think we should be looking at getting back to basics for the good of the game.

At the end of the day it’s Golf and the average golfer who counts. From this combination we get fun and enjoyment as well as the money, let’s never forget that.   
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()