Thanks for the clarification Tom.
There are three things that I find interesting about these two plans:
1. The first is to see 10 feet of fill at the back right of the green, and the trees that are supposed to remain there after the works!! And why build the green so high and why only with fill? This is all Cut & Transport.... Very expensive, especially for that time!!
2. The second is the probable intent of adding trees between the two greens, since they are not on the conceptual plan.
3. And the third is the absence of proposed contours for any other feature on the second plan. I wonder why the architect would give himself the trouble of showing proposed contours for the greens, and not do it for the other important features of the course, such as the bunker short of the green. These two elements will need to tie in together very well to work properly....
I don't have enough knowledge about architectural plans from architects of the golden age to indicate if this was a common way to do plans at that period, but I can assure you that there is a lot of architects that do that for every square inch of their golf courses today. And that, sometimes, whether they like it or not! This is another discussion entirely! But most permitting agencies, at least in Quebec and Canada, want to see this type of plans before a building permit can be awarded, and certainly before there is a single piece of equipment on site to build the course.
YP