next »

[Charlie Goerges]

Edit: scroll down to find out the name of the Mystery Architects.

Here is a photo tour for number 003. The submitter will remain anonymous so I’ve taken to calling it the Charles Remington Winchester III Country and Polo Club.

Overview:





Hole 1





Hole 2





Hole 3




View from fairway to green





Hole 4





Hole 5




View from behind Green





Hole 6





Hole 7





Hole 8





Hole 9





Hole 10





Hole 11





Hole 12





Hole 13





Hole 14





Hole 15





Hole 16




A more ground level view of 16





Hole 17





Hole 18




A more ground-level view of 18

[Garland Bayley]

Charlie, you did your own submission! That's good, it helped get the numbers up. Now don't cry to much if a Pete Dye wanna be eats your lunch.

[Charlie Goerges]

It's a fine theory Garland. Can you back it up with paperwork? 

[Jim Colton]

I think we have a winner!  The submitter obviously spent a lot of time 'in the dirt' finding cool playing corridors.  A lot of cool holes.

[Charlie Goerges]

It's still only a theory Jim, and I ain't confirming or denying.

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

Since this anonymous plan seems to be having trouble generating any interest, perhaps it will liven things up a bit for me to acknowledge that it is a design collaboration between the two of us.  Some of the holes are from my original routing for Erin Hills, and some are Charlie's, since my original routing had three or four holes around the big lake in the southeastern corner of the property, and the property when I was working on it did not include the ground for holes 10 & 11.

[Jim Colton was eerily right, in that this is the only entry which had the benefit of the designer actually spending several days on-site inspecting the property and tinkering with the routing.]

My clubhouse location was different as well, so the numbering all had to be changed.

My intent in keeping this submittal anonymous was not to have this routing compared to the actual Erin Hills, which I knew would be "outed" once the judging got underway -- and I hope people will refrain from going there.  But I always thought mine was a good routing, so I wanted to see what the judges might say about it.  I was particularly fond of holes 3-6, which were the four finishing holes on my original plan, as well as 7-8 which were my two starting holes.

Maybe that will liven things up a bit.  Many thanks to Charlie -- if he hadn't done the sketchup work, you wouldn't have had the chance to look at this version.

[Jim Colton]

Well, I guess that explains why my design was woefully inadequate compared to this one.  By the time I reached the third hole of your course tour, I knew my chances were doomed.  But do you have holes named after rap songs?  Are we going to have a pro-am and am division?

Since the comparisons to the real thing are inevitable, allow me to make the inevitable comparison.  I rather play this course than the real thing.  To be brutally honest, I wish Tom had gotten the job.  As a huge Ballyneal fan, I'm admittedly biased in that opinion, but I know I'm not alone in it.

[Charlie Goerges]

Let me start by saying thanks to Tom, it was fun and interesting to translate (some of) your hole designs to sketchup.

A couple of points:

1.   The comparisons to the current Erin Hills are not totally valid. When Erin Hills was designed more land was available. Judging by the disjointed nature of the collaborative routing, Tom would likely have come up with something significantly different than what you see here. I think what you can do is judge the holes on their use of the ground (as well as you can, considering it’s only in sketchup) and go from there.

2.   I suck at this. In the image below I’ve given some idea of the original routing (in red) and highlighted my “contributions” by circling them in blue. Now in my defense, I was trying to preserve as many of the original holes as possible, so that’s why you see things like #9 black practically doubling back on the routing, and why there is such a long walk from 6 to 7 black. (also note that the location of hole 2 black was the original clubhouse/parking location)




I’ll give a couple of explanations of my routing decisions below, but here is the map:




Given that the 3 holes down and around the large wetland wouldn’t be useable (because I didn’t carry the topos out around there) I knew I’d have to do at least 3 new holes. Plus, since there wasn’t enough room to go out and return back from anyplace on the property to the north of the existing holes, I figured I’d need to ditch at least one more. So I worked from the idea that I’d keep all of Tom’s holes you see here accept for 1. That one ended up being Tom’s 3rd hole, though I kept his green exactly as is using it for the 11th. (I also basically kept Tom’s 3rd tee with minor shifting.

I chose that spot because it offered the largest open area free of other holes and bottlenecks and just laid them out. I see other areas I could have gone, but I went the way I did because I figured it needed a couple of longer holes ( to replace the ones around the wetland).

Numbers 2 and 17 were born of necessity, but frankly 17 sucks, though I think 2 works okay.

Number 10 is a bit boring, but with some bunkers it would be better. Number 11 should have used that “Esker” that it doglegs around but, again, I suck at this.

Bottom line is I think Tom’s collection of holes overall is great. There aren’t any crappy holes, “bad” blindness is at a minimum, the holes look natural and there is logic and strategy to most of the shots. But most importantly to my eye, they are pretty. I’ve mentioned a few times that strategy rarely comes into my mind when I’ve been looking at the topos and sketchup files (I’m glad that most architects do, and Tom most certainly does), I just like to find something that looks “right” and go from there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When Charlie sent the map the first time, I knew instantly it was EH.

When judging this entry, as I was going around the holes, I noticed the long walk to 7 and figured I would take a closer look at those holes to see if they really justified the walk.  Looking at them and also knowing what the real first hole in the same general area looks like, I counted this one down a bit, figuring that as one of the weak spots.

Had I only known it was cobbled together like this, I might have been more sympathetic.....or not.  As often stated here, no one cares what problems the gca faces, only the final result.

[Charlie Goerges]

Exactly Jeff, you did the right thing in terms of the contest. You weren't the only one to think it was disjointed.

I will say that I could have solved half the problem by reversing #9 and making it number 7 and then going on from there. I'm glad, however that a true amateur will likely finish at the top of the heap.

[RJ_Daley]

I like the black 1 red 12 hole corridor much better than the real one as it is at EH.  The guts of the front side black with its multi directions to the wind-compass which is the boldest and contiguous topo-contour of the property looks very strong.  I wonder about the distance from #6 black green to #7 tee.  But, it sure looks like a more logical use of that topo once you get there.  Black 5 red 17 looks like an awesome hole.  Black 15-16-17 looks like a better way to use that corner of land than it is in reality.    

[Ian_Linford]

Wow, what a cool course.  My course looks very flat compared to this one, I wish I had used more elevation changes in my holes.  My #1 for example hugs the lake instead of going up and over the ridge like yours.

Charlie, I like your #11 a lot.  A little more fairway down the right might be better, but I think you do use the "esker" (?!) well.  The green site looks great.

I've noticed at least four of the designs have a long stretch of holes along the bottom of the map.  Jim's and this course finish on these holes, while my course and Garland's begin on that stretch (in the opposite direction).  I wonder why this might be?

[Charlie Goerges]

RJ and Ian,

I must agree that black #1 and #16 represent probably the starkest improvement, from my perspective, in use of the same areas relative to Erin Hills. Flying through the sketchup file the holes just look better. Granted EH #2 goes the opposite direction, but both are short, wide par 4s.

Ian, I think that area along the bottom presented the least number of problems relating to blindness, while remaining full of contour.

[Charlie Goerges]

A couple more shots of one of my favorite holes in this routing, #16. The flight path represents a carry of about 250 yards.

Aerial:





From Ground Level:





And FYI, that's Paddy Harrington on the tee.

[Yannick Pilon]

Charlie,

I always thought that your routing was quite interesting, but I felt there were some inconsistencies in there that did not add up.  Now I know why!!

I just have a question.  When Tom gave you his routing to work with, did it include a bunkering scheme, or did you come up with the bunkering?

The reason I am asking is that I thought that the routing was overall pretty good, but that the strategy or bunkering failed to inspire me on a few holes.  For example, I thought that holes no. 6 and 15 could have been more interesting with a few more bunkers, at least just by looking at the site in Sketchup....  Same thing with 16, even if it was one of my favorite holes on the whole course.

One more thing.   Could we see the full routing that Tom Doak had prepared for the site?

Let me know.

YP

[Charlie Goerges]

Hi Yannick,

Tom's routing had bunkering, though it's possible in my haste to finish it up that I missed some. Additionally, (and I'm only speculating, Tom can give us some insight to his process) since he spends so much time on site, he may have planned to fill out the bunkering either on site or perhaps later in the design process.

As to the whole routing, I'll leave that up to Tom. I'd need to do a bit of additional work but not too much.

[Tom_Doak]

Yannick:

I've asked Charlie NOT to post the full original routing I did for the golf course.  I don't want to start comparing the whole thing to Erin Hills.  Charlie's "red" numbering of the holes in post #8 gives you a pretty good idea of my plan, other than the three holes which ran out to the southeast, around the wetland.

I'm pretty sure the bunkers on "my" 14 holes are what I drew on the original plan.  Of course, at the conceptual routing stage, I don't try to think out the bunkering too exactly -- I assume that as on most of the courses we build, bunkers will be added in the field and maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the bunkers will be changed, so I don't draw in too many to start for fear they will multiply like rabbits.  For example, that sixth hole was my 18th, and I'm sure it would have wound up with more than the one bunker ... but the rise on the second shot is steeper than you can see, and there was a line of trees running down the inside left of the hole and then across to the right of the greenside bunker.  So being too far right or left off the tee was already much more well defended than what this looks like in Sketchup.

I was hoping that this contest (in contrast to most GCA photo discussions) would be judged on  how the holes fit the land, and not on the basis of bunkering, graphics, or narrative ... but I think that's hard to do.  I know the site pretty well, and even so, it's hard for me to look at the other plans in Sketchup and really judge them based on the contours alone.  Drawing a bunch of bunkers makes the strategies more obvious; that's why everyone builds too many bunkers.

Then again, I worked with a better topo map of the site (two-foot contours) than any of the other entrants had, so I knew where there were some cool features and trees that didn't show up at all on the digital plan.

[Yannick Pilon]

Tom,

Thanks for your clarifications.  I totally understand why you do not wish to post your full plan, but I thought I would ask anyway!

You are right, it was tough to judge the entries based on the amount of information that we had at our disposal.  I had no clue this was the Erin Hills site, and we did not have any info on the site, appart from the map that Charlie gave us....  However, just by using Sketchup, I was surprised to see the quality of some of the designs that were submitted.  My personal favorite, design 008, had a surprising number of good holes that, I thought, fit the land very well.  The big plus that made me choose that design as the best one, was the fact that the bunkering that was proposed also made a lot of sense while maximizing the lay of the land.

That said, in order to judge this contest on how the holes fit the land, I guess the best way would have been to only ask the contestants for a stick drawing of the routing, with maybe large bubbles for an indication of the fairway extents....  But I guess this would not be as appealling for most members of this site.  A simple topo map with some centerlines would have been sufficient for this contest, IMHO.  The contest might have been more popular if it had been this way too.  Sketchup has scared many guys, I fear....

In my mind, though, and as an architect, one thing that this design contest clearly demonstrates, is that there is no substitution for visiting a site extensively in order to create a good routing.  A good map, is not enough to come up with a great routing, even if it is a good start, and even if you have a software like Sketchup to let you see your potential holes in 3D.  Nothing beats walking the site.  Unfortunately, this design contest will most likely not highlight this fact for the contestants or the lurkers on this website.

Looking at the plan of Erin Hills provided by Charlie makes me scratch my head for a few of the holes that were built there, but I guess I need to see the course by myself, with all of its subtleties, to judge whether the existing routing for the site is the best one that could have been built there....

This being said, I am happy I participated in the process nonetheless. 

YP

[PPallotta]

Tom - thanks for mentioning that it was hard for you to judge the work from sketch-up; it's been impossible for me.  What I also found impossible (and gave up trying) was doing a routing on this site myself -- everything proved too hard for me, i.e. reading the topo map, envisioning anything more than 3 or 4 individual holes, the computer software, time management etc. (My compliments and congratulations to those who had the talent to complete the assignment).  I mention all this because I had a question about what Jim terms your use of "playing corridors".  From what I can tell, in many cases you routed the holes parallel to the elevation changes.  One of the things I'd tried to do in my failed attempt was to route the holes either perpendicular to those elevation changes or straddling them. Am I reading the topo/sketch-up basically right, i.e. did you choose to route mainly parallel to the changes? If so, was that a given, i.e. clearly the best choice for the site -- or was the choice partly influenced by the the kind/type of course that the client wanted there (e.g. a public, lots of rounds etc).  

Thanks
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

Generally, once a site gets to be moderately hilly, I prefer to have more contours which play along the slopes instead of always up and down them.  That may not look as interesting as "utilizing" the slopes more directly by going up and down them, but if the hills are 20 feet or more, the 3D computer model is going to underplay how tiring it will be to keep walking up those hills.  (If the hills are only 5-10 feet, then you might want to make more of them.)

I would think that way for any course I designed which I wanted to be walkable -- which, for me, is every course, public or private or whatever.

[Carl Nichols]

Tom, others:
I suspect it varies from site to site, but what's a typical amount of time for you to spend on a particular course before the owner has selected an architect/firm?  And, if you don't mind my asking, are you ever compensated for such work if you're not selected?
Thanks in advance,
Carl

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

There is no stock answer for that question -- it depends on the owner, and on how much we want that particular job.

The one extreme is Bill Coore, who will spend 10+ days on particular sites working on the routing for free, because he wants to know if there's a routing he is excited about BEFORE he's under contract to do the project.  At the other pole, there are architects who want to sign some sort of contract the moment they hear about a project, so they will at least make some money on the deal if it never happens (as many projects don't) or if eventually another architect elbows them out.  [The ASGCA's dictum that no architect should tamper with a project under contract also works toward many architects trying to sign something ASAP, even a preliminary contract, so they can tell everyone else not to tamper.]

For a lot of years I did any such work in fear that a potential client would want my routing, but would want to take it and get a "name" professional to sign on to the job, so I was very careful about giving away any routing information for free.  Eventually, I got to the position where I was more confident the client would want to retain me, and it got easier to do more work on the front end, whether or not they could afford to pay at that time. 

In the case of Erin Hills, I did get paid for the routing shown, not by Mr. Lang but by a previous party who had optioned the land and tried to sell memberships in a golf club on the same site.  Unfortunately, that venture was not successful, and the client (a married couple with six kids and no prior experience in golf!) let their option expire after investing a couple hundred thousand dollars of their own money on the option, engineering, marketing, and architects' fees.

I would be VERY wary of a potential client who set up an involved interview process and wanted to pay mutiple firms to do potential routings for the site, because that would give them license to borrow from all of our work for a nominal cost.  Figuring out the best routing for a site probably consumes 20-25% of my total time on a project, and no client is going to pay that much to multiple firms to make it worth our time. 

Also, of 30 clients that I've had, there are less than ten of them who could really judge the merits of different designs by looking at various plans (as in this contest) -- so even if I was confident that I could come up with the best plan, I'm not confident that the client would choose it.  Mr. Lang looked closely at my plan for Erin Hills and interviewed me, but he chose to work with Hurdzan/Fry/Whitten because he hit it off with Mike Hurdzan personally.  He also implied that the success of Pacific Dunes might have meant that I didn't need to try so hard on his project, which was a misjudgment on his part.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Interesting that you think ASGCA has that much effect. I have seen/heard of several "contract tampering" lawsuits in my day but none directly involved ASGCA members that I recall. If nothing else, its no more common than in any othe field.

Some Native American Tribes have paid nominal sums for upfront routings.  I did have a bit of a flap at one when another "contestant" heard that I saw his and had a few similar holes.  I got to thinking about whether that would have bothered me (Its not uncommon to see similar hole corridors since many just cry out to be used on a good site) and concluded it would not.  Winning a job is always great no matter how (legally) acquired, and losing always hurts more than a bit.  In the instance noted above, the tribe didn't really have to do too much to DQ the complainer - they paid in efforts to try to secure a better effort, but he didn't even visit the site and his routing showed it, taking out the main entry, some campgrounds and other facilities and clearly demonstrating he hadn't thought about the project at all.

On a recent "competition" we won the job with a free routing (and other things) As it happened, I had put the maintenance area in a secluded corner.  One of the committee commented that someone had put it right up front where it was the first thing you saw!  Of course, THAT kind of thing they can see.  Some of the other stuff - double fw, one huge green etc are mostly for show and certainly don't all make the final routing and plan.

[Garland Bayley]

I think this routing has a very interesting use of the esker (ridge deposited by a stream running under a glacier). However, I still think I had the best use for it.
Of course I'm just a silly mountain hillbilly that likes to walk up and down hills while playing golf (but not green to tee)

[Charlie Goerges]

Please tell me you read the Esker discussion!

[Carl Nichols]

Tom, Jeff:
Thanks very much for the responses; very interesting.
Carl

[Jason Topp]

This program does a terrific job of revealing countour and its effect on golf holes which is difficult to decipher from photographs.  For example - many of the angled fairways also have some slope that would help a more conservative tee shot kick around the corner (assuming firm, fast fairways).

The other thing I kept thinking about when looking at the holes was how much they would be impacted by wind.  Were there any assumptions about prevailing winds?

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

Prevailing winds at Erin Hills are generally from the southwest (straight into the teeth of #8 on the plan above).  But, you can have north and south winds there pretty commonly, so you can't just think about one prevailing wind and discount the others completely.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom, Here are the comments by Judge. Not all judges made comments on every entry.


Tommy Naccarato

“Routing leave a lot to be desired. Just too many greens and tees in close proximity to other golf holes, making them susceptible to open shots coming in while on the tee. It's a good use of land, but ultimately, I fear that the routing would have me scratching to figure out which hole was which.”




Mike Nuzzo

“Professional looking”





Yannick Pilon:

Design 003
The routing hugs the land fairly well with a couple of awkward transitions or long walks.  I am not sure that a non-returning eighteen is the best way to go on this site.  I believe that two returning nines could have easily been created by using the features of the land efficiently.  In this climate, a golf course owner or operator will need all the rounds he can get to make a profit, even the nine-hole rounds!  The location of the first tee and the eighteenth green make it tough to design a clubhouse area that will be efficient while still showcasing the golf course adequately.
Favourite holes are no. 3, 15 and 16, even if they could still be improved with a couple of strategic bunkers.  Overall, this is a very decent routing, but it lacks a little strategic interest to create a really good course.

GENERAL NOTES:

•   Hole no. 1 offers a good start with an uphill hole which is not too steep.  I like the way that the bunkers are stacked up along the edge of the slope.  Simple, but efficient.

•   Hole no. 2 is a good hole with an interesting drive to a diagonal fairway.  However, there is no great advantage for successfully cutting the corner of the dogleg.  Maybe the second fairway bunker should have been closer to the green site to have a bigger impact.

•   Hole no. 3 appears to be a very nice hole that will fit nicely in its natural setting.

•   Hole no. 4 offers a nice par three with an interesting green site.  Quite penal, but still nice.

•   Hole no. 5 is another interesting hole that sits well in the landscape.  However, I am not sure if it is a par four or a par five.  Nonetheless, I like the way the bunkers create many options and ask golfers to navigate between them to reach the green.  The bunker that sits short and right of the green offers an interesting approach shot down to a green that will be slightly blind from the fairway.

•   Hole no. 6 feels a bit boring in this large expanse of flat terrain. I would have liked to see some bunkering added here to generate interest.

•   There is a very long walk between holes no. 6 and 7, and this tends to break the flow of the course which was mostly good since the beginning.  I like the idea of the wide fairway split by a bunker, but I am not sure the strategy works out properly, considering that the bunker on the right side of the green does not entice golfers to go for the right part of the fairway.  It is not clear what was intended here....

•   I am not sure I understand the strategy of hole no. 8, if there is one.  The hole feels a bit awkward to me on that piece of the property and devoid of real interest on the tee shot.

•   The transition from the green of hole no. 8 to hole no. 9 is again a bit awkward.  The golfers might skip the hole entirely if they are not careful!  Hole no. 10 seems to naturally follow hole no. 8.  However, hole no. 9 has potential, even if the bunkering appears to be disjointed from the green site.

•   The tee shot of hole no. 10 is not well defined.  It will be blind from the forward tee and the landing zone is tough to determine from all the tee decks.  The second half of the hole is featureless and would benefit from the addition of a bunker complex or two.

•   Hole no. 11 would most likely be more interesting if it was straighter over the linear mound that frames the right side of the hole.  The bunker on the left would add more interest on the inside corner of the dogleg, as opposed to act as a target bunker to frame the outside corner of the dogleg.

•   Holes no. 12, 13, 14 & 15 offer a strong routing, but their strategic interest appears to be limited in the present configuration.

•   Hole no. 13 would be a little more interesting with a fairway zone extending behind the green to allow balls to roll back on the putting surface.

•   It would have been nice to have a wider fairway on the right in the landing zone of hole no. 14.  It would give players a chance to go around the green side bunker on their second shots and bounce the ball onto the green surface.

•   Hole no. 15 is nicely integrated in the natural topography of the golf course.  However, I would have liked to see a wider fairway in the second landing zone to compensate for the heavy slope in the fairway.
•   Hole no. 16 is my favourite hole on this routing. It appears to be almost drivable, but semi-blind.  The hole could use more bunkering to help define the tee shots and penalize golfers that will fail to reach the green on their tee shots, but overall, this seems to be a good hole.

•   Hole no. 17 is a disappointment after holes no. 15 and 16.  The tee shot from the back tee is totally blind to a green located in what appears to be a featureless area of the property.

•   The final hole is also a disappointment.  It appears to be a fairly straightforward hole with no real risk reward scenario that could add an exclamation point to the end of the round.  The green of hole no. 18 is also a good distance away from the tee of hole no. 1.  This makes it difficult to locate the clubhouse in an area that will be both practical, and visually interesting for golfers at the beginning and the end of their round.  Having a non-returning 18 makes it tough to create a good impression around the clubhouse area since there are less golf features to showcase for the golfers. 

Best Holes:   Hole no. 5 –Par 4-5?
Hole no. 16 – Par 4

[Tom_Doak]

On the asssumption that Tommy N will someday look in on this, I have to say it -- the Emperor has no clothes!!!

Yannick, I think you are way too focused on "strategy" in your opinions, which it seems can only be created by bunkering. 

To take one prominent example -- the eighth hole on the routing I did had one of the best and most severe green sites on the whole property, with a steep drop to the right and a perfect little swale on the left.  And, the hole was 440 yards.  The tee shot gave the option of laying back with a flat lie and a long approach, or trying to drive over the crest of a slope, leaving a shorter but sharply uphill approach with a poor view of the green.  To me, adding "strategic" fairway bunkers on a hole like that would be a giant case of overkill.

[Charlie Goerges]

I understood your reasoning on number 8, but Yannick made a point about #7 that I'm curious to get your take on. In the image below it looks like if you take the risk to get to the upper fairway area and make it, you'll be approaching over a bunker whereas if go the safe route, no bunker. Is it just that the upper fairway will have such a short approach and better visibility that the bunker won't be a problem?





The hole does look "right" to me though because, like I said, when I've looked at these things I wasn't as concerned about shot by shot strategy. I like things to look naturalistic, fun, inviting.


Charlie

P.S. I just now realized that I forgot to include the 12th hole in my esker discussion. I am such a stupid.

[Dan Moore]

This routing overlay might be helpful in this discussion.  I'm just starting to compare what Tom did to some of my photos.  Interesting how Tom's routing gets holes moving in more directions to take advantage of the wind.  I also like how the 15th threads through the narrow opening used for the Dell hole green.  The par 3 3rd from the top of the hill over the mound to a greensite beyond that chosen by HFW for the 12th looks cool too, thoughI have to say the HFW 12th is one of my favorite holes. 

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

That seventh hole is a fairly short par-4.  I am not sure about your screen shot of it -- doesn't look like the same angle as I put the tees, where (in plan view) you either have to carry the right-hand bunkers or hit a fade past them, or you'll wind up in the hollow or into the bunkers through the fairway.

If you take on the bunker on the right, you're rewarded with a level view of the green -- you still have a bunker to carry in front, but with a 9-iron in your hand, I don't think of that as much of a hazard.

If you are a short hitter, or just play sloppily down the left, you have pretty much a blind approach (only seeing the top of the flag) out of a hollow.  I don't think anybody would take that angle deliberately.  With the blind shot, I didn't see any point in bunkering this line of approach ... the people down there are just trying to make 4, and the green target for this hole would have been relatively small, so it's okay with me they don't have to carry a bunker in front.  That's a great example of how I see "risk and reward" a lot differently than some people do. 

Your question is a two-dimensional view, ignoring the value of the hollow in making the hole plenty difficult for the average guy.

[Charlie Goerges]

So it works about how I thought, the hollow or what I thought of as the lower fairway is a hazard. I know my contour lines didn't pick up a lot of the smaller changes in elevation and so has the effect of "smoothing" out everything a bit, and the depth of that hollow may have been one casualty of my process.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom, I was also meaning to ask whether any of the holes in sketchup come anywhere close to looking like they should have? Or how you imagined they might look? (notwithstanding the limited number of images and the fact that I used a foreshortened view that makes distant things appear larger than they would in reality)