Architects and Engineers

[TEPaul]

It may be a stupid question but why would an architect/designer like C.B. MacDonald or William Flynn go into partnership with a civil engineer with no apparent background in golf course architecture?

Or maybe conversely why wouldn't any architect go into partnership with a civil engineer?

Although I believe I can understand what a civil engineer does regarding golf course construction, I'm not sure exactly where the architects primary function and the engineers primary function begin and end, particularly in the Golden Age Era when not as much earth moving and infrastructure engineering seemed necessary.

What did Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie and such do about the engineering end of golf construction? What was MacKenzie's American Construction Co, for instance, shapers, design foremen, detailmen and engineers?

What does Doak, Hanse, Coore & Crenshaw, Rees Jones and Fazio do for engineering talent, for instance?

Would a civil engineer, like Seth Raynor with no golf architecture experience prior to the building and creation of NGLA be responsible for some of the quite patent "engineered" or "manufacutered" look.

Obviously all arcthitectural companies need the services of a civil engineer, or do they? What do those mentioned above that don't appear to have engineering talent on staff do? Do they contract the engineering work out or do it themselves somehow?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Didn't George Bahto, on another thread, indicate that the site for NGLA needed extensive drainage and other site work ?

Who better to partner with than a civil engineer ?

Perhaps, Raynor became enamored with the process of turning land, even hostile land, into a great playing field.

Then perhaps he combined his engineering talents to the design knowledge he acquired from CBM, and as Jackie Gleason said, "Away we go"!

Seems like a natural association to me.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Raynor probably did do that but that doesn't really answer the question of why Flynn and MacDonald formed partnerships with civil engineers with none or little golf design experience and no one else seemed to do that.

It's said that Flynn planned to form a design partnership with Hugh Wilson but Wilson died rather unexpectedly so he formed a partnership with Howard Toomey a civil engineer. Hugh Wilson was certainly not a civil engineer.

[Alabama Redneck]

Its interesting to look at because with todays industry engineers can be a ace in your pocket when getting jobs and helping with the permiting etc.  Although it kinda goes back to the question on previous thread of being an architect or designer.

Many of todays designers have a landscape architecture degree and have dealt with minor civil engineering etc.

What was the conservation attitude of LI during NGLA conception.  It would be interesting to see what constraints had already been put in place.  We all know what "they" are like now to get a project approved.  Was LI conservation ahead of its time?  Was it because of its location or average income and education of the vacationers etc?

An engineer in my opinion is nice to have when you need to answer some questions preconstruction and during construction.  But Q&A is as far as I would go with their duties it will always take an imagineer to pull off the final product.

[Alabama Redneck]

Just wanted to add....Isn't kinda interesting that with todays large budgets and large design fees for architects that so many engineering problems seem to surface at the end of the day?  Makes me wonder sometimes where all the money goes and the theory that there are alot of holes somewhere with money thats been thrown down them...er pockets I mean.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Lido might be an example of why engineering skills were needed.

I suspect that the land being developed to build golf courses in the teens and twenties, was raw unused land, distant from the cities, and a civil engineer would be invaluable to the development of the land for golf course use.

It makes perfect sense to me.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

It is a natural relationship and important to any well designed course if you are handing the work off to a contractor.

[wsmorrison]

Does anyone out there have any information on Howard Toomey, Flynn's partner and a former employee at Merion Cricket Club?   I know that it has been said that Hugh Wilson brought them together.  I have been unable to locate information on this civil engineer 12 years Flynn's senior and the true role he played in the partnership.  Are any Toomey family members out there? The engineering demands at Indian Creek were considerable and appreciated.  It is important in understanding the courses of William Flynn to know more about Toomey.  Anyone with knowledge, I would be grateful if you would share it.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I would say you couldn't be more correct in citing The Lido as a project more in need of a really good civil engineer than any other. Given the earth moving restraints of that time and the amount of fill they handled at The Lido at that time it very well may have been the biggest and most complex "engineering" project in the history of golf course architecture.

Of course other later projects have certainly been greater quantity-wise (ex. Shadow Creek) but far more efficient machinery would vastly compensate for that!

Wayne Morrison makes a good point about required engineering planning and solutions at Toomey & Flynn's Indian Creek! He has in his possession a fascinating "grading plan" from Toomey & Flynn and it definitely appears that they constructed the entire "playable" golf course (all its  architecture) anywhere from 2'-35' above original grade of the entire island (the entire island itself being a total landfill).

[Neal_Meagher]

To use an engineer or not is generally a function of the site and the client's needs.  While there may be some design factories out there that employ a certain engineer on a regular basis for most projects, in my experience that is not the case.

Usually a project team is assembled that consists of the various consultants that are needed for that particular course. Many variables ranging from site constraints to permitting issues to technical matters are involved when choosing these consultants.  The project engineer is almost always a local firm that is most familiar with local conditions.

This is the most important factor in my opinion as varying locales require very different construction techniques and other particularities (that may not be a real word, though it should be). But it is almost always good if the engineer knows his role and doesn't fancy himself a golf course designer.

Which gets back to Tom Paul's original question about why wouldn't any architect go into partnership with a civil engineer?  
As I just alluded to, it must be clear who the primary golf course architect is, so the engineer must understand this division of work.  Also, not all projects call for one.

The best project I have worked on to date (which I can't talk about or I'd have to kill myself) did not employ an engineer as there was no compelling purpose for having one.  I did the drainage design (probably a mistake) and there were no other outstanding problems that would call on the services of an engineer.

On the other hand, I've worked on projects within flood plains where certain elevations had to be built to for greens, tees and bunkers with most other areas of the site calculated for flood overflow relative to downstream flooding.  Others have been city projects where the city engineers were basically overpaid inspectors who did not know golf anyway, but were there to safeguard their retirement benefits.

So, it just really depends, but the best case would be to only use an engineer, or any other specialty consultant, only when needed and not to overbuild and/or gold-plate a project.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Neal, I would think you would almost always need an engineer or engineers of various deciplines involved in design and construction process. I do not enjoy their life is either black or white approach in my oil and gas work, but they are a necessary evil. I mean you have geotechnical issues, drainage, water flow and regional drainage issues even on the most simple sites.

[ian]

Capilano often has 24" of rain in a month. A company called Kelly Ami out of Montreal was brought in to deal with this unusually high amount of rain. They use soil analysis to determine tile size and spacing to deal with unusually wet conditions. Capilano now has miles of 2" sand filled trenching draining fairways and roughs. Companies like this will work at many clubs without there members ever knowing.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

In most instances, if it is a golf only project a good architect does not need an engineer.  Certainly no engineer during construction.  Drainage design is very easy, although never perfect.  However, the aforementioned is not the real world. In Pennsylvania, the mind numbing work that must go into achieving erosion and sedimentation approvals requires extensive civil engineering, drawing, reviews, agency interaction, etc.  Erosion and sedimentation controls are exerting an enormous blight on the landscape, having the biggest impact on terrain, trees, and budgets.  The previous concerns for wetland impacts and other enivronmetal constraints are no match for the impact of erosion and sedimentation requirements.  There is no way to get a project through the approvals without a civil engineer.  Not because the golf course design needs them, but because the need for approvals requires them.  Furthermore, Townships hire their own engineers to review the plans, and the client pays for them as well.  It is a similar entrenched situation as it is with accountants and the tax system.  Engineers get fed on both ends.

[Bill_McBride]

This is certainly true of the kind of general (commercial) construction I do, and I'll bet it's true of golf course construction as well --- a well-connected local engineer can really be helpful when it comes to knowing how to expedite permitting.  I don't know why an out-of-town architect wouldn't hire a local engineer to help with that process.

[Jeff_McDowell]

I'll take the opposite position of Kelly. I can't think of a golf course that shouldn't use an engineer. As Kelly said drainage design is never perfect, but I think drainage is extremely difficult. This is precisely why an engineer's training and professional experience should be used.

Too many times golf course architects create standard rules for drainage such as a catchbasin every 150' or 250' or starting with 4" pipe, then upsizing to 8" pipe after while, etc. The simple truth is there is no rule of thumb for drainage. Every time you sort-of-kinda design a drainage problem you put your owner's money at risk.

If drainage was so easy why are there so many failures? If drainage was so easy why did I visit a high-end (high-profile architect) course last week that's about to loose a fairway because of poor drainage.

There is one simple answer. Golf course architects don't want to give up there design fee. (Those words have been spoken to me by more than one golf course architect.)

It's laughable to think that engineers are not necessary in modern design. If MacDonald, Flynn, and Thomas thought an engineer brought value to a project 80 years ago, don't you think an engineer would be even more valuable in our modern, highly technical, regulated world?

[Alabama Redneck]

I have to agree with McDowell.

When an architect admits drainage is easy he or she is missing something...er knowledge.  Drainage is probably the most difficult item in design to accomplish.  Any designer that says different is floatinig their own boat literally in the ground's water.

As for permiting I would also ask name why sedimentation is harder to deal with than wetlands.  Because lat time I checked wetlands and streams are the whole root to the sedimentation problem.  Wetlands might be the hardest situation to deal with as an internal problem on a jobsite/design.

I agree with McDowell in that many designers will not give the fee up but in reality too many feel they have the ability to understand drainage.

To truly conquer drainage a sepearate line item in the project budget should encompass post construction drainage.  Havent seen this on too may spreadsheets though.  Drainage can be worked out on paper all day but must be implemented in the field and then revised at least a year afer construction.  Very few if any architects leave any money in the pot for the super to play with after construction.  

Lets face it how many architects get out of the pickup truck when its raining to see the water flow?

[George Bahto]

Macdonald and engineer Raynor:

When Macdonald hired Seth there was no thought of Raynor doing drainage of the property - I think that was sort of an added bonus as time went on.

Raynor was hired as a surveyor to lay out the holes on the property.

The next step was Charlie, impressed with SR's talents, asked him to stay on and help built what Macdonald envisioned for   greens, fairways etc ...... it kept going from there.

I might add that, IMHO, I think Charles B. already had figured out how to drain that, not so great property at the time, before he bought the land.

[Tom Doak]

There are some golf course projects which require an engineer -- if wetlands or housing are involved -- but there are also many which do not, if the architect has good practical sense about drainage and such matters, and keeps the design simple.

I'm pretty sure Sand Hills was built without an engineer anywhere near the place.  Pacific Dunes almost was -- we had to consult an engineer to sign off on our drainage plan.  (He oversized it by a lot just to be extra-safe, as engineers usually do.)

In some locales the engineers exert themselves forcefully on the project -- they can't leave anything in the design alone, and they make it a major pain to build things which look natural.  That's why we'd consider not using one if we could get away with it.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Jeff, Redneck,

Granted I have very little knowledge about this topic, but I can see if you start with a 4" pipe anywhere on the site other than the greens and bunkers you are in for serious problems.  Like Tom said, if you keep things simple which I take to mean, respect and allow the sites natural drainage patterns to continue, modify the site's contours with extreme care, and in my experience drainage is pretty cut and dry, easy.  An architect shouldn't have to pay for an engineer out of his or her fee.  The client should pay for the engineering.  I have never heard of an architect assuming the fees for the engineer.  Great comment about post construction budgeting for drainage, do not forget sod and erosion mats.  Despite my naive and inexperienced comment about drainage being easy, the very best design and construction efforts will not fully comprehend all the drainage needs.  Architects that take fees for engineers then do not hire them, architects that create fairways that do not drain leaving the fairway dead, architects that ride a site in a pick up rain or shine, sounds to me like you have never met a good architect, you should pick better friends.

More sedimentation enters our streams from farming activites than what most developments could produce into a stream.  I have no way to prove this, but that is based upon my little experience and lack of knowledge.  Modest erosion control methods should be implemented at the outset, then the developer should post a $300,000 to $500,000 bond to do any cleanup during the term of buildout.  Either way the developer is out this money, but the big gain is the land.  No more ripping out woods to build big saucer bowls, no more raping hillsides to build saucer bowls.  No one wants to hurt the natural features of the land.  But, the measures developed by agencies and engineers to address one issue has created far more damage to the environment.  Someday it will change because the current system is bad.

Redneck, I spent a lot of years in the south, and the agency oversight up until 1995 when I left, was virtually nonexistent compared to the Northeast.  Up here, you take your capitalistic project in America, and you esstentially go to the Soviet Union to get your approvals.  It is an amazing process when you walk into a township meeting with high ideals, a genuine desire to do right by the land, and of course a very biased belief that golf is absolutely the best recreational asset any community could pray for, and you walk out 5 hours later feeling like a dirty, evil, capitalistic pig.  But, I may be wrong and lack any knowledge about this stuff, I just dabble in this as a hobby.

[Jeff_McDowell]

I agree with Tom and Kelly's notion of using good practical sense on some technical issues. However, I'm going to use an engineer's good practical sense over an architect any time I can.