[RJ_Daley]

TD, don't some course design features that you know from experience will be tinkered with by maintenance personnel's natural inclinations, beg for the archie to leave post completion written directives?   As you explain above, you seem to know the tendancy of maintenance to narrow an approach and obscure in HOC a subtle or not so subtle nob or contour that you meant to be part of the approach strategy/options presented to the player.  So, won't you at least leave directives that it is your intent as the designer that the hole be maintained in HOC and rough lines a certain way.  That may not be followed, but you are both on record, and the future owners/committees have something to refer to that is unequivocal in years to come when the questions are raised by more astute players/members.

On a different note, I wonder if the formal documentation papers, written descriptions and drawings to acquire certain permits aren't under appreciated as to their extensiveness and demand on the archie's time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

From my experience, those gca supplied maintenance manuals would end up being long lost discoveries decades later.  Supers change, and almost like new coaches, bring in new people and a new "system." In some ways, if the course doesn't look different, they won't be seen as doing their job.  So, they have their own motives to change things a bit, not to mention, many design features just prove difficult to maintain and they take them to some easier level of maintenance, perhaps unknowingly. 

TD's example of making knobs rough is a typical one. In general, knobs and bumps are easier to maintain at higher hieghts of cut.  And, the "typical" design mode is to use mouds as mowing cues, so if a gca's tendency is to include them in the fw, the second or any subsequent super may not know that and probably doesn't call or consult a maintenance book left behind.

Permitting does take a lot of time in many cases. My agreements have a time limit in the basic fee, and if we get in protracted permitting, extra time is a supplemental service. I have gotten over $100K for permitting on two projects, when $5-10K is standard in the agreement.  I think the bigger question is, permitting wise, is whether aerial photography, et all will be extensively used to monitor that courses are maintained in perpetuity to the permitted configurations.  I wonder if there will ever come a time when remodels are compared to the original permits to stop them.....

Lastly, Mac has some good points.  There are clients, like munis, where the gca is deemed to generally have a conflict of interest - most of us are presumed to want to build a championship course as a monument to our abilities, when the client may very well want a golf factory, or at best, interesting but not difficult pleasant test of golf, especially if the gca hasn't had a new course in a while.  It seems odd that building the very best course possible would be against the design brief, but it often is.

[Dan Herrmann]

How much is designing for the prevailing wind an obscure/underappreciated part of architecture?

How about the sun's position in the sky? (for example, ensuring the 18th hole dosn't play into a setting sun)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Not sure about how underappreciated they are, but they are factors.

Most know, I think that a clubhouse at 12 noon to 6PM on the site tends to yield the best sun orientations, with western setting CH areas tending to produce the worst sun problems.

I have written about designing for the wind a lot, here and elsewhere.  Any gca who has worked with a Tour Pro has heard the mantra of canting targets with the jprevailing wind to make shots more doable.  Many gca's who haven't worked with Tour Pros seem to pay less attention to this aspect, at least in my experience.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff,
Are fairways (at least the landing areas) canted too?

[JESII]

Jeff,

Cant targets with the prevailing wind or into it?

Does 'Cant' mean tilt (as in slope) or angle (as in diagonal)?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan and Jim,

I try to cant (angle) both fw and greens and superelevate (high side on the upwind side) them with the wind where ever possible. Now, that usually comes out to about 2/3 the time, which I figure is fine.  Even with strong prevailing winds, the wind does blow other directions some of the time.

I would think most players who can work it both ways would tend to ride the wind even more on tee shots for distance, while more would tend to hold approach shots against the wind.

There is a lot of mystical talk about designing for the wind, but in a nutshell, the above is what most gca's are talking about.  There is also some consideration to which way the long holes run, although I have always favored the longest holes running into the wind to make them more memorable for their difficulty.  Sometimes long holes downwind and short holes into the wind results in a lot of holes that play the same length, regardless of scorecard.

RTJ II wrote of designing for "Storm Winds" but my recommendation to the Owner on that is a well stocked bar, because if a storm comes up, I am heading to the house til it blows over.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I try to cant (angle) both fw and greens and superelevate (high side on the upwind side) them with the wind where ever possible. Now, that usually comes out to about 2/3 the time, which I figure is fine.  Even with strong prevailing winds, the wind does blow other directions some of the time.

That sounds like you are helping the better player and hurting the average player
I think you have too many formulas
Cheers

[Dan Herrmann]

btw - thanks for this great discussion..

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike N,

I fail to see how. If the wind is blowing left to right, average players shots will tend to drift with the wind.  Thus, angling the green to the right helps them, too, no?

The truth of the matter is, after designing 50 courses, its impossible to NOT have a few ideas of what works. We will see how you feel about it when you get there.

Cheers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, I was reading one of my new digital golf mags and saw this article about how a green is threatened by some bad construction techniques dating to 1928.  I guess besides the subtle tie ins, one under appreciated aspect of design is simply the actual construction and how things affect the course years down the line if you cut corners.

For example, on wooded sites, its important to bury trees in non critical areas because they might settle.  You must also avoid irrigation and drain lines that might go through. Compaction or lack thereof always shows up later and must be fixed.  How about engineering walls and bridges to stay up, not block flood waters, etc.....

Even mundane things like designing to balance cuts and fills for efficiency is rarely understood (and if you talk to contractors, that usually includes architects!)  Earthmovers like to move scraper dirt less than about 1000 feet tops to speed up production.  So, most holes, or hole pairs or triangles, must be graded to balance in that limited area, which affects the final design. 

Any green, tee or bunker complex that can be built with dozers without hauling in extra dirt or hauling it away is a construction plus and is usually easy enough to do.  However, there are times when I need to convince the builder of the need to raise a green a few more feet for visibility, intended punishment or bunker depth, air movement or other design reason.  If you see a hole where it cries out for a little more, it could very well be that there was no way the gca could find the dirt to build it economically.

http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/2009/dec/26/part-duncan-park-course-failing/

[archie_struthers]

 



The  flow the flow  is the yin and yang of great architecture    not too hard all in  a row nor too easy  a gentle walking hole followed by the hardest climb   etc etc etc   

[Sean_A]

I don't know ho obscure they are, but transitions are terribly under-appreciated.  Just looking at pix of desert courses convinces me that archies still have quite a ways to go in this area. 

Ciao

[John Shimp]

Firm, repellent greens that resist easy scoring is underappreciated in architecture.  My son just finished playing the donald ross jr at pinehurst #1.  Course is rated 67.6 with a 114 slope at par 70 but the course played harder than most 6500 yd courses with 71 ratings and 130+ slopes.  Reason is most less than perfect iron shots don't hold where they land and chipping/putting is exacting.  Must think your way around this little track. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()