[Sean_A]

Lets assume that the land which courses are built run the gambit from 1-10 on the land movement scale.  1 being dead flat (New Zealand maybe a 2?).  10 being OTT crazy - so crazy an archie is obliged to loads of fairway and green grade work (I am thinking mountain courses).  5 being pert near the a perfect piece of terrain for golf - some flat areas, some slightly crazy areas and stuff in between (maybe Rye or Deal?).

Now, my contention is that archies start out further toward 1 than the average GCAer.  Meaning, most archies might look at a 7 or 8 on the scale and treat it like a 10.  This could mean lots of fairway grading (I am assuming this sort of terrain will require a decent amount of green grading), containment bunkers, framing bunkers (to off-set blindness) and whatever else archies do to make their impact felt.  My bet is that many GCAers would be just fine if some of that crazy land was just left and perhaps the rough kept low.  

Is there an inherent difference as to how the GCA punter looks at architecture compared to the archie?  Do folks get the feeling that if most archies had an inch with this sort of thing that they just couldn't help taking three if not six?  If this is the case, is this the reason that so many courses fail to distinguish themselves from the crowd despite archies knowing that they need to allow the natural land to define the character of courses?

I have gotten to know Colt's work fairly well these past 10 years and if I was going to criticize the man's work its that much of it is the same.  I see the same patterns repeated on courses.  Now, some of this undoubtably is due Colt's huge body of work.  Its tough to generate diversity with so many courses and in effect, in such close proximity.  This may be a reason a find I like Colt's redos quite a bit.  He seemed to be sympathetic to blending old with new - a trait I quite admire.  

Anyway, this isn't meant as a slam on Colt and so I don't want this thread to head down that justification path.  I was just using Colt as an example.  Where as I might use Fowler as an example of the opposite of Colt.  Fowler seems to have created a wide diversity of courses - I think because he allowed the land to dictate the design more than say Colt or Dr Mac.  Sure, part of this could be that Fowler's portfolio isn't large, but at some point, especially when we look at the similarity of courses today, one must wonder.  

Anyway, I would like some replies (especially from archies) because I could be all wet!

Ciao      

[JESII]

Sean,

There's alot there to think about, but my first reaction going through was that it's awfully easy to sit behind our computers and suggest we'd do it different/better.

For example, the "10 - OTT crazy terrain" is probably worse and less usable for golf than the "1 - dead flat" piece yet you state that GCA'ers would trend higher on your continuum than the professionals would. You go on to indicate that tendency is a potential reason so few golf courses stand out. Standing out, by definition, means only a few will do so and I would suggest land decisions are one of dozens of reasons a course does, or does not, stand out. We've had that conversation many times.

My response to your contention/question is that in Golf Course Architecture, the architect must have a vision and the fortitude to stick to it...which sort of agrees with Tom Doak's comment about the most important person in the success of a golf course project is the client.

[George Pazin]

Now, my contention is that archies start out further toward 1 than the average GCAer.  Meaning, most archies might look at a 7 or 8 on the scale and treat it like a 10.  This could mean lots of fairway grading (I am assuming this sort of terrain will require a decent amount of green grading), containment bunkers, framing bunkers (to off-set blindness) and whatever else archies do to make their impact felt.  My bet is that many GCAers would be just fine if some of that crazy land was just left and perhaps the rough kept low.

If I understand you correctly, this is probably my #1 complaint about golf courses: too much smoothing out of the land. I think it all gets back to the notion of fairness; it strikes many as unfair if two shots end up 5-10 feet apart and one yields a flat stance and the other an awkward stance. (And, to further the conundrum, as Tom D has pointed out, these same folks don't seem upset when one's wet and one's dry).

Re: Colt - two quick thoughts: 1) could it be the maintenance practices (and I include "restoration" attempts in this) have resulted in the similarity you note? 2) I think there is an inherent tendency in artistic field to have some sort of similarity; if one favors the result, it's called style, if one doesn't, it's called boring repetition.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

First, I have to tell you that I am having trouble deciding who to root for tonight, since the Wings and Sharks are two of my least fave teams, but I think I will go with the Wings.  Good luck!

Second, yes that question(s) pose a lot to think about, and I think its a great topic.  That said, the questions are formed IMHO about as well as a post oatmeal bowel movement, but when I have more time tonight, I will try to answer in detail.  I think I know what you are driving at, but in general after routing, I look at each hole in terms of "dirt I NEED to move" (i.e.,
* increasing pitch for drainage,
* flattening fw to hold shots (generally under 7% cross slope)
* cutting for site lines and vision,
* cutting in relatively level green and tee pads on sloping ground,
* and sometimes, just to generate fill for those things even if the land didn't require this fw to be graded)

Then I consider dirt I may LIKE to move, including support for bunkers, mounding, fw contours for play, like speed slots, etc.  I am usually conscious of meeting back to natural grade as quickly as possible.  In apply a hole by hole match of my design principles to the actual land, I hope that each hole turns out unique, rather than scraping off all the topsoil and trying to grade everywhere, which I think is your basic premise with modern gca types.  As always, I could be wrong.

BTW, yes, I doubt I would leave a lot of flat out crazy contours in fw areas, although I would leave some.  After time, when your clients tell you that all balls collect in one area causing problems, you learn that in some cases, flatter is better, regardless of the aesthetic appeal of wild contours.  And that is just what happens in many cases, since gravity is the law - too many balls collect in the low points and its a maintenance problem, rather than a "fairness issue" whereby two different shots all get the same result.  That said, I do agree more golfers probably want to see some differentiation in their shots, with good getting good results and bad, well getting slightly less good results for me, and really, really terrible results for my opponent!

[George Pazin]

Sean,

First, I have to tell you that I am having trouble deciding who to root for tonight, since the Wings and Sharks are two of my least fave teams, but I think I will go with the Wings.  Good luck!

Today we are all Canadiens! But not Friday night.

[George Pazin]

bumping, hoping some archies and others in the industry will add.

[Andy Hughes]

Today we are all Canadiens! But not Friday night.

Not all of us George 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I'm back, and hope to get this in without disturbing your pre-game ritual... Are you dining on Octopus tonight? Or Shark? (or Wings at Hooters because you don't get the game on the telly at home?)

I re-read your post and offer this -

Yes, the tree house would be willing to let wild contours stay to a greater degree than a professional archie.  As I hinted above, we all have experience of how the wild contours don't work for Owners on an everyday basis, whereas a gca buff might play those contours once for the experience, and never know what troubles they may cause.

Not to mention, that if the buff was somehow involved in his first design, he might very well want to do as much spectacular and quirky holes as possible, whereas the seasoned gca is looking more for balance, practicality, etc., unless his client brief is to build a world class golf course (which it usually isn't, and even if it was, there would be some question as to how quirk, wild fw, etc., play in to that vision.  But, any newbie in my office tended to put a lot of great ideas into their first project, perhaps too many for the good of the course.

Overall, despite some differences in view about what needs to be done with the land to make it a playable golf course, I think the buff and the gca would look at a nicely cleared piece of land and probably initially rate it the same as raw land.  Like porn, we know it when we see it!  We are not predisposed to leveling it any more than we need to for golf to be played, although, I would agree that many times, whether due to CAD, hand drawn plans the gca can't think in 3D as well as they should.  And, as noted, the dozer guys are building with equipment meant to build long, relatively straight grades, so even the best ideas may not have always translated.

As to sameness, I think I have seen similar fw cuts at Beverly and White Bear out of Ross. It would be interesting to find the records and see if the same tractor operators were there on both projects!  One of my great gca learning experiences was, BTW, had at Prairie Dunes, on the 10th hole.  It was there that I noted that Maxwell had tied the green surround contours back as quickly as possible, and they reflected the angles of the existing grades more than the green itself.  One of the real problems with green plans and building is that gca and dozer guys both tend to focus on relating the contours to the green edge, rather than the surrounding topo, if that makes sense. 

Fazio, BTW also does a GREAT job of maintaining the existing edge contours and blending them.  At the same time, he is as guilty as anyone of believing that most fw ought to be a gentle valley of a certain slope, to keep balls in play, but not have them all roll right back to the exact middle, so his hole middles get a certain degree of repitition.

I am not sure if that gets any closer to answering your question, but it is my thoughts right now.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts, good thread, nice thread title, Sean.

I think architects see terrain differently than the rest of us do, and not only in the ways we've often discussed around here before.  We see terrain and imagine playing a golf hole there; they see terrain and imagine creating/building a golf hole there.  Our vision might be broader and more all-encompassing, but will prove (maybe more often than not) to lack practicality and maybe even long-term playability. Their vision has both elements, the creative and the practical, but for this very reason is more focused (or, in negative terms, narrow).  Generally, I think nothing can be done about this, nor should it, i.e. for anyone who actually likes playing golf, ideas are fine but vastly more important are the built versions of those ideas, golf holes. But I do find myself thinking sometimes that many of our most experienced architects might benefit by occassionally tapping into their "Beginners' Mind".

Peter
PS - For several years I wrote one hour television biographies for our national broadcaster - with some success I suppose (good ratings and reviews, a nomination for our equivalent of the Emmy). But I found it a frustrating period, and one of the reasons was that -- from my perspective -- the experienced directors and editors I usually worked closely with had fallen too much in love with the then-new technology, eg digital/computer editing machines, post production magic.  They were, from my perspective, more focussed than they realized on what they could "put on the screen" via that technology -- the special shot they could get with that high-end camera (or fix later in post) and the effects they could get with the expensive Avid editing system. And so I often found myself trying to slowly think through a series of ideas/potential ideas to make a tricky part of story flow well and communicate while the director and editor were rushing excitedly to 'solve the problem' via a 15 frame dissolve between two killer shots.  Hey, maybe they were right and I was wrong, but with the technology able to 'solve problems' so quickly, I'm not sure we ever spent enough time grappling with ideas.    

[JESII]

Peter,

Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I think that would be THE goal, and a wonderful ideal to strive for.  I just think it's a very, very hard thing to do, for anyone (not just architects), and I think that, ironically, the more success you've had the harder it gets.

Imagine yourself standing on the 1st tee at a tourament you've won before, and suddenly deciding (and being willing to decide) that you're not going to put your standard swing on your standard driver as you've done 1000s of times before, but instead you're going to pull out a 2 iron and swing it like Lee Trevino, and all because you just got a case of "Beginner's Mind". Now, I can't imagine you doing that, but me, on the other hand, I do it all the time, I re-vamp my swing yearly, monthly even, at the drop of a hat.  Like just last week, for example, I started swinging like Fuzzy Zoeller. (PS -- And made my first ever EAGLE!!!)     

[JESII]

But Peter,

Have you seen any still shots of Bobby Jones as a frail 8 year old boy? His body positions were nearly identical as a 28 year old winner of the impregnable quadrilateral...for what it's worth...congratulations, by the way...I sense many more in your future.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?

How would you feel if your airline pilot made an announcement that he was flying with a beginners eye, or that he wanted "try something, so fasten your seatbelts?"

[JESII]

Peter,

Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?

How would you feel if your airline pilot made an announcement that he was flying with a beginners eye, or that he wanted "try something, so fasten your seatbelts?"

Are you serious?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Sort of, but also being humorous, of course.

We have had many discussions about whether a gca ought to (or even can) have a blank slate when starting a design.  I doubt you can design 50 golf courses and not come into a new design with at least some idea of what might work.  Nor do I think the Owner hires you to ignore all your past experience to try something "really new."  They hire us for our experience, although they do want some vision within that experience. 

In general, the gca is a professional (and one with certain legal responsibilities for health, safety and welfare, albeit not quite as life threatening in most cases as airline flying)  Gca geeks tend to forget that, thinking only of creating the next great hole/course in a conceptual vacuum.  But, in reality, the job is to create the next great course within certain parameters, such as building to meet ADA regulations as discussed in another thread.  And gca geeks tend to buy into the old "master builder" idea but in reality, getting a golf course built is a real team effort, with lots of parameters that require experience.

No doubt, maintaining a fresh viewpoint is important, though.  I think most of us love the profession enough to do that, but its also important to maintain a certain professional detachment as well to get the job done.

[JESII]

Jeff,

We're on the same page, please read that sentence of mine again and contrast it to the flip side of the GCA Professional beginning a project by building all of the regulatory issues first and exclusive of any golf consideration and then backfilling in the features that make each hole what it is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Sadly, for every project where there are none of those, there are 100 where that is exactly what the gca has to do - the golf course is there to sell houses, provide flood detention, make a productive use of an old landfill, etc.  As we all know, its chances of greatness are shot down right out of the box, but that is the real world of most gca's.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess it's true then, that we make our own reality.

Jeff, I know not every site is Pacific Dunes -- not even for me -- but do you really think there are 100 sites where engineering has to come first, for every one where you can route most of the course as the land lays?

[George Pazin]

I guess it's true then, that we make our own reality.

Jeff, I know not every site is Pacific Dunes -- not even for me -- but do you really think there are 100 sites where engineering has to come first, for every one where you can route most of the course as the land lays?

My home muni, built in the 30s, is about as hilly a course as I've seen (excluding actual mountain courses) and I don't think they thought engineering first back then. I'd rather play it than many or most of the modern courses in the Burgh.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Well, I just picked a round number to illustrate the point. Most would be mixed, I would suppose.

My last 3 new designs

Firekeeper - almost zero engineering issues, but we did have to avoid impacting any streams to avoid permits.  We also had to locate the clubhouse based on which of two providers was cheaper and cheaper to connect, but otherwise, a free hand.

Bridges of Preston Crossing - Sell some houses baby, and provide a nominal amount of flood detention (mostly impacted the 18th hole where we enlarged a pond.  (Note: Eventually had to pay an engineer to survey the lake after I made some field changes to save some trees.  It turns out my revised design, which I engineered came out something like 0.02% short of the required detention. Luckily, the regulators let them take one swipe with a dozer to add some capacity, but that might not have happened in a more strict state.

Weeks Park (total redo) - Add a driving range near the parking lot for off the street revenue, balance C and F because it'st all flood plain, don't block views of surrounding houses.

Sand Creek Station - Sell some houses, baby, and add numerous ponds (mostly off tees to stay well out of normal play) to provide retention for 600 acre development and then some.  Also, locate clubhouse to allow for circulation within a triangle of busy railroad tracks.  Also, avoid high water table areas with routing.  Figure out how to keep holes in active flood plain of Sand Creek from being damaged (We had to study what kind of floods it has - luckily it was a high volume, but slow moving creek.  Had it been another kind of creek, our design solution might have been very different.

My only point is that there are always some engineering issues.  Not all of them make us NOT use the land and contour, so its not an either or choice. But they do have impacts.

[Peter Pallotta]

But Peter,

Have you seen any still shots of Bobby Jones as a frail 8 year old boy? His body positions were nearly identical as a 28 year old winner of the impregnable quadrilateral...for what it's worth...congratulations, by the way...I sense many more in your future.

Thanks much, Jim. From your mouth to god's ear....

I didn't know that about Bobby J, and your example helped me to better understand what you'd asked in the previous post. I think we may be thinking of Beginner's Mind a bit differently, but yours is the more plausible one (as evidenced by your exchange with JB)

Peter

[George Pazin]

Re: originality, I think it is very hard to be consistently original in any business that is remotely artistic. I had a friend who worked for me for a little while, when he was between jobs. He is super talented, and would come up with unbelievable designs giving minimal input. Unfortunately, every time a client came in to look at his work, they ended up changing it back to "text arched above appropriate sports graphic". Given that experience, I can't help but sympathize with the designer who short cuts the intermediate stage and goes straight for what he believes the client and the end user want. That's generally what I do in my t shirt biz.

Still, I hope there are a few artists out there who remain obstinate...

[Tom_Doak]

"Consistently original" is a terrific objective, but you would have to be a very low-volume producer to keep to that standard.

As I've said before, originality is also difficult in the world of commercial art, because your clients probably loved some other course of yours they played and they will ask you for similar things.

But, the way to be original in golf architecture is to use the land as you find it.  I understand what Jeff is saying and would agree that more than 50% of golf courses are driven by engineering and permitting and other "non golf" issues, but the more you let yourself be guided by an engineering mandate, the harder it is to be original.

[Bill_McBride]

TD,

Well, I just picked a round number to illustrate the point. Most would be mixed, I would suppose.

My last 3 new designs

Firekeeper - almost zero engineering issues, but we did have to avoid impacting any streams to avoid permits.  We also had to locate the clubhouse based on which of two providers was cheaper and cheaper to connect, but otherwise, a free hand.

Bridges of Preston Crossing - Sell some houses baby, and provide a nominal amount of flood detention (mostly impacted the 18th hole where we enlarged a pond.  (Note: Eventually had to pay an engineer to survey the lake after I made some field changes to save some trees.  It turns out my revised design, which I engineered came out something like 0.02% short of the required detention. Luckily, the regulators let them take one swipe with a dozer to add some capacity, but that might not have happened in a more strict state.

Weeks Park (total redo) - Add a driving range near the parking lot for off the street revenue, balance C and F because it'st all flood plain, don't block views of surrounding houses.

Sand Creek Station - Sell some houses, baby, and add numerous ponds (mostly off tees to stay well out of normal play) to provide retention for 600 acre development and then some.  Also, locate clubhouse to allow for circulation within a triangle of busy railroad tracks.  Also, avoid high water table areas with routing.  Figure out how to keep holes in active flood plain of Sand Creek from being damaged (We had to study what kind of floods it has - luckily it was a high volume, but slow moving creek.  Had it been another kind of creek, our design solution might have been very different.

My only point is that there are always some engineering issues.  Not all of them make us NOT use the land and contour, so its not an either or choice. But they do have impacts.

Jeff, did you have to pipe all those ponds together and outfall to a public waterway through a filter system?

That's what Jerry Pate's team had to do here when we rebuilt Pensacola CC after Hurricane Ivan in 2004.  It was quite a demanding design project.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, did you have to pipe all those ponds together and outfall to a public waterway through a filter system?

That's what Jerry Pate's team had to do here when we rebuilt Pensacola CC after Hurricane Ivan in 2004.  It was quite a demanding design project.

Yes, at least at Sand Creek, and that is beginning to be pretty standard procedure.  At Firekeeper, they wanted environmental sensitivity, but my initial proposal to run a drain pipe to pick up water parallel to the stream was met with some cost resistance.  In the end, we simply left a buffer stip of native vegetation, but in some cases, enviro reggies dictate that you try to grade to move water away from the creeks. In those cases, leaving the land as it lay is not an option, since you are trying to move water uphill at least a little.

In other designs, you will see a bunch of small ponds at Giant's Ridge, and in the case of Sand Creek, those same ponds worked out pretty well as the filters before dumping right into the creek.  And those ponds have a lot of native grasses to filter fw drainage before it gets to the pond.

I mentioned this here once, but I have started to see some suggestions that golf courses ought to be graded to less than 4% because at those slopes, chemical inputs are more likely to be deposited in turf rather than flow along to catch basins.......that will nail the leave the land as it is notion in more urban courses if that idea catches on. Of course my idea of adding lead to fertilizers to make them heavier, and thus drop out of flow, would probably be met with some kind of environmental resistance, too!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()