News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Padraig Dooley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Design in the Field?
« on: October 25, 2011, 04:33:13 PM »
A question for the Architects and Construction guys.

How much does design change in the field? Is there many changes from the initial draft drawings to what's constructed? Is it just adjustments to make things fit in better? How often would a whole design philosophy be changed during construction?

There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun.
  - Pablo Picasso

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2011, 05:26:58 PM »
Padraig:

The answer to your question varies from architect to architect, and it depends entirely on the context in which you ask the question.  When you ask about their plan sets, most architects insist that their plans contain all the design info necessary to construct a great course; but if you imply that field work is important, then they stress that their field supervision includes a bunch of fine-tuning.

For myself, I have rarely drawn a plan of a green in the past ten years, as I've realized I'm better off just winging those details in the field with my associates later in the process, when we know the ground so much better.  It's not just "adjustements" ... it's that I am feel better and more creative when I am out on site.  I usually draw bunker locations as part of our routing plans, but I would guess that 30% - 50% of them are shifted before they're built ... probably because my associates seldom actually look at the drawings!

I don't know just how you mean your last question.  I can't imagine that any architect is really changing his design philosophy on the fly.  However, the style of the golf course might wind up completely different than you were thinking originally, if the first holes you build suggest something a bit different and you decide to run with that.  We always spend extra time on the first 4-5 holes tinkering around until we feel we've got a style we like.

Padraig Dooley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2011, 05:32:06 PM »


I don't know just how you mean your last question.  I can't imagine that any architect is really changing his design philosophy on the fly.  However, the style of the golf course might wind up completely different than you were thinking originally, if the first holes you build suggest something a bit different and you decide to run with that.  We always spend extra time on the first 4-5 holes tinkering around until we feel we've got a style we like.

Yes, Tom that last question should have been how often would the style of the finished product end up differently than you were originally thinking?

There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun.
  - Pablo Picasso

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 04:08:29 AM »
Padraig,

Depends on the model…. I presume you are asking this in the context of your own club….

Many who go by the design–tender–supervise model will state that their designs should change little in the field. Some will falsely state that they won’t change at all….

Tom has stated his method from a design-shape / design-build viewpoint…

Put it this way, (regardless of model), if today you are building a bunker and the architect is on site to determine that something could be done slightly differently on the ground than on his plan, then why wouldn’t you?... There is no extra work involved…. Hence the more time the architect spends on site, the better the final product…

You can argue that there is more change (real change that is with a cost impact rather than stylistic change) from an architect who only visits once a month and then wants a whole load reworked…

The EIGCA have a code of conduct that does not condone design-build because they believe there is a conflict of interest and that the method is open to abuse regards profiteering… Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with that conclusion, I’ll respect the point… Design-shape (Tom’s usual model) is different entirely in my opinion… It is usually just man-days on site, labour and plant with little material costs… To me this is the ideal… It means the design is fluid however so details may change significantly

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2011, 06:04:16 AM »
PD,

I've had the great pleasure this year of spending a few afternoons with Mike Clayton and/or his design partners Mike Cocking and Ashley Mead on site at my club, where they are re-designing the course.

The holes they have come close to completing are in many cases significantly different in the dirt to how they appear on the masterplan completed before they turned a sod, and in all cases the alterations add greatly to the hole.

It has been a massive eye-opener. Were I to develop a course myself, I reckon it would be great to simply allow a firm like theirs to settle on a routing and then let them solidify all the details in the dirt.

I'm not an architect, obviously, but just wanted to share that experience of seeing some quality operators doing their thing.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2011, 06:05:02 AM »
I never joined the architects association because of their design and build rule however I thought that rule was now relaxed. I think the problem in the UK and I suspect it is at  other places too, the planning authority want to see a detailed set of plans, if that is what gets planning then in theory it should not change. If as an architect you are signing agreements and falling foul of what you have planning for you may need to reinstate as per the drawngs at your cost.

It all depends on the degree of change and the importance of the change to the planner or if something else has gone wrong and that gets used as the scapegoat. I think if you make changes in the field then you need to be the designer and builder as 'one', you also need a great relationship with the client.

Every course I have changed something and sometimes I wished I had stuck to the first plan. A couple of times I have changed a routing over, perhaps played a 4, 3 sequence as 3, 4, I think 5 greens out of 18 changed from the plans is the least I have done although 1 course we did build 99% straight off the plan, I only made about 4 visits and I wished I had made more. Generally bunkering suffers by not having someone on site or very regular visits.

I dont think the philosophy of the design would really change in though.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Padraig Dooley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2011, 06:21:15 AM »
Ally

The question wasn't in regard to my own club, it was more a general question as to how architects operate in the field, in particular with regards to a new build rather than an existing course.

Design-shape seems to be better, why would someone not want to change in the field if a better opportunity presents itself?

Is there a case when the architect visits only once a month he asks for work to be redone just to justify his visit?

There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun.
  - Pablo Picasso

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2011, 07:01:25 AM »
Ally

The question wasn't in regard to my own club, it was more a general question as to how architects operate in the field, in particular with regards to a new build rather than an existing course.

Design-shape seems to be better, why would someone not want to change in the field if a better opportunity presents itself?

Is there a case when the architect visits only once a month he asks for work to be redone just to justify his visit?



Padraig,

Regards the first question, Adrian gave a good answer with respect to planning, something I neglected to mention...

Regards the second question, I don't think so. The amount of design supervision is part of his proposal and he will have enough decisions to make, input to give, sign-offs to agree without making wholesale change... In fact, the inclination would be to not change stuff because selling a cost change to the client isn't always the most appealing prospect... And because of that, some things he's not 100% happy with can be let slide...

Depends on the architect of course... Once a month is quite little too...

Incidentally, there are others with many more years golf experience than I who may give different thoughts... Although the principles above hold true through all forms of Design & Construction (my initial background)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:05:49 AM by Ally Mcintosh »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2011, 10:41:03 AM »
Padraig,
Seems different guys do it different ways.
But in the end it is an art form placed on a technically sophisticated canvas.  Some of the canvases take more work than others in order to accept the course.  The preparation of the canvas may require drawings in most instances but that can be an engineer or the architect.  Otherwise most quantities can be calculated from a good routing plan and the forethought as to how many sq ft of greens, tees etc one wishes to construct.
I don't do many drawings.  But I do a routing plan and try to follow it.  For me following a very detailed drawing would be like painting by numbers.   ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2011, 11:15:15 AM »
Is there a GREAT course that was designed on paper, computer etc., then placed on the ground, without "in the dirt" changes?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2011, 11:26:28 AM »
Is there a GREAT course that was designed on paper, computer etc., then placed on the ground, without "in the dirt" changes?

Every course will have some level of change on site, however minimal.... BUT

The majority of courses built (since the second world war anyway) have been drawn on paper first... that's because they are using outside contractors for all construction work... That doesn't mean it's the best model though...

So it depends on your definition of GREAT

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2011, 01:28:41 PM »
Is there a GREAT course that was designed on paper, computer etc., then placed on the ground, without "in the dirt" changes?

I have asked that question for twenty years and I've yet to get a proof positive answer from anyone.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2011, 02:57:54 PM »
It's even gone a step further in recent years with grading plans being scanned in to GPS which are then programmed in to the dozers... Even the shaper can then put his feet up and watch...

Actually I know little about that... Has it become common place, Tom... Do you know?

It seems a scary method of building a golf course to me...

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2011, 03:11:39 PM »
Is there a GREAT course that was designed on paper, computer etc., then placed on the ground, without "in the dirt" changes?

I have asked that question for twenty years and I've yet to get a proof positive answer from anyone.

What if your question was changed to great hole?
I'd answer yes.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2011, 08:19:33 AM »
It's even gone a step further in recent years with grading plans being scanned in to GPS which are then programmed in to the dozers... Even the shaper can then put his feet up and watch...

Actually I know little about that... Has it become common place, Tom... Do you know?

It seems a scary method of building a golf course to me...


Ally:

One of our interns from Germany just worked on a course near Munich that was built by equipment guided by GPS, and Line Mortensen told me she is working on a project in Denmark where they're also building it that way.  She says it comes out exactly like the drawing, you just have to draw all the 0.1 meter contours exactly the way you want them!

I've yet to hear of a course in the states which has been built this way.

The real question is whether any architect is good enough to visualize everything in 3-D as precisely as they could in the field.  [And if backgrounds matter, since the backgrounds don't show up on the topo maps.]  I'm sure, as Mike says, that I could do that occasionally for a hole or two ... particularly if I was trying to build a hole similar to something I'd already seen, or something that doesn't tie in naturally, a la Jim Engh.  But I know I would have missed out on some of the best holes I've ever built, like the 7th at Ballyneal or the 18th at Stonewall, where the idea came to me only after a few days of staring at the green site while other holes were being built.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2011, 08:45:51 AM »
The answer to your question Padraig it is down to that old saying "The devil is in the details".

If the designer has done his work properly then he would have calculated all aspects of the project taking into account the site, client’s requirements and the practicality of producing a course from that location including all weather and environmental conditions. If this is achieved to a fairly reasonable degree then the contractor just follows the drawings.

As "the devil is in the details" the designer should if fees allow continue to Project Manage or at least oversee the project answering site problems as and when they arise. The failure of the client to allow sufficient funds for this important phase of the design process is shortsighted and may be where the potential great parts company with the final finished course.

"The devil is in the details", never a truer set of words spoken, yet IMHO it must work very closely with ‘Land Fit For Purpose’ otherwise the details are lost in the drainage work.

Melvyn
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 08:51:02 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2011, 08:56:28 AM »
Tom - I was with some people on a flight a couple of years back and they said the next step was a D6 with laserGPS that did not even have an operator. Sounds scary.
I think what it could do for you Tom is free up time, you could put up 90% of what you want without being there 24/7. I think you could get your alignments and backdrops pretty easy from retaining photographs  (thats what I do). I agree there is nothing better than being there, but watching D6s push mass dirt is pretty boring also.
I guess it comes down to how much you stick to the drawings if any. I like to look at the topos of other courses or situations and recreate something similar taking some but not all aspects, thats the same as using templates in many ways. If you wanted to create the valley of sin with D6+GPS you could do so pretty easily. You simply need to produce your own map of micro features you like and import them into your main plan. It might be easy to create micro features in a far off land using a D6 +GPS since it might be more cost efficient using that method than flying a Mick McShane out there.
At some stage Tom I am sure you will try it.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2011, 09:18:53 AM »
It would work better on a flat field than on a good site though Adrian...

And there's no doubt that it's easier to end up with a golf course full of uniform sweeps when you are only drawing fairways to 0.5m and greens to 0.1m... Any little nuances can be lost pretty quickly...

Flipping this over, regardless of how the final course may look, you have to admire the technical skill of the best drawing & tender architects - that takes a lot of practice and expertise.... For many people, this IS architecture (or at least a good part of it)... My problem is that this often ends up with successful architects being the best technically and not necessarily the best conceptually / creatively... I've seen quite a few guys with pretty shoddy conceptual minds and it makes you realise why there are so many bland designs around...

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2011, 09:27:29 AM »
Tom
I was more thinking of drawing a hole that was in the ground before you started.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2011, 10:12:02 AM »
Ally it can work on a hilly site too, it just may be if its very hilly a D6 is not the job, so sort of depends on how hilly.
You would need to draw to 100mm to get the small contours.
You could very easily recreate template greens and their surounds by having the donor mapped and at 0.1 VI's I would imagine most of us could draw things like TOC 17 and 11 and ANGC 12 fairly easily. Its not copyrighted.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2011, 10:18:09 AM »
Adrian,

In defense of the GPS, I had one contractor use it, and it was the greatest thing ever for field redesign.  Their guy would simply walk around with the unit strapped on his back before we got on site, or sometimes while we were at lunch , setting stakes according to the grading plan and existing topo map.  

In so many cases, the ex topo was wrong and we thought we had to cut or fill extensively, and it was real easy to see in the field that we could avoid a lot of earth work we had contemplated and improve the hole as drawn. It takes such a short time to stake things out compared to the old days, that I was able to make a lot of great changes to our plans for the betterment of the golf course.

Of course, your implication was that once drawn, the plans were implemented w/o the gca by the contractor.  Obviously, the gca must still go in the field, although I have made a few changes by seeing photos of a hole, marking it up in photoshop and sending it back.  Still best in the field.

Also, the OP sort of implies it has to be one or the other.  IMHO (and maybe there are smarter guys than me) I still think there are things better worked out on paper first and then tweaked in the field.  I think about it a lot when walking the site initially and go back to the office.  I think about feature designs for things like balance from the beginner.

I always like roughing routing stuff out on paper, unless I get a Sand Hills type site.  But for your typical 160 acre site, the biggest problem is getting holes to fit, rather than fixating on a detailed area that might make a great tee or whatever that might not fit in the bigger scheme of things.

Features and Grading, as described above, IMHO benefit from constant thought from the day the contract is signed until the grass seed is dropped, so a combo of plan and field works for me.  I actually sketched out some features for a reno on the plane home yesterday on a pad, from memory, thinking which hole might be good for which feature, thinking of balance, etc.  I am sure I will go over it again several times before construction next year. I reserve the right to change it in the field, but try to embellish, not make big changes.  I once stated it to a contractor as the "Yards, Feet, Inches" rule for first, second and third changes.

While its just as easy to get repetitive on plan as it is in the field, one of the typical problems of designing greens in the field is they tend to get too small, and they tend to change angles from what I might draw on plan.  It's easy to forget that you are building a green for a long par 4, which typically shouldn't be across the line of play too much, and either turn them at an angle because they look cool, or building a narrow frontal opening because it looks cool but not play too hard.  

That sort of stuff benefits from actually being in a "cooler head" environment and a bit dispatched from the site, at least to start.  At least I find that I keep the basic intent in tact, and simply embellish taking advantage of opportunities in the field, while keeping the basic playability concepts in mind.  

It is just as likely that a "quickie" redesign in the field is bad as it is good, no?  Time spent and time separation is key, no matter what you are doing.  
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2011, 10:19:38 AM »
Ally - Adrian

What machine could hold a rake and receive input from the GPS mapping models?

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2011, 10:37:58 AM »
Jeff - Well it would need a topo map to correct obviously, you cant legislate for that.

I do agree that field work is better, equally a lot of the rough work on a boring site is done by scooping dirt out to form a lake and using that spoil to create a nice topo. To sum up I think it can save a lot of on site time but never ALL. It depends how you work though and if the project is not moving much soil then its a non starter anyway.

Jim - This is for a blade D3 upwards
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

michael damico

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2011, 06:53:57 PM »
Ally - Adrian

What machine could hold a rake and receive input from the GPS mapping models?

interns?
"without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"
                                                                -fz

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design in the Field?
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2011, 08:27:08 PM »
Tom - I was with some people on a flight a couple of years back and they said the next step was a D6 with laserGPS that did not even have an operator. Sounds scary.
I think what it could do for you Tom is free up time, you could put up 90% of what you want without being there 24/7. I think you could get your alignments and backdrops pretty easy from retaining photographs  (thats what I do). I agree there is nothing better than being there, but watching D6s push mass dirt is pretty boring also.
I guess it comes down to how much you stick to the drawings if any. I like to look at the topos of other courses or situations and recreate something similar taking some but not all aspects, thats the same as using templates in many ways. If you wanted to create the valley of sin with D6+GPS you could do so pretty easily. You simply need to produce your own map of micro features you like and import them into your main plan. It might be easy to create micro features in a far off land using a D6 +GPS since it might be more cost efficient using that method than flying a Mick McShane out there.
At some stage Tom I am sure you will try it.

Adrian:

Several years ago I authorized Mr. Urbina to shoot me if I ever started trying to complete or modify my designs by email or online photo.  I really never intended to do so, but would be especially wary of it now, since he might be more likely to pull the trigger than he was a few years ago.  ;)  So, if the whole business gets to that point, I will probably just retire.

I agree with you that it's a more efficient use of time on the part of the architect.  But I am trying to get 99.7% of what I want in the field.  If I was willing to settle for 90% I would have started doing business differently 20 years ago ... and you would never have heard of me!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back