[Ian Andrew]

If you were asked to be a judge on the Olympic Course Design Competition what would you want to see OTHER than the routing and hole design?

Assuming you’ll get to hear each team make their presentation and explain their individual designs, what ELSE do you want to review and understand to get a clearer picture on each proposal?

Would you be interested to read a philosophy statement on what the intentions are?
Would you want to hear an environmental proposal for the design?

Would you want to know the details on how it will be built?
Would you need a cost estimate?

Would you want to see the drainage or grading worked out in detail?
Is a Landscape or Rehabilitation plan interesting enough for you to spend time understanding what it means?

Or is all about the design and the design alone for you?

[JESII]

Not sure exactly what each of your terms mean Ian, but I would want to here about ongoing maintenance considerations. Easier/cheaper=better.

[Scott Warren]

For an Olympic Games course, I'd reckon spectator capacity, viewing quality and movement thought the property would be important factors.

[Joe Bausch]

I'd like to see a topo to see the elevation changes and how they are utilized.

[Garland Bayley]

Is all of the above a good answer?

[Niall C]

I would want to know how the design fits the brief and if all or any of that information helps explain how then I would want to see it. I think it would be down to the gca to prove his case and provide whatever "evidence" he thinks fit in doing so. Of course the judging panel (presumably professionals with some sort of knowledge allowing them to judge, perhaps a big assumption but lets go with it anyway) presumably would give a stear as to what they expected to see and may ask for more info for clarification purposes but generally speaking it would be down to the gca to get his design intent across.

Niall

[Jud_T]

I would want to judge the submissions to see how well it fit the two masters:

1.  The Games- interesting challenge for the pros.  How to handle the crowds, merchandising and perhaps most importantly, for the course and possibly the game itself, what REALLY makes for interesting TV.

2.  AG-  After Games...how well does the course serve the demands of the proposal with regards to interesting/fun play for the average golfer yet challenging for the low stick, community and environmental demands.  How will this course influence other courses that may be developed in country following the popularity of the Games (i.e. build/maintenance costs, greens fees, environmental impact, style)? How will the design and build of this courses help promote the game in Latin America and the rest of the developing world?  What imprint and legacy is the proposed course likely to leave on the Olympics, and on the game of golf its ownself?

[Randy Thompson]

If budget is not an issue, they will lose any chance of this becoming a catalyst for future golf devlopment in Latin America. I think they will want to know, how will it be built and with whom, they are going to need a small, multi-talented team that depends on local machinery and hand labor and nothing more, even hand labor will be an issue with so much construction and development happening between the olympics and the world cup. Itīs kind of like New Orleans times one hundred, most people like the party life style and are there for the party, not gonna be easy to find people locally that like to work. I think if you presented four or five experienced personnel in construction that can get it done with the right resources in machinery and in any part of the world, will be one of the most important factors combined with reasonable overall initial investment cost and future maintenance cost. The enviromental consideration will be considered somewhat but more wieght will go into the perception that the enviromental considerations was a major factor but it will be more of a perception than a reality.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I see where you are coming from but:
I don't think the real decision makers will spend enough time on those things to let it influence them.  They will look at them as commodities and realize that whomever they choose can market environmental impact anyway they wish.  
I think the final decision makers will base it on who they feel puts them in the best marketing position for golf and probably development afterwards.  I may be wrong but I would assume the back room politics are where the decision will be made.  At least one of the participants and probably more will convince somebody that they are paying them to do the project and operate it....and it will come down to who is the hardest to say no to..
Sorry if this all seems cynical...AND OT I do wish one of those guys all the luck down there...

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

I'm assuming a little here, but I expect four of the the judges are Peter Dawson, Mike Davis, Tim Finchem and Mike Whan.
I'm guessing here, but I expect the next group of four is made up of two Olympic Committee members and two people from the local organizing committee. Let's say for arguement this is the team that will decide.

How will they choose?
What can they understand from the submissions?
Will they lean on particular people in the group?
Will Finchem get Steve Wenzloff to review the submissions and comment?

I'm just curious to how and what they will use to make the decisions?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I'm assuming a little here, but I expect four of the the judges are Peter Dawson, Mike Davis, Tim Finchem and Mike Whan.
I'm guessing here, but I expect the next group of four is made up of two Olympic Committee members and two people from the local organizing committee. Let's say for arguement this is the team that will decide.

How will they choose?
What can they understand from the submissions?
Will they lean on particular people in the group?
Will Finchem get Steve Wenzloff to review the submissions and comment?

I'm just curious to how and what they will use to make the decisions?

Ian,
I agree that those guys will probably make a recommendation....but I don't think they will make the decision....I'm just a cynic ( not a bad thing) and the Olympics are a nasty business...

[Steve Lang]

For an Olympic Games course, I'd reckon spectator capacity, viewing quality and movement thought the property would be important factors.

I think Scott hit it squarely...  the opening hole and closing hole must be very stadium like for viewing and large crowds.  After all, I expect there to be quite a samba line!

[Tom_Doak]

Ian,
I agree that those guys will probably make a recommendation....but I don't think they will make the decision....I'm just a cynic ( not a bad thing) and the Olympics are a nasty business...

If I do get the job, will you agree to be a little less cynical for the next year or two?  You know I'm not playing nasty politics.

In return, if I don't get the job, I will agree to be more cynical.   

Nah, not really.  It would be interesting to know how they are really going to decide the competition, but I don't expect that we will ever get any sort of explanation about why they chose whomever they choose.  We all know that even our own clients don't really understand the details of the plans we submit.

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm assuming a little here, but I expect four of the the judges are Peter Dawson, Mike Davis, Tim Finchem and Mike Whan.
I'm guessing here, but I expect the next group of four is made up of two Olympic Committee members and two people from the local organizing committee. Let's say for arguement this is the team that will decide.

The committee is only 4.  One person from the Olympic committee, one from the city of Rio and 2 from the IGF.  Peter Dawson is assumed to be one of the people from the IGF.

You have to assume they are going to have some type of formula for evaluation.

Cost of construction.  Yearly costs to maintain.  Irrigation and drainage.  I think the routing would be very important as well as the ability to hold crowds.  Perhaps they will detail what the criteria is.

[Ian Andrew]

If budget is not an issue, they will lose any chance of this becoming a catalyst for future golf devlopment in Latin America.

Randy,

I must say you have been the most interesting person to read throughout any discussion on the Olympic Design Contest. I found this post to be very though provoking and wish it was a condition of the decision. It's not hard to figure out that a budget was likely part of the submission, I just hope that matters.


I hope something to do with sustainability - both economic and enviornmental - and water usage plays a role in the process. I would like this to be a little forward thinking beyond just the design .... but perhaps I'm asking too much. That would be what I would like to hear from submissions if I were on the review panel. I think the picture should be beyond eight rounds of golf....

[Kalen Braley]

One thing is for sure...

...there better be at least one green that has a configuration that somewhat resembles the weird RIO symbol...and it wouldn't hurt to have a bunker that looks like the Olympic rings either...

[Randy Thompson]

Ian,
Up until this point, I feel they have taken correct steps and have little to critize at this point and politics have seem to have been kept out. However this is when and where the politics will enter but they have been on a good road to this point. Joel seems to be pretty sure of the four comittee memebers making the final decision, Joel are sure about this? The money is coming from locals and I have a hard time accepting that they wonīt have any say in the matter. I guess if they tell all the candidates, this is what you have for a construction budget and you need to make the design fit into that, then some of the power could be eliminated. I feel we still live in a society of, I pay, I say! Just donīt see a whole lot of people lining up with five to ten million dollars and let others tell them how it will be spent. Silent partners or investors...in Brazil...difficult. If it were my money, I would be interested in all the organizations opinions and listen with an open mind of who and why. I would then evaluate everything submitted and listen to the forty five minute presentations of the various architects and then decide who is the best one to marry or go to bed with at the very least. I donīt agree the marketing capabilites of the company is such a big factor as the course will generate its own marketing like no other in the last twenty five years.

[Mark Bourgeois]

If I were on the committee, my criteria, in ordinal importance:

1. Triple-tiered podium
2. Three flagpoles, aligned with triple-tiered podium
3. No trees, one row or no row irrigation, and less than 34 bunkers and sandage totaling no more than X sq m (sops to the golf people, or maybe to budget people, or maybe to both)

I am not sure if these are review points or design instructions but is Carnivale saison, please not to bother me for details before 21st Feb.

[Tom_Doak]

One thing is for sure...

...there better be at least one green that has a configuration that somewhat resembles the weird RIO symbol...and it wouldn't hurt to have a bunker that looks like the Olympic rings either...

Kalen:

One thing I CAN divulge is that the IOC and Rio2016 are EXTREMELY vigilant in protecting their logos, and we are not allowed to put those logos on any of our proposed plans.  So, watch your back!


Ian:

The president of the Rio organizing committee told us that they want the Rio Olympics to be a sustainability statement to the rest of the world.  I think you can count on that being one of the things the jury are looking for.

[Pete_Pittock]

Re: on sustainability I would guess that the predominant grassing will be paspalum.
Stadium aspect - maybe three or four amphitheaters where you have views of more than three holes at a time.
Maximum usage of the shoreline.
As far as a one-time venue, I think that is far from the truth. Most probable will be an annual professional tournament affiliated with the PGA Tour or the European tour.
The clubhouse is an afterthought in this design, but it should be a point of return after nine holes. 

[Tom_Doak]

Re: on sustainability I would guess that the predominant grassing will be paspalum.
Stadium aspect - maybe three or four amphitheaters where you have views of more than three holes at a time.
Maximum usage of the shoreline.
As far as a one-time venue, I think that is far from the truth. Most probable will be an annual professional tournament affiliated with the PGA Tour or the European tour.
The clubhouse is an afterthought in this design, but it should be a point of return after nine holes. 

OK class:

Which one of these statements is the most wrong?

I'll choose the first correct answer tomorrow.

[Adam Clayman]

we are not allowed to put those logos on any of our proposed plans. 

What if the routing (outlined and from above) looked exactly like the logo?

Have a Happy Washington's birthday.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

I ranked them from most wrong (1) to least wrong (5).  Please tell me I passed the test.  I can't bear any more rejection after seeing Stephen Colbert lose in South Carolina.

4  Re: on sustainability I would guess that the predominant grassing will be paspalum.
1  Stadium aspect - maybe three or four amphitheaters where you have views of more than three holes at a time.
2  Maximum usage of the shoreline.
5  As far as a one-time venue, I think that is far from the truth. Most probable will be an annual professional tournament affiliated with the PGA Tour or the European tour.
3  The clubhouse is an afterthought in this design, but it should be a point of return after nine holes.

I have a personal dislike of courses designed not to be played but spectated from.  I've never seen TPC Sawgrass Stadium, and I assume its one of the best examples.  But there's plenty of great golf courses that have tournaments that were never designed for sightlines.

There's proof in the pudding that just because you're next to ocean, that all the best don't have to be along it.  No need to force shoreline usage.  

There's NO CHANCE that the clubhouse will be anything but robust and a central figure in this thing.

Paspalum isn't the only warm season grass that can do well near the ocean.

Can't really comment on 5, don't have the foggiest of clues on what will be the future of the golf course past the Games.

[Adam Clayman]

On the spectator aspect,  How many souls do they expect to host, on the golf course. the days of the O games? 30k? 100k?

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I agree that those guys will probably make a recommendation....but I don't think they will make the decision....I'm just a cynic ( not a bad thing) and the Olympics are a nasty business...

If I do get the job, will you agree to be a little less cynical for the next year or two?  You know I'm not playing nasty politics.

In return, if I don't get the job, I will agree to be more cynical.   

Nah, not really.  It would be interesting to know how they are really going to decide the competition, but I don't expect that we will ever get any sort of explanation about why they chose whomever they choose.  We all know that even our own clients don't really understand the details of the plans we submit.

TD,
I feel safer as a cynic but I will give it a break if you get the job.  I wasn't really speaking politics with the individual archies as much as their connections and how they would play.  You got to remember a lot of us in Ga know a lot of the politics that went on with the Atlanta games.  Hmmm. ...that guy is now the president of a club in Augusta Ga.  I'm thinking politics like : the president of a top oil company calls the president of Brazil and says " hey we will be putting this much more $$$$into your offshore oil drilling and oh..BTW you know the best player in the world...well he is a friend of mine and would appreciate the help...that kind of stuff...and we wil never know...
I hope it works out for ya...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()