Where is the Design (Routing) conceived – On site or in the Office?

[Melvyn Morrow]

For me the actual definition of Design is that of the routing when talking about Golf. It is in essence the path from Tee to Green, all else be it Natural or Manmade is there to purely support the routing (design).

Construction/shaping/building phases are totally separate adding to the functionality and decoration of the course from both the maintenance & picture post card appeal, but not necessary for the actual soul of the course, its routing.

Do designers still undertake a modern version of staking out the course with GPS or associated work on the site itself or is the actual routing configured in the office utilising all collated site information?

Design, that is design in general can come together just by viewing the site (be it a course, housing development etc). It can come instantaneously, or through many days or weeks of hard and painful soul searching. I was wondering how the designers on GCA.com create their design – that is the routing. I am of course not talking of minor modifications but new or total re-designs of whole courses be they 9 or 18 Holes.

Melvyn 

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I've described my process in detail on other threads.  For me, it is usually a matter of going back and forth between the office [or some map, anyway] and walking the site.  There are a couple of courses I've done where I managed to get pretty much the whole routing done before my first visit to the site [St. Andrews Beach and Sebonack], but those are rare examples ... usually I am lucky to find more than 3 or 4 holes in my first preliminary routing that I wind up keeping on the final plan of the course.

[Tony Ristola]

Agree with Tom. It's ping-pong between the site and four walls.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Many thanks for your input.

Yes design is fun, I have had a mixed experience with design in my field, but the most affective has been those which come straight away.  That initial gut feeling has nearly always been right, perhaps with just some minor tweaking to comply with the clients requests. Those that have not come easily, with much burning of the midnight oil have always been the ones that have tended to create some friction when laying the services.

There is a lot to say for going with one’s initial gut feeling – that is upon understanding all the aspects of the building including access, or in your case, it is the land.

Should the opportunity ever rise and someone wants a course design by yours truly, then it will be fully conducted upon the site with full CAD design & final tweaks done in the office. In my experience site knowledge is paramount. However perhaps not so with other designers because today we can and do re shape the land, so its nearly irrelevant and therefore perceived that the design can all be done in the office – I feel that would be a massive mistake in my eyes, because you need the feel and that of the environment by being there. But then that just how I feel.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony's use of the phrase ping pong is a good one, based on my experience.

I usually take a swing or three based on the maps I get from the client to start.  There are some macro issues that are best figured out on plan, such as off limits ESA, and whether a particular area might be two holes wide, or not.  Recently, we look at birds eye view on Google Earth in conjunction with the topo maps.  In general, it always helps me in walking the property if I am aleady familiar with its basic scope and dimensions.  You can get lost just walkig and not know where you really are, without a golf hole in mind and tied to a feature.

It always changes in the field, and not always because of topo features missed on plan.  Recently, I have had to change a re-routing due to land ownership issues (old guy says he will sell reasonably, and then doesn't) evolving permitting issues, etc.  I also realized that a few holes I thought would be great, just weren't.  The sliver of land I was trying to fit one hole in was just too narrow and required too long a forced carry to justify it, despite a beautiful river setting.

I cannot recall getting a routing first time on topo.  There is always something you miss, often a vista in the distance that doesn't show up on a site topo map, or a speciman tree that shows up on the map as the same "cloud" line as all the others, but is clearly superior to the rest in size or shape.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Melvyn,

In my opinion, routing a course solely by site visits without resorting to a topo for spacial awareness would rarely get the best result... You need both.

One thing I will say is that when you grow up dreaming about designing golf courses, you inevitably spend your time "seeing" natural holes on land as you drive by, walk by etc... In other words your dreams are about small natural sites that are just begging to be made in to individuual holes... But these usually come in ones or twos.... The reality (at least in my limited experience) is that routing a course (whilst thoroughly enjoyable) is a hair tearing exercise as you have to grapple with finding the best eighteen (not 17 or 19) that fits the site you've been given. There are inevitably compromises to be made and you will lose "signature" holes along the way. In fact, getting hung up on that hole you just must have is quite often the worst thing you can do as you lose sight of a better alternative for the whole... To do this over and over again until you are sure you have covered all options and fit together the best jigsaw means hours spent in front of a topo as well as days spent on site...

[Bill_McBride]

I cannot recall getting a routing first time on topo.  There is always something you miss, often a vista in the distance that doesn't show up on a site topo map, or a speciman tree that shows up on the map as the same "cloud" line as all the others, but is clearly superior to the rest in size or shape.

This is one thing about routing that always amazes me, how good golf architects can be at aligning holes with great background features.  I don't this could be done from topos in the office.

Capilano is a great example, with Vancouver Harbor in the cross hairs going downhill on the front nine and distant mountain peaks on 15 and 17 on the back.

[Tom_Doak]

I cannot recall getting a routing first time on topo.  There is always something you miss, often a vista in the distance that doesn't show up on a site topo map, or a speciman tree that shows up on the map as the same "cloud" line as all the others, but is clearly superior to the rest in size or shape.

This is one thing about routing that always amazes me, how good golf architects can be at aligning holes with great background features.  I don't this could be done from topos in the office.

Capilano is a great example, with Vancouver Harbor in the cross hairs going downhill on the front nine and distant mountain peaks on 15 and 17 on the back.

Bill:

It can be done, if you know what the feature is that you're looking for.  On our project in NZ right now, there are some islands off the coast that are pretty dramatic to look at, and we'll have a couple of holes that play toward them.  The land planner had thought the same thing, so he already had that alignment marked on the maps before I went to see the property ... I just didn't know what "Hen and Chickens" meant.  [They're the names of the islands.]

Usually, though, you will clear more trees to open up such a view once you get a glimpse of it, and maybe even move your green site a bit [or realign the fairway and place a bunker] to get the hole to line up better with the view, if you're into that sort of thing.  Some architects are, and some aren't.

Jeff:

The couple of times I have nailed the routing, one was on a site where you couldn't see much outside the property [St. Andrews Beach, because of all the intervening ridges], and one was a site where it was pretty clear what the best views would be [Sebonack, where you could easily tell where the bay views would be available by a close reading of the map]. 


Ally:

From what I've seen, Bill Coore only uses the map to double-check the holes he's laying out by eye.  It is not the most time-efficient process, but it is hard to argue with his results.

[Lester George]

I usually show up with a schematic routing in hand so I can visit those areas of the property I think are crucial.  Like Tom,  I have nailed a few in terms of what was on the plan intially and what was built.  Other times I have studied it in the "ping pong" method for months which has also worked. 

Lester

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:

From what I've seen, Bill Coore only uses the map to double-check the holes he's laying out by eye.  It is not the most time-efficient process, but it is hard to argue with his results.

I am certainly in no position to argue anyway, Tom... However, I suspect C&C often have quite a big canvas from which to choose their routing... When a site is much more space constricted, I think the site only approach becomes harder... Would you say so?... Or when the site is under thick vegetation...

Generally, I think it is hard to counter that maximising both site time and topo time can be anything but helpful...

[Jeff_Brauer]

The big problem with the on site method is whether or not you can "eyeball" distances on varying sites.  Some can do it better than I.  I have stood on potential tees, looked to a nice LZ landform feature, and then measured and realized it was about 1000 yards away, not 300 yards.

Also, as I have said before, on tight properties, its often important to study how to use the perimeters first, just to fit the course in.  And, if its a housing project, then there are lots of extraneous considerations with the land planner that are probably best roughed in via topo map, subject to change in the field.

I often use the phrase "miles, yards, feet, inches."  Putting the holes in some general config on a big site often requires plans - the miles.  Usually, the field walks move them yards in either direction, although, big changes sometimes result from the field walks too.  In clearing or early construction you can still move things by many feet.  After basic shaping has taken place, its down to inches you generally tend to move things.  Of course, there are famous examples of big name architects moving things well after construction has begun, or even after irrigation has been done.  Sometimes this has to be done, but its not real efficient or cost effective.

In general, I always thought the gca got paid in large part, not only for a good final result, but an efficient one as well, i.e. plan it out before construction so things can go smoothly.  Its generally what architects do, even if the changes are what seems to be celebrated the most in news accounts.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

From what I've seen, Bill Coore only uses the map to double-check the holes he's laying out by eye.  It is not the most time-efficient process, but it is hard to argue with his results.

I am certainly in no position to argue anyway, Tom... However, I suspect C&C often have quite a big canvas from which to choose their routing... When a site is much more space constricted, I think the site only approach becomes harder... Would you say so?... Or when the site is under thick vegetation...

Ally:

No doubt, Bill's method works on some sites better than others, although he has used the same approach on some pretty heavily treed sites ... I don't know how easy that was for him.  Sebonack was really thick with vegetation, so finding a good routing on the topo was something of a necessity, otherwise I might have died from kudzu cuts or from Lyme disease.

Sebonack was a relatively small site, too ... to me, that makes the puzzle easier in some respects because it limits the number of options you have to account for.  It's easier to feel like you have exhausted all the possibilities.  If you have 600 acres to work with, it may be easier to find a bunch of great holes, but it's harder to be confident that you haven't left a better solution undiscovered.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This should probably be a separate topic, but TD's comments above remind me that as far as I know, Frank Duane was the only gca to ever contract something on a site walk, getting echepilitas (sp) on a site while doing an early Palmer course.  Anyone know of any others?  Perhaps overseas?

Paul Cowley showed me a snake bite on his hand a few years back.

BTW, Dick Watson recently passed away.  Perhaps more of a builder than an architect, he studied under Hughes, I think, and did a lot of midwestern design-build projects.  He died of old age, but a decade or so ago, Lyme disease, caught on a site visit, really set him back for a while.

I recall tucking my pant legs into my socks for a while when they were highlighting Lyme, but don't do it anymore.

Site walks are dangerous, but I have also sliced myself with exactos and stabbed myself with pencils at the drafting table, too!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:

From what I've seen, Bill Coore only uses the map to double-check the holes he's laying out by eye.  It is not the most time-efficient process, but it is hard to argue with his results.

I am certainly in no position to argue anyway, Tom... However, I suspect C&C often have quite a big canvas from which to choose their routing... When a site is much more space constricted, I think the site only approach becomes harder... Would you say so?... Or when the site is under thick vegetation...

Ally:

No doubt, Bill's method works on some sites better than others, although he has used the same approach on some pretty heavily treed sites ... I don't know how easy that was for him.  Sebonack was really thick with vegetation, so finding a good routing on the topo was something of a necessity, otherwise I might have died from kudzu cuts or from Lyme disease.

Sebonack was a relatively small site, too ... to me, that makes the puzzle easier in some respects because it limits the number of options you have to account for.  It's easier to feel like you have exhausted all the possibilities.  If you have 600 acres to work with, it may be easier to find a bunch of great holes, but it's harder to be confident that you haven't left a better solution undiscovered.

True Tom... I've never been lucky enough to work with a large site -  in reality or study -  but I can certainly see that the endless possibilities prove difficult... I think you've said that before... Was it about Rock Creek on 2,000 acres maybe?

But I think that Jeff's point about using the boundaries and every inch of space on a small (or irregular shaped) site really does benefit from the use of a topo... And the reality that there will have to be many compromises made with the routing make it all the more difficult... It becomes about neccesities rather than ideals and it's hard to keep searching for an ideal that just isn't there....

[Tom_Doak]

But I think that Jeff's point about using the boundaries and every inch of space on a small (or irregular shaped) site really does benefit from the use of a topo... And the reality that there will have to be many compromises made with the routing make it all the more difficult... It becomes about neccesities rather than ideals and it's hard to keep searching for an ideal that just isn't there....

Ally:

In that sense, oceanfront sites are probably some of the easiest, because the key is to first make the most of the possibilities along one boundary (the ocean) and then work back inland from there.

[Tom_Doak]

This should probably be a separate topic, but TD's comments above remind me that as far as I know, Frank Duane was the only gca to ever contract something on a site walk, getting echepilitas (sp) on a site while doing an early Palmer course.  Anyone know of any others?  Perhaps overseas?

Paul Cowley showed me a snake bite on his hand a few years back.

BTW, Dick Watson recently passed away.  Perhaps more of a builder than an architect, he studied under Hughes, I think, and did a lot of midwestern design-build projects.  He died of old age, but a decade or so ago, Lyme disease, caught on a site visit, really set him back for a while.

I recall tucking my pant legs into my socks for a while when they were highlighting Lyme, but don't do it anymore.

Site walks are dangerous, but I have also sliced myself with exactos and stabbed myself with pencils at the drafting table, too!

Jeff:

I don't know of a golf course architect who got Lyme disease, but the contractor at Stonewall got it near the end of the construction of the original course.  He had a hell of a time for a couple of years.