Michael
The bottom line is always important to me, but for many of the courses I look at playing the cost of build has little connection to the cost of a green fee. While I don't particularly care about the minimalist movement or the concept of creating imperceptible shaping, I think moving dirt has consequences in terms of soil structure and surface drainage. This, however, is a two way street especially where drainage is concerned. How often do we see wet area on courses where shapers have changed the profile of the land? Perhaps this is one reason which has led to very expensive drainage works on many courses - not enough care about surface drainage. With the bulldozer mentality comes the idea of making the land better fit for golf, unfortunately this isn't always the case as aesthetics sometimes take precedence over function.
Ciao
Sean,
Not sure I ever heard of anyone in the biz "not caring about drainage." Nor do I think its a clear relationship between "wet area and where shapers have changed the profile of the land."
But, I do agree that shaping occurs to make the land fit the ideas of the gca, even if it disrupts normal drain patterns and they become seconddary concerns. This has always been the case to a limite degree, where every bunker or grass bunker requires a drain in anything but sandy soil.
In modern times, this concept has increased, for a few reasons - big picture, includes need to control views from housing, other site needs, etc. Even in "pure design" a modern classic example of what I call "discretionary" earthmoving are the "collector fairways" where each is built as a small valley to enhance play (or speed it, at least) for the averge player by "helping the miss to stay on the fw".
But the increase in grading and drainage also comes just from long term study of drainage, too. Also, the relatively cheap cost of pipe has made a combo of less earthmoving and more pipe economically feasible.
For example, I realize that its better to cut off any large drainage areas before they enter or cross a fairway, for the health of the turf. Its much like (hopefully a bit more subtle....) an engineer diverting drainage under roads. I also know that any swale over about 250 foot long will be perpetually wet (again, in most soils) and will slightly modify the ground to trap the water. Lastly, some turfs, like Zoysia, require at least 4.5% slope for drainage or they suffer. I have graded the fw that might be perfectly acceptable for bermuda or blue grass from 2 to 4.5% knowing the turf type.
As you can tell, while I may agree stylistically about reducing earthmoving, in some cases, the best product is achieved by just going ahead and moving it. In many cases on older courses, there was little to no fw grading, but over time, superintendents added usually inefficient tile drains for years. Why not, if budget allows, take care of as many of those anticipated problems up front, at a one time cost, rather than saddle the golf course budget with $50K per year of adding tile and drainage? Its usually cheaper and better for the proforma.
BTW, even if the gca "saves" 100K in earthmoving by picking a minmalist style (and as TD has often said, sometimes he moves lots of earth achieve that style) at $2 per CY, that $200K equates to 2-3% of the total budget. Perhaps the construction cost goes up a bit, but when you factor in long term operations cost and maintenance quality, any earthmoving and drainage you do is usually a net plus to the pro forma, even at greater up front cost.