Which of Our Favorite Architects Moved the Most Dirt/Sand at Streamsong

[Bryan Izatt]

Was it Doak, or Coore and Crenshaw?  Both teams are noted minimalists engaging in naturalistic (unless you're Mucci) designs.  But, here I think that a lot of dirt/sand was moved to create the naturalistic look.  So, which team moved more?  I have a guess that I'll add later, but I don't know the real answer.

[Adam Lawrence]

I wouldn't swear to it, but my assumption is that the Red was the larger muckshift. When I toured it with Bill early on during construction, the first few holes really didn't exist, and a couple of them were clearly going to require pretty substantial earthmoving.

[Josh Tarble]

I believe I heard this before, but just judging from the land, I would say the Red as well.  The ground is much bolder on the Red as are the features in the course.  They are done incredibly well, but there is certainly a lot going on on some of the holes.

[Jim Colton]

If you use the bird's eye view on Bing Maps and flip around the different points of the compass, you can see some pretty cool aerials of the Streamsong land at different intervals. The straight satellite view is earlier in the construction process than the Google Maps version. In particular, you can see how much work was involved in getting Red #2.

http://binged.it/UacqEF

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm going with Coore and Crenshaw too.  It's quite astonishing to look at the historical aerials of the transformation of the site - especially where Red holes #1 to #5 are.  The picture below depicts the evolution of that area from the end of 2003, to 2006, to 2008, to 2009 and then 12-2-2010 when the holes were just being shaped, to 4-25-2012 when the shaping was finished.

It appears that the area around holes #2 and #3 was mined in early 2010 creating ponds where #2 and #3 are while the rest of the Red and blue courses were being shaped.  In later later 2010 C&C appear to be filling in the pond to create the fairway for #1 and for fairway #2.  By early 2012 they appear to have dug out and expanded the ponds around #2 and #3.  A lot of dirt must have been moved to create #2 and #3.

[Michael George]

This thread again goes to my common question -  "should I, as a golf consumer, care if dirt was moved".  I understand the economics of it and why it is important in the industry.  However, as a golf consumer, if both courses look natural and fit along the land well, I really don't care if one involved more dirt movement .  In fact, isn't the entire property one large dirt movement project.   The landforms that make the golf interesting all involved "moved dirt".  Does it matter if it was moved pre-project or as a part of the project?  

In fact, I never liked the word "minimalism".  As noted in other threads by people other than me, I always preferred the word "naturalism".

The question that I think would be interesting is "whether there is anywhere where you can notice that the architect moved dirt?"  

[Joel_Stewart]

I think 1 hole on the Blue may change some minds.  I believe it was the 12th was a huge lake, 50 feet deep that they completely filled in.  That alone may change this discussion.

[Bryan Izatt]

Michael,

Not really, unless bunkers dug in to the ground or greens raised up or relatively leveled don't look natural to you.  The courses appear to me to fit naturally on the land that's there, even though some of that was created by the miners and the rest was created by the architects.  If you go, please look at #1 Red and tell us whether you think it looks natural.  It appears to have been largely created by the architects.

[Bryan Izatt]

Joel,

Are you sure it was the 12th Blue?  The pond beside 12 and the other two beside 13 and 14 were created in the mining between 2003 and 2005.  There appears to have been no fill on either between 2005 and the finishing of the course in 2012.

[Adam Lawrence]

The hole that struck me on the Blue was the par five fourteenth. I liked it a lot, but I've never seen an RGD hole with so many gulley pots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Isn't the answer site dependent ?

And, didn't Tom and C&C indicate that Tom grabbed the preferred site ?

Shouldn't weight be given for the non-preferred site ?

[Tom_Doak]

OK, some accuracies and inaccuracies to clean up here.

Bryan Izatt:  Yes, as your pictures depict, the first and second holes of the Red course were torn up thirty feet deep by mining operations in early 2010, and then put back together by Bill Coore's team (with a lot of fill from elsewhere on site) after the fact.  In your second to last picture, just left of dead center, you can actually see the huge drag line machine that did the mining -- the site had been cleared but it hadn't started digging yet.  This was the same machine that did most of the earthwork on site 30 years ago -- a machine with a 300-foot-long boom, a bucket that could easily scoop a pickup truck, and a cab the size of a small house.  That's how those 90-foot dunes that Pat loves so much on my seventh hole got stacked up so high.


Joel S:  I don't know who told you what about the earthmoving on the Blue course, but what you said is quite wrong.  The 12th hole on the Blue course WAS filled [with sand from the 13th fairway], but it wasn't a lake, and was only filled an average of 3-4 feet.  That probably amounts to 25,000 cubic yards of earthmoving from 13 to 12, and that was the biggest piece of earthmoving we did.  [Ironically, we moved similar amounts to sand-cap the 4th, 12th, and 13th holes at Pacific Dunes.]

Our other biggest piece of earthmoving was extending the Blue 14th fairway out into the lake a little bit, with some dirt from the left side of #15 and from the slope down to the lake.  We'd planned on filling it out farther, until we pumped the lake down and saw how deep it was.  That's why Adam noticed so much drainage work on #14 fairway ... if it started eroding into the lake, it would be gone pretty quickly!

The fairway that was completely filled from an existing lake is #5 on the Red course.

For Patrick:  While I was very happy to get to build the Blue course, Bill Coore made the decision of which to take.  He might have been doing me a favor, or he might have been trying to get "weight" on your scale for taking the site that required more earthwork [but I doubt it ].  He says he took that one so that his crew would have a few more months' work, which they did.  Whatever the reason, I didn't "grab" the better site from him.

Lastly, Michael George:  As a golfer, I don't know why you'd care where we moved dirt.  If you're interested in architecture, though, you might be interested to know the details of how it really happened.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Thanks for that.

I did see some of the huge drag line machines on other sites on my way out of Streamsong a year ago.  They are massively impressive.

[Tony_Muldoon]

This thread again goes to my common question -  "should I, as a golf consumer, care if dirt was moved".  I understand the economics of it and why it is important in the industry.  However, as a golf consumer, if both courses look natural and fit along the land well, I really don't care if one involved more dirt movement .  In fact, isn't the entire property one large dirt movement project.   The landforms that make the golf interesting all involved "moved dirt".  Does it matter if it was moved pre-project or as a part of the project?  

In fact, I never liked the word "minimalism".  As noted in other threads by people other than me, I always preferred the word "naturalism".

The question that I think would be interesting is "whether there is anywhere where you can notice that the architect moved dirt?"  

so you adapt Giradoux as follows

"The secret of success is naturalism. Once you can fake that you've got it made."

[Michael George]

Tom:

I am interested in architecture ... but thanks for your concern. However I don't care a lot about "whether" dirt was moved.  Rather, I am interested about "why" dirt was or wasn't moved.  The "why" is where we can learn something. Unfortunately, I feel the "whether" has become a marketing tag line that architects are using to market themselves to be in line with the more successful architects of today, like yourself.

If you explain why dirt was moved on a hole and the choices that you had to make, that is an educational exercise which I am most interested in.  In fact, I would love to know where you moved dirt to make a hole more compelling or to make the hole more natural looking. It would seem to me that this project could be a great case study as you were presented with an artificially made site and wanted to make it more natural looking. That is why I asked the question if there was anywhere that did not look natural....as the next question would be if that was the result of the architect's work or the artificial site to begin with.  

For example, the story of why you moved dirt on #7 at Old Macdonald was very interesting and insightful. It resulted in one of my favorite golf holes in the world.   However, I don't see the value in knowing how much dirt was moved in total at Old Macdonald. I may be wrong as I am just a hobbyist but that is my general feeling.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I am interested in architecture ... but thanks for your concern. However I don't care a lot about "whether" dirt was moved.  Rather, I am interested about "why" dirt was or wasn't moved.  The "why" is where we can learn something. Unfortunately, I feel the "whether" has become a marketing tag line that architects are using to market themselves to be in line with the more successful architects of today, like yourself.

If you explain why dirt was moved on a hole and the choices that you had to make, that is an educational exercise which I am most interested in.  In fact, I would love to know where you moved dirt to make a hole more compelling or to make the hole more natural looking. It would seem to me that this project could be a great case study as you were presented with an artificially made site and wanted to make it more natural looking. That is why I asked the question if there was anywhere that did not look natural....as the next question would be if that was the result of the architect's work or the artificial site to begin with.  

For example, the story of why you moved dirt on #7 at Old Macdonald was very interesting and insightful. It resulted in one of my favorite golf holes in the world.   However, I don't see the value in knowing how much dirt was moved in total at Old Macdonald. I may be wrong as I am just a hobbyist but that is my general feeling.

Good answer.  So, here's what we did at Streamsong:

#2 approach and green -- we had to take three feet of bad soil out of this area, and replace it with three feet of good sand dug up from down between #3 and #4, for better drainage and so the surface would play like all the other holes.  [Note:  Streamsong has no USGA greens, most of the greens are built from the sand that was right on that green site.]

#3 -- we extended the fairway back toward the tee about sixty yards, so the carry wouldn't be too tough.  We could only do that because the pond was created and the site was still technically an active mining site.  If it had been closed as a mine, the pond would have been a wetland, and we wouldn't have been able to fill any of it in.

#8 -- we filled a couple of feet of sand in the fairway landing area to make sure it wasn't wet.

#9 -- we cut down just past the landing area and re-shaped around the bunkers so that you could see where you were going after the tee shot [that's the dirt that went down to #8]

#10 -- not really earthmoving, but this was a very flat area, and the creation of the swale that leads into the left-hand bunker was key to the hole

#12 -- we filled up the bottom of the fairway about three feet, first by extending the existing pond into the fairway a bit, and then by bringing dirt from #13.

#13 -- we had to cut away 10-15 feet of sand from the left side of the hole, so you could see the water from the tee, and so the steep bank down to the water wouldn't be a safety issue.  This also rewards the player for hugging the right side on the tee shot.  All of this sand went to our #12 fairway and to building the 15th tees of the Red course.

#14 -- we cut down a ridge between #14 and 15 fairways and also brought in some fill to extend the fairway to the right into the lake, so there would be enough room for the fairway without changing the 15th hole coming back the other direction.

#17 -- we filled in a bit of low area short of the cross bunkers so everything would drain

#18 -- we cut a little bit at the crown of the landing area, and brought the dirt back toward the tee about fifty yards, so that if you hit a short drive you can still see the top of the flag to aim at.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

What would a cross section of your non-USGA greens look like ?

What were the layers ?

Did the Red Course employ the same methodology with their greens construction  ?

[Jeff Taylor]

"#3 -- we extended the fairway back toward the tee about sixty yards, so the carry wouldn't be too tough.  We could only do that because the pond was created and the site was still technically an active mining site.  If it had been closed as a mine, the pond would have been a wetland, and we wouldn't have been able to fill any of it in."

So a pond is not always just a pond. Amazing.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

What would a cross section of your non-USGA greens look like ?

What were the layers ?

Did the Red Course employ the same methodology with their greens construction  ?

Patrick:

There are no layers.  It's the sand from right there on the site, all the way down, except for a couple of greens where we weren't sure about the quality of the sand so we brought some better sand to the green site.  If we did that, we laid the good sand in at least three feet deep.

The greens construction method was the same for both courses, although, Bill tends to put a little bit of fill on a lot of his green sites, while we tend to build our greens right at the existing ground level.  So, more of Bill's would be built from sand that was imported to the green from a clean source somewhere else on site.

The guy who approved our greens construction method was an agronomist named Dick Psolla, from Brookside Labs, who Pete Dye used to use for the same decisions for decades, and Bill and I have both known since we started in the business.  Brookside Labs is one of a few that are recommended by the USGA to test and approve the materials for USGA greens.  But, if you ask Dick Psolla how he would build greens if it was his own money ... he would tell you just to find some good sandy loam and get a good enough depth of it at each green site and shape it and be done.