[Tom_Doak]

Tom, as a question of restoration history, in 1985, would a Ross course have received a sympathetic and authentic restoration in the vein that we are seeing at many other classic courses today?

David:

There were no architects making a living doing "restoration" work in 1985, as many do today.  There had been a handful of projects here and there which spoke of restoration.  As far as I recall, The Sagamore did not have a consulting architect on board at all for the restoration project [or at least, did not mention him by name]; quite possibly the superintendent at the time oversaw the work and whatever changes were made.

I don't know how deteriorated the course was prior to 1985, other than knowing that no one spoke much of it -- the big splash they made about the restoration was the first time I'd heard of it, and I grew up and went to college not all that far away.  So, I don't know if they just mowed out the greens to the shapes they saw on the plans, or rebuilt greens.  If it was the latter, though, the superintendent would have been very likely to follow the plans.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

I would take exception to the contention that the contractor is going to build the greens contrary to the physical plans.

Think about it.

You retain a contractor based on his bidding on work outlined for him in detail.

Then, some are contending that the contractor is going to build the greens other than to the specifications.

Pretend for a second, that you and/or I represent the club as the project chairman.

I don't know about you, but once I see a green not built to specifications, I'm going to ask the GC, "What's this ?  Why hasn't this green been built to specifications ?"   Irrespective of his answer, my next statement would be as follows:  Rip it up and build it according to the specifications.  And, don't deviate from the architects specifications again."  Is there anyone who represents the club that wouldn't act in similar fashion ?

So, I have my doubts about rogue GC's deviating from spec's

Then, you have to ask, where is the architect's/club's project Forman or Clerk of the Works ?
And how did they allow for a deviation from the spec's ?

Patrick,

In my 30 plus years in the biz, I will say I have experienced, and heard of other architects experiencing contractors or shapers doing just that, in varying degrees and with varying intent.

In most cases, the changes are meant to better adapt the green to field conditions the gca might not have known about if drawing a plan without ever seeing the property.  But, in so doing, sometimes the entire intent of the green or at least a few key points have changed.  Architect may be grateful.

In other cases, I have seen shapers simply want to stamp their input on greens or features, again, just to make it a very good project to have their names associated with.  Architect might be grateful, or not.  In the end, the architect somewhat benefits from not having his project look rubber stamped, and welcomes slight variations, if done well.

And sometimes, the shaper wants to change something just to see if he can get away with it.  He just has that teenager personality where if Mom says get home at 10, he showed up at 10:15 just to test limits.  Architect not as grateful......

With these types, the more famous the gca, the more this guy wants to change stuff up, just to prove he knows better!

So, with anything in life, it runs the gamut.  Hard to know which green is which, but I bet every gca on here could give a list of greens changed by others from his intent or spec.

[Mike_Young]

Bob,

I would take exception to the contention that the contractor is going to build the greens contrary to the physical plans.

Think about it.

You retain a contractor based on his bidding on work outlined for him in detail.

Then, some are contending that the contractor is going to build the greens other than to the specifications.

Pretend for a second, that you and/or I represent the club as the project chairman.

I don't know about you, but once I see a green not built to specifications, I'm going to ask the GC, "What's this ?  Why hasn't this green been built to specifications ?"   Irrespective of his answer, my next statement would be as follows:  Rip it up and build it according to the specifications.  And, don't deviate from the architects specifications again."  Is there anyone who represents the club that wouldn't act in similar fashion ?

So, I have my doubts about rogue GC's deviating from spec's

Then, you have to ask, where is the architect's/club's project Forman or Clerk of the Works ?
And how did they allow for a deviation from the spec's ?

"built to spec".....I would bet 99 out of 100 members could not tell if the GC built a green to spec or not.  First, 10 GC's would read the DRoss spec differently and then it is impossible to interpret in fine detail what he meant.  His plans were definitely a  macro and the greens would all have different micro...

I'm not speaking of technical specs but green contour specs....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Understood, but doesn't that reinforce the need for a club to insist that the designing architect visit often during construction, to make sure that his plans aren't deviated from, without good reason.

Mike,

I think it depends upon how involved and knowledgeable the club's project chairman is.

I'd tend to agree that many wouldn't bother to get into detail.
But it also depends on how involved and familiar he was with the architect's plans.

I would think an owner/developer like Roger Hansen and/or Ken Bakst would be intimately involved.
I wouldn't think the same of Mike Pascucci, so I guess it depends upon the individual.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

What you can't believe happens apparently happens routinely with architectural drawings, if the evidence of architects is to be believed. I am not an architect, so I have no choice but to believe them.

That doesn't mean it makes sense. I still think it odd that an architect will draw a contour at 2X, knowing a contractor would like to build it at .5X, and then hoping that what is built turns out to be more or less X.

That's a strange way to do business.

Bob   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()