[David Davis]

I've noticed the great details often being mapped out in the planning with regards to greens and the surrounds and undulations etc. I'm curious what everyone's experiences are with regards to how precise these plans are followed. I know of the extreme importance of skilled shapers but I've heard that some archies have such close relationships and immense trust with their shapers the almost give them carte blanche. Does the end result usually fall within a +- 5% ratio (to guess at a random number) of the original plan? What seems to work the best?

[Adrian_Stiff]

David - Everyone is going to have a different answer to this one. I always do a set of green plans, the most I have stuck too is 14 and the least is probably 3 or 4. Normally I think I stick to about half and the others tend to change during construction. I do think every green plan/ construction does change very slightly though. A couple of times I have regretted making the field change and wished I had stayed with the planned one. 95% of the time the field change was better.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't draw greens plans at all.

In the beginning, when I was going to build them all myself anyway, there was no point.

Since then, I've been working with shapers who work for me, and I find it easier to describe the general parameters and let them do their thing, instead of doing a drawing and then (as Adrian suggests) changing it 95% of the time once we get in the field.

The most important thing on the plan is getting the finished level of the green at the right height.  When contractors build greens from plans I find this often comes out wrong, and then they have to spend extra money cutting back out some of what they just filled up (or vice versa).  I am much more comfortable starting in the field with my associates to make sure that elevation is exactly right, giving them a sense of the strategy (bunkers right, tilt to left, crowned, tiered, whatever), and when we do it that way I find that the edits I make are pretty small.

[Colin Macqueen]

Tom,

You suggest  "….. I (Tom) find it easier to describe the general parameters and let them do their thing…".

Does this then mean that the internal, small contours  and final subtleties of your greens come about in a relatively random way? In a way which to a large extent simply falls the way of the "land" around that small area of green?

Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

You suggest  "….. I (Tom) find it easier to describe the general parameters and let them do their thing…".

Does this then mean that the internal, small contours  and final subtleties of your greens come about in a relatively random way? In a way which to a large extent simply falls the way of the "land" around that small area of green?

Colin:

It's only random to the extent that we find some stuff that we like and want to keep.

Otherwise, the greens are shaped.  Generally, I let my shapers take the first crack at the contouring, apart from whatever general instructions I give them.  They are well versed on trying to keep things natural in appearance, and not doing more than they have to; we rarely bring in fill to build the green for example.

[Mike_Young]

I'm sort of the same.  I don't do a plan per se but I will draw a perimeter and describe a strategy I am trying to accomplish and then work it from there in the field.   

[David Davis]

I find the answer here interesting. How do you get buy in and final sign off on a plan when you don't draw in any specifics or even ideas on what the shaping is going to look like?

Let me guess, you say, "Trust me ;-)"

I imagine that also means that rather than working to a plan and being happy that you have done a good job in representing the plan you may end up reshaping greens over and over until you get something that you feel works the best with the shape of the land? Unless the shapers are good enough to take the general idea and knock it out of the park over and over again.

Seems to me like you'd have to have quite a bond with the team in order to have that level of collaboration.

[Mike_Young]

I find the answer here interesting. How do you get buy in and final sign off on a plan when you don't draw in any specifics or even ideas on what the shaping is going to look like?

Let me guess, you say, "Trust me ;-)"

I imagine that also means that rather than working to a plan and being happy that you have done a good job in representing the plan you may end up reshaping greens over and over until you get something that you feel works the best with the shape of the land? Unless the shapers are good enough to take the general idea and knock it out of the park over and over again.

Seems to me like you'd have to have quite a bond with the team in order to have that level of collaboration.

David,
Do you think any of those detailed plans you have noticed were accurate?  Have you ever seen a topo map that was accurate to the degree needed for designing accurate and detailed plans to within an inch?  I never have and so I think most drawings begin with an approximation and therefore they would not be accurate either.  JMO

[RJ_Daley]

TD and Mike, other archies who post;  what is the greatest distance from an intended green edge to collar that you have actively shaped a surround to be integral to the overall intended strategy of the green approach?  I don't necessarily mean a tie-in to a prominent ridge running within the area of influence of the green site.  I mean what distance from the green pad would be the outer limits of what you would actively 'shape' in the surrounds?

Are there any courses you as an architects-designers-shapers that you have put a great deal of consideration, time, and reputation into, and the owner-club-turf manager has changed the species, HOC, watering/fert regime - maintenance meld, in the surrounds that totally blew out your intent?  (That may be too touchy of a political question... but I figure there must be examples of subsequent treatment of the surrounds that you might disavow - at least privately)  

[Adrian_Stiff]

In the UK we have to submit detailed plans to get the permission. In truth they dont worry too much within a metre of final grade and sometimes they dont make site visits. Each authority has a different way of doing it and even the planning application fee is viewed differently from council to council. Plans of greens/ tees and grading are important components in the tender process, we dont have many architect/builders in the UK the association used to deem it a conflict of interest. This was the reason I did not become a member in 1989, I wanted to design and build....twentyfive years later I think they changed.

[Mike_Young]

RJ,
I don't know the answer to your first paragraph.  As for the second..let me put it this way....IMHO many supts and golf pros do not consider height of cuts an integral part of a design and that element of the design is often lost quickly.  Not to say they are bad supts or pros but it's too easy to change.

Adrian, I do plans when they are required for permitting etc but I just don't use them once things have been approved.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()