"The bunkers don't fit the scale of the property"

[Matt_Cohn]

A friend of mine made this comment recently about a course that we've both played. It's a course with expansive views from most holes — sometimes across other holes, and sometimes across its rolling, hilly landscape. The course also has relatively small bunkers.

I've heard this type of comment before on this site, about "bunkers fitting the scale of the property." Is that a thing? Are courses with long views always supposed to have big bunkers, and courses with more confined settings only small bunkers? Is there more to it than that? Or is it just a matter of whether you want an "intimate" feel versus a "grand" one?

[mike_beene]

And does the color of the bunker sand change the way the bunkers look from a scale standpoint. It is my understanding our redesign architect went smaller on our bunkers when we forced white sand on him. Leaving the bunkers the same size as when they were brown would have messed the scale up. So it is an issue but it seems much more to it than whether your property is small or large.

[K Rafkin]

GB&I has many links courses with wide expansive views and small pot bunkers place acordingly, so im pretty sure its not a rule.  While i have no problem with small bunkers on "big courses" i dont necessarly love the idea of Huge bunkers dominating a course on a small/confined property.

[Jon Cavalier]

Pete Dye French Lick?

 (Just a guess, but it's the first and only course that jumped immediately to mind from your description, though I'm sure many fit).

[Josh Stevens]

Hm not sure.  Compare the London and Melbourne Sandbelts.  I am guessing that Melourne courses would have twice the acreage of sand, largely as a result of larger shaperly bunkers, and yet are not any bigger in scale of course or vista.

Open courses like Hankley and Walton still go for the small bunkers style, while tighter courses likes Commonwealth have the larger style.

Not sure there is a rule

I suspect it may be more to do with movement of terrain.  A flat open course  works ok with small bunkers, but a open hiily course needs bigger pits as small pots would look like bullet holes

[Thomas Dai]

and then there's the maintenance issue, particularly ride-on raking vrs hand-raking, plus periodic renovation/reconstruction.
atb

[Sean_A]

This issue doesn't come up too often for me.  I thought perhaps at Trump Aberdeen with all the raised tees that the flock of pots looked all wrong in terms of scale...bigger bunkers would look better in these cases, but they need to find a way to keep the sand in place..one solution is less bunkering if it can't be on a bigger scale. 


 

A course near and dear to my heart, Cleeve Cloud, has aesthetic issues with bunker size and/or lack of bunkers.  A scene like the one below seems to be screaming out for a large bunker off the tee. 


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think its a thing.  I do consider the site scale and vistas in determining  bunkers style.  Generally on a wooded site with confined quarters, things should be smaller, and on a large expansive site, they should be bigger.

Generally is the key word there.  For example, Colbert Hills has 40 mile vistas and the scale is larger than most courses I have done.  (Standing on 7th tee one day during design, Colbert said you could see forever.....my design associate piped in that he had read that due to the curvature of the earth, you can only see a maximum of 41 miles, which I have never verified but sounds likely....)

[Joe Hancock]

Seven replies in and no one has mentioned climate. Wind, rainfall....they should play a role in size and style(revetted, flashed, grass-faced, etc.)

Scale is a thing, but functionality and sustainability are bigger things.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Absolutely, building features is scale is a thing that makes some courses more visually appealing than others.  Most of my crew are really good at that.  But it's one of the reasons modern courses are so over-bunkered by Sean's standard, because we are trying to make them look good.

K Rafkin's comments about the pot bunkers on links is not quite accurate, because those bunkers are generally hidden down in the ground, and hard to see from the tee.  When you get up close to them in the fairway, and look toward the green, they're completely in scale.  As Sean mentioned, the Trump course [with all its elevated tees] struggled more with visual / scale problems; I think they built their clusters of pot bunkers to try and address it, the same way someone else would build big bunkers.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Yes, I thought the flocks of pots was a way to addess scale, but imo it doesn't work very well.  Of course I usually hammer on about over-bunkering, but only because

1. Sometimes the bunkering doesn't create a penalty that the ground features wouldn't, but I spose this depends on one's idea of penalty.  To me, balls being kicked away from the target to low ground is often enough penalty to the job. 

2. There are other ways to create texture and hence improve aesthetics. 

I agree about links though, many have bunkers which are hunkered down and we must remember the craze for loads of elevated tees is relatively new...so at ground level a lot classic links pots can't be seen or are merely hinted at.  I would also say that many links don't have anywhere near the expansive feel of some of these mega land inland courses built in recent years.  In truth, many links feel hemmed in because of dunes, the sea, housing, bunkering and rough.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Right you are!

Sean,

In a way flocks of bunkers do address scale, or at least composition, plus budget.

Let's say I see in the field a bunker "should" occupy a space of 100 x 200 feet.  However, I don't want to waste 20,000 SF of my bunker budget filling it up.  Breaking it into smaller bunkers creates a similar look with far less sand.  Some would say it also helps circulation and speed of play, since you can get to each bunker and not have to rake your way out as you leave.

[Tom_Doak]

Breaking it into smaller bunkers creates a similar look with far less sand.

Yes, but the "similar" look doesn't always translate ... to many it just looks like a bunch of polka dots instead of a big pattern.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Sure, its a matter of taste, but I would generally prefer bigger and less bunkers on a large scale property, but the shaping also makes a difference...that said, placement is always king and I can forgive a lot for a well placed bunker. In the case of Trump the bunkering sometimes looks far too round and too similar in size....well thats my opinion...it could be much better.  Maybe this is why Castle Stuart went with a few different styles...which did meet some criticism for lack of consistency, but I don't see an issue judging by pix.   

Ciao   

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Castle Stuart bunker styles work very well and should meet no criticism for inconsistency of style. Having natural edges backing in to the rough and cleaner, revetted edges surrounded by fairway is a style that works well on links courses, a style I've used a little and will hopefully use more productively in future.

As for one big bunker versus clusters of small ones, I initially wanted to put a Big Nelly style bunker in to the 8th fairway on the new holes at Carne. In the end, we went for two smaller ones, primarily because they looked better and directed play better. Just as well because we've had a few wind blow problems with one of the bunkers. Dread to think what that would have been like as one, bigger bunker.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD and Sean,

I agree the clusters don't always translate, but they can.  Certainly, five perfectly round pot bunkers isn't as good an artistic composition as ones of varying size, shape, and swoop.

Actually, when I draw a cluster on plan, I purposely exaggerate the variances, knowing they can tend to come out similar in the field, if the shaper isn't the most creative.  There is actually an art to clustering bunkers, too. Just like a building has the biggest stones on bottom, usually the bigger bunkers need to be in the lower ranges of the cluster, or they can look top heavy.  Again, the key word is "usually."  Its one of those things where all things are possible if well done, but you sometimes feel safer taking the tried and true method.....