[Tom_Doak]

All the real architects I know go through many iterations of design until  something has to be picked, in college they used countless rolls of tracing paper, now they're using computer aided tools or having someone get it into the CAD machine or software of choice.

Steve:


Golf course architecture is very different from "real" architecture as you describe it.  Buildings can't be changed much after planning because the plans must be carefully analyzed to ensure the building will be structurally sound.


That isn't the case for golf courses at all.  In fact quite the opposite -- golf courses are sculptural, 3-D forms that don't need structural analysis because they are part of the ground itself.


The only point of plans is to locate things generally for the benefit of any other features that will revolve around the golf course, and to generate approximate cost estimates for construction.  Beyond that, it really is sculptural, and it baffles me why anyone would do a bunch of 2-D drawings [or even build a 3-D model] to direct someone else on creating a sculpture, instead of working at full scale themselves, in the actual setting for the work. 


And no, CAD is not the same as working in 3-D.

[Jonathan Mallard]

All the real architects I know go through many iterations of design until  something has to be picked, in college they used countless rolls of tracing paper, now they're using computer aided tools or having someone get it into the CAD machine or software of choice.

Steve:


Golf course architecture is very different from "real" architecture as you describe it.  Buildings can't be changed much after planning because the plans must be carefully analyzed to ensure the building will be structurally sound.


That isn't the case for golf courses at all.  In fact quite the opposite -- golf courses are sculptural, 3-D forms that don't need structural analysis because they are part of the ground itself.


The only point of plans is to locate things generally for the benefit of any other features that will revolve around the golf course, and to generate approximate cost estimates for construction.  Beyond that, it really is sculptural, and it baffles me why anyone would do a bunch of 2-D drawings [or even build a 3-D model] to direct someone else on creating a sculpture, instead of working at full scale themselves, in the actual setting for the work. 


And no, CAD is not the same as working in 3-D.

Only because Bentley et al have decided that there isn't enough return on investment money to create the equivalent of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in 3-D with all of the drainage, irrigation, green layers, etc. that automatically generate quantities, produce grading diagrams, etc.


Not intended as a negative, but Golf Architecture is still a niche market in the overall construction market.


Plus, how many of you would fork over their $50k/year licensing fee for their software?

[John Percival]

Oh for Christ's sakes!, it's an escape!!!

Come on! It's a bunch of guys scribbling on paper about a  fantasy project.

They aren't constructing from the plans. They aren't financing the project (which is the REAL issue). IT'S ABOUT DISCUSSION.

IN FACT, ALL THESE THREADS ARE ABOUT DISCUSSION.

Lighten up and appreciate the positive. explain the 'wrong' and laugh at the nonsense.
And if you can't do that, then you are in dire need of some serious 'action'.

[Mike_Young]

All the real architects I know go through many iterations of design until  something has to be picked, in college they used countless rolls of tracing paper, now they're using computer aided tools or having someone get it into the CAD machine or software of choice.

Steve:


Golf course architecture is very different from "real" architecture as you describe it.  Buildings can't be changed much after planning because the plans must be carefully analyzed to ensure the building will be structurally sound.


That isn't the case for golf courses at all.  In fact quite the opposite -- golf courses are sculptural, 3-D forms that don't need structural analysis because they are part of the ground itself.


The only point of plans is to locate things generally for the benefit of any other features that will revolve around the golf course, and to generate approximate cost estimates for construction.  Beyond that, it really is sculptural, and it baffles me why anyone would do a bunch of 2-D drawings [or even build a 3-D model] to direct someone else on creating a sculpture, instead of working at full scale themselves, in the actual setting for the work. 


And no, CAD is not the same as working in 3-D.

Only because Bentley et al have decided that there isn't enough return on investment money to create the equivalent of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in 3-D with all of the drainage, irrigation, green layers, etc. that automatically generate quantities, produce grading diagrams, etc.


Not intended as a negative, but Golf Architecture is still a niche market in the overall construction market.


Plus, how many of you would fork over their $50k/year licensing fee for their software?

Jonothan,
I've had Bentley for years and had a guy do a golf specific program for it...JN now has it and that person works for him running Bentley for him....I haven't used the program in years...

[Don Mahaffey]

Bentley waterCAD is used by many irrigation consultants. 
BIM in vertical construction ain't all it's cracked up to be and that is with the users imputing all the base data.   
In large landscape projects the base data isn't nearly as easy to get in a dead nuts fashion.   
There are plenty of civil type ADesk and Carlson products that provide qtys just fine.   It's just in golf, even though they are used for prior planning, their best use is during the project in a real time mode.   

[Joey Chase]

I would think that a routing plan is also used to get permitting for a project much like building plans. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Changing a course design on the hoof is certainly nothing new. This is Dr Mac's original routing for Reddish Vale.



A newspaper article from 1913 describes the course under construction. Several changes from the above plan had already been made but the 10th hole (#9 on the plan) is described exactly as drawn - a par 5 of 520 yards with the next tee adjacent to the green.

A subsequent article in the same newspaper shortly after a visit by Dr Mac now describes the 10th hole as being a par 4 with a green being constructed in the hillside 150 yards short of the 11th tee. This is how the hole plays to this day with its distinctive 2 level green.



It would appear that Dr Mac changed his mind about the hole mid way through construction and ordered that a new green be built in this natural site. We like to think that it is the world's first "MacKenzie Green"!

The only downside is the long walk to the 11th tee.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes Joey, Routing plans / Master Plans will always be needed for the planning process. All architects will provide a detailed routing on paper. The non-architects on this thread seem to be concentrating on that aspect when in reality it is after that conceptual design phase that the different design models diverge.

Whilst I fall down on the Tom / Mike / Don side that design and shape in the field with only working plans and sketches is the best approach, I do think they underplay what the other half do. As Mike has said before, RTJ turned GCA in to a profession and the design / tender methodology approaches GCA in exactly the same way as building architecture, in other words producing a detailed set of technical drawings, specs and quantities for a contractor to go off and build. That doesn't mean there isn't heavy design involvement in the field where things might change. But it does mean that things can be predicted a little better (in theory although I do think it also leads to over design and therefore the potential for higher cost). There are many architects who think that it is this ability to draw, visualise and design in 2D that makes them great architects. But let's be honest, with regards to form, it is how the features end up looking and playing in the ground that is the important aspect. That's why it's better to actually be the constructor or to work hand in hand with him.

[Carl Rogers]

Hasn't the Lido competition turned into a Drawing Contest?

[Tom_Doak]

Whilst I fall down on the Tom / Mike / Don side that design and shape in the field with only working plans and sketches is the best approach, I do think they underplay what the other half do. As Mike has said before, RTJ turned GCA in to a profession and the design / tender methodology approaches GCA in exactly the same way as building architecture, in other words producing a detailed set of technical drawings, specs and quantities for a contractor to go off and build.

Ally:


The reason I resist this so much is that the "plans" guys are trying so hard to convince the world of their ability to visualize everything, that it leads permitting authorities to put greater and greater restrictions on changing things during construction, for no good reason.  Moving a green thirty feet in the field [unless it's adjacent to a wetland or sensitive environmental area] makes absolutely no difference to anyone but the golfers, yet in some locales it's forbidden to deviate from the approved plans even that much.


I just don't want them to ruin it for the rest of us, by making it impossible to improve the design on site.


It's also possible to estimate costs pretty tightly once you've built a few courses and have a good idea how much time it will take.  The best part is, we can actually wind up UNDER budget which doesn't happen with the opposite approach.

[Mike_Young]

And to add to what TD says above:  many times there will be a change order from the general contractor if the green or the surrounds or anything is changed from the drawing.  I have seen a GC give me a change order for an extra 30 ft of 4 drain pipe for such a change on a muni job.  I'm just not wired for that type of designing...some are.

[Steve Lang]

   Mike & Tom,
You might like this...



ps Tom, in some circles you do understand CAD is 3-d... we walk through and under designs everyday, and as they change everyday..  Design, art, architecture, and planning are all complementary whether formed in dirt, soil, or steel... led by form or function.

[Philippe Binette]

A few thoughts hčre


1) the drawing is not reality. It s a representation of reality... It should communicate the ideas


2) if you can't built it... It's only lines on a piece of paper...


3) about 3d models.. Of those i ve seen... My only thought was: do you really want to built this?  It s terrible!


4) great golf architecture is about 6 inch higher here, 5 feet further left there, a bump there.. It can't be all figured out on a plan...


5) two things lost on plans: risk and restraint...
We tend to do to much on plans.. To show there is something... Every bunkerless par 4 looks the same on plans except for the topo lines...and since most people can't read topo lines...
And there are a lot of things that look stupid on plans but great in reality..
If you want to built a tee close to a Green you have to see if it works... In some places, 30 feet from the fringe would work and in other places, It would look dangerous... So you start creating ´standards' based on a safe distance that works every time...(30 yards instead of 30 feet. That will lead to repetitive design

[Bret Lawrence]

I think by any elementary definition of the word design, Seth Raynor's map would be considered a design.  It is a conceptual design developed by Raynor for a real piece of property in Florida.  The map is pictured on an Olmsted Brothers map which also includes a design of the housing community to be built around the golf course.  This design was never fulfilled.


A golf course by definition is not a design, it is a finished by product of the design, which would include all the design changes and change orders made by the architect or builders on the fly.  I think we throw the word around a lot that this course was designed by this guy or that guy.  The design is really just the plan.  Bringing that design to a tangible, playable format in the most economical way is what separates the real life golf architect from the Armchair architects.


I have no problem with guys trying to figure out a layout on a site half way across the globe.  If they are having fun and it lets you use your brain a little, have fun with it.  These drawings, by definition are also designs.  They are just based more on a hypothetical exercise than a real life one and I think the contestants are well aware of that.


If a drawing is not a design, should we mention Colt's name when we discuss the Old Elm Club?

I personally feel like your drawer full of drawings are unfulfilled designs.  Care to share any of them?  I love to look at plans fulfilled or not.

[Dave McCollum]

I have nothing substantive to contribute, but I was struck by an idea this year that may be relevant to this topic.  Some years ago, I played a Palm Springs course and was perplexed by the design.  I thought it was a beautiful work of landscape art, yet it just seemed to lack soul as a golf course.  I started a thread about “opulent golf” more or less wondering what I was missing or didn’t understand.  I went back this year and played the course again.  Since the course was totally created by earthmoving on a flat site, I wondered if process of constructing it was greatly influenced by conceiving it first as routing, creating conceptual drawings of each hole, and then by a set of plans that a contractor could use to build a “footprint” for each hole.  In other words, design on paper (CAD) and hand off to a contractor to build.  I have no idea how it was built, but had the thought that perhaps the disconnect I felt between this magnificent, 3D sculpted landscape and the actual golf played over it may be the result of a era when this sort of process was SOP.

Every component of this course shrieked that no expense was spared to make it a wonderful golf experience.  However, for me at least, it just didn’t compare to others I’ve played that were designed and built on better land or using a more adaptable process of evolution and construction.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a fine course and serves its purpose, for that those that afford it, and clearly it provides a lot of jobs to maintain it.

Now back to those who have something to say.

[Ian Andrew]

Whether a CAD drawing, a sketch, a watercolor, a routing plan, a plaster model, verbal directions given on site ...
It's all variations on the way of sharing information.
Was Thompson wrong to provide models?
Ross wrong to produce drawings?

I never understood the importance of this debate

If your not building it personally, you have to have some form of starting point with the person who is
Or your not creating the work - your just editing their work
Which can be fine too - if that's the way you want to work

Again, I don't care about your process as long as it yields results.

What I don't get I why some insist others must conform to what works for them.
Or others are less for doing something differently.
If it works for you - good

But truthfully, I only care what you've built
not how you got there....

[James Boon]

I'm just going to add a little perspective from the building architects point of view if I may.


A drawing is a design for sure. There are plenty of unbuilt designs of mine out there that I can refer to and when I do I will say "I designed..." it just didnt get fulfilled.


Another example probably with closer connections to this debate, is the preference for a lot of private house clients to only appoint the architect to do a basic set of drawings rather than being involved right till the end. I was lucky enough to recently get a house I designed (there I said it) on a TV house building show. As I watched it I kept cursing some of the details and the way things had been finished, as they were some way from how I would have detailed it if still involved, but at the end of the day it was still fundamentally a design of mine that I was proud of.


Therefore surely a paper design or a routing of a golf course is still a "design". Perhaps if its built without the full involvement of the golf course architect there will be missed opportunities, green surrounds or bunkers not quite as desired by the architect, but its still fundamentally their design, it just needs an * or a caveat 


Cheers,


James

[Tom_Doak]

But truthfully, I only care what you've built
not how you got there....

Ian:


You and I can agree on that much.  I just don't like the preference for plans by other architects being set as the standard. 


I've been told I could never work in Europe because each country is much more insistent on following the plans to the letter -- although that proved not to be true at all for our project in St. Emilion, where nobody seemed to care whether we followed the plans or not.  I don't want to see America turn into Europe in that regard.  One of the things that makes America great is that there is still the freedom to tinker around with a design to make it better; it is that optionality that leads to improvement.

[BCowan]

Whether a CAD drawing, a sketch, a watercolor, a routing plan, a plaster model, verbal directions given on site ...
It's all variations on the way of sharing information.
Was Thompson wrong to provide models?
Ross wrong to produce drawings?

I never understood the importance of this debate

If your not building it personally, you have to have some form of starting point with the person who is
Or your not creating the work - your just editing their work
Which can be fine too - if that's the way you want to work

Again, I don't care about your process as long as it yields results.

What I don't get I why some insist others must conform to what works for them.
Or others are less for doing something differently.
If it works for you - good

But truthfully, I only care what you've built
not how you got there....

Thank You.  I don't know where you said or supported Archies setting standards for other Archies?.?.  I don't want to see America turn into Europe in most ways. 

[Ian Andrew]

I just don't like the preference for plans by other architects being set as the standard. 

What standard? ... perhaps a decade ago
Pete, then Bill, then you, now Gil, its all design / build these days
And it's clear as day where the industry is headed with the next generation
(and to make it clear - I'm for this - despite my personal place in the business)

Hell, even the renovations are now asking for design / build


I'm actually at a loss that you still believe that's the case.

[BCowan]

The other part of the process I failed to mention [because I was just answering Ben's question] is that the routing is seldom a one-step process.


I've mentioned here before that St. Andrews Beach and Sebonack are the two courses I've built [two out of 35] where my first routing wound up being used in its entirety.  That leaves 33 others where I did more than one version.


On all of my three most famous courses -- Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, and Barnbougle Dunes -- the routing was a three-step process.  Version 1 was done on paper, before I saw the site.  Version 2 was produced after a multi-day site visit, and presented to the client for feedback.  And, following that feedback, Version 3 was done after another multiple-day visit, to try and address the things that mattered to the client.


For Pacific Dunes, Mr. Keiser's main input on version 2 was that he thought we had too many long holes playing north into the prevailing wind, and all the coastal holes going in the same direction [north].  Most of the changes involved sorting out how to get the routing to cross over twice, so we could get in to play #4 heading south, and then get out again ... because it was clear to me that #10, 11 and 13 were way better playing to the north.


For Cape Kidnappers, Mr. Robertson was concerned that my original plan didn't have returning nines [it came back to the clubhouse after the tenth], and that we weren't going as far out onto the dramatic land as we might, where holes 15-16-17 are today.  Once I understood that he was okay with a hole like #15, with forty yards of fairway and oblivion to both sides, it only took a few days to sort out the rest of it.


For Barnbougle Dunes, Mr. Keiser looked at my version 2 routing and suggested it would be even better if the back nine ended along the beach, instead of having #10 on the beach and ending inland.  I went back and found #17 and #15 as they are, and showed him those the next day, which meant that I eventually re-routed the whole back nine, [almost] backwards from how it goes now.  [#13 green would still have been in the same place, just played from a different angle.]


That's really how the process should work.  Having everyone do a "final" routing at the beginning is silly, because it invites everyone to pander to what they think will appeal to the client, instead of seeing what the land really offers and then reconciling it with how the client really thinks.

I'm sorry if I implied that routing was a one and done step it isn't.  Is routing a course using a Topo not a beginner or an important ABC nuts and bolts process an Archie should know how to do?   

[BCowan]

Tom,

I was talking about Sand Valley which a GCA poster lamented a certain course owners competition.  Of course not all are close to equal, but I'm sure Mikes finalist were. Just like all owners aren't equal.

No one has yet answered if they radicly change routing in the field?

As the saying goes, some are more equal than others 


As for changing a routing in the field, I've done so fairly often, sometimes radically and sometimes less so.  I guess it depends on your level of comfort.  For Pacific Dunes, between the final walk-through when Mr. Keiser approved the routing, and the end of construction, we made the following changes:


   #2  shifted the green site sixty yards toward the tee, shortening the hole
   #4  combined with the original #5 to make a long par-4 ... the version Mike walked had a par-3 from the current tees to the start of the fairway, followed by a short par-4 to the current green site, that would not have been such a great hole
   #5  added to the routing, a hole I'd come up with in an earlier version
   #6  moved tee to accommodate the change to #5 -- the hole we built was in my very first routing, but Mr. Keiser had worried it was too short
   #8  moved green a bit back and to the right when we cleared out a cool green site
   #9  added the lower green as an alternate


The reason we came up with all of those changes later in the game is because we knew the site much better after we'd spent a month or two working on it every day.  For instance, I understood that the prevailing wind would make the original #4 a weird hole where nobody could hold the green well downwind, and that the next hole would play too short because of the same wind unless the tee went further back, which would push the 12th hole out further away from the shoreline.


Lots of architects pretend that they can visualize the whole course before they start and can get it on plans just right, and that will save the owner money.  You can believe that if you want, but not many of those guys have built anything we consider great, and I would posit that it's because they stick to the plans even if they see something better later on in the process, because doing otherwise would be admitting they didn't see it all to start with.


But even Mike Keiser -- who is the most sophisticated client I've had -- would not remember all the changes I described above, unless I put the map right in front of him to remind him.  It's really not surprising he couldn't visualize it all in the beginning, since I couldn't, either; I just wonder if he's started to forget how the magic really happens, or if he ever really noticed in the first place.

''As the saying goes, some are more equal than others''- Can we have some Humility please?   

I left myself way open here to getting pummeled.  I did not imply or mean that a simple cocktail napkin routing couldn't have a tee or green moved 30-50 yards or tweaks made on the fly.  Final editing and so forth.  I think that routing a course using a topo or mapped piece of paper is the ABC's is it not?  I never said that a routing was a design.  There are routings i like a lot where i don't like how the furniture is arranged.  Are you saying Bill Coore couldn't look at some of your drawings or routings and see where you are going?  As it pertains to ''but not many of those guys have built anything we consider great''- Many of those same Archies could say they haven't received incredible pieces of land like some of the Minimalist have 

[Thomas Dai]

I hope this isn't going OT, but  how do guys in the business protect 'their' designs/routings/drawings etc when involved in a competitive tender process, maybe even an international competitive tender process, where possibly other influences are involved?


Are some clients inclined to reject all the tenders, but pick the best bits from one or some or all and then maybe after a slight cosmetic tweak or time delay get someone else, say someone inhouse if it's a renovation or a significant course modification, to do the work?


How do you 'protect' yourself from this?


Atb

[Mike_Young]

Thomas,
I would not to a competitive tender process in the first place.  I believe that in most cases the client knows who he want and that person knows he wants them and the rest is just playing the game.  Definitely the case in muni RFP cases....

As Ian says the future is design/build.  And 15 years ago "professional" archies were lying about such while they had their own construction companies sitting there doing the work.  It was shunned as long as they could....

Ben, As for routing plans....I would just as soon have a routing map showing a tee stake, a turn point and a green site and nothing else.  And I can set a budget and stay in a budget with nothing more than that.

[Garland Bayley]

I just don't like the preference for plans by other architects being set as the standard. 

What standard? ... perhaps a decade ago
Pete, then Bill, then you, now Gil, its all design / build these days
And it's clear as day where the industry is headed with the next generation
(and to make it clear - I'm for this - despite my personal place in the business)

Hell, even the renovations are now asking for design / build


I'm actually at a loss that you still believe that's the case.

It sure sounds to me that RTJ was design build too. After all, he owned the companies that did the builds under his supervision.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()