Water hazard shaping

[David Davis]

On a couple recent local visits I've noticed my growing dislike for the shaping of some of the water hazards. It seems these are showing up commonly on the inland links-like courses and you often see the courses taking on a rather natural look and the bunkering is often the frilly natural looking sort which is so trendy the last decade. However, the water hazards are being shaped very geometric and circular (or oval) often with with very smooth edges made of wood that resemble boat docks. It's such a strong contrast that it feels out of place. Has anyone else noticed this? Any thoughts here?

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm following this as I'm involved in a project with a very ugly lake on the 1st hole.

[Adrian_Stiff]

On a couple recent local visits I've noticed my growing dislike for the shaping of some of the water hazards. It seems these are showing up commonly on the inland links-like courses and you often see the courses taking on a rather natural look and the bunkering is often the frilly natural looking sort which is so trendy the last decade. However, the water hazards are being shaped very geometric and circular (or oval) often with with very smooth edges made of wood that resemble boat docks. It's such a strong contrast that it feels out of place. Has anyone else noticed this? Any thoughts here?

Most people really like the timber edge.

[Joel_Stewart]

On a couple recent local visits I've noticed my growing dislike for the shaping of some of the water hazards. It seems these are showing up commonly on the inland links-like courses and you often see the courses taking on a rather natural look and the bunkering is often the frilly natural looking sort which is so trendy the last decade. However, the water hazards are being shaped very geometric and circular (or oval) often with with very smooth edges made of wood that resemble boat docks. It's such a strong contrast that it feels out of place. Has anyone else noticed this? Any thoughts here?

Most people really like the timber edge.

I'm not sure what "timber edge" means?

[David Davis]

I'm unable to post photos at the moment but if someone was able to upload one or two for me I could give an example I took a picture of.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,


One reason Pete Dye and others shape at least the fw edge simply is that it makes the entire edge visible to golfers.  Lots of landscape architect trained gca's drew and built curvy swurvy lake edges that looked great in airplane view, but presented numerous little blind corners that golfers couldn't see and good players hated, especially if trying to cut the corner (as part of the design) but not really knowing where the corner was.


I was exhibiting at a golf show and another architect brought his young associate by my booth, which featured a plan of a straight lake edge.  Literally dragged him in and pointed at the plan.  He says, "Jeff, will you please tell Fred why this lake edge is so straight?"  I gave the answer above and the gca said something like "AHA!".  Obviously, that kid had the same stubborn attitude about lake shapes looking good on plan that some of mine had.


So, form follows function.  If edge visibility is a function, then a simple edge is the form.

[David Davis]

Jeff,


Thanks, that definitely makes sense to a certain extent but if I could post the photos I think you would see that your description doesn't fit my example as there were quite obvious but if the theme is in going for the natural look and shaping it just looks bizarre to have water hazards like those you have seen at Golf National in Paris during the Ryder Cup.


I'm sure it's personal preference because I'd prefer to have little to no water. However, take Sawgrass as an example, everything looks to be in the same kind of theme, similar water hazards and shaping but the lines of greens and bunkers are modern (for the time it was designed) and all fall in line with each other.

[David Davis]

For a good example please see the lake posts that Shulzie just made on this Top 100 Quest Completed thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,


Of course, his bad example was one of my lakes.  In it's defense, Colbert Hills is built on solid rock, those contours are mostly natural on the sides.  We felt we had moved enough rock to chip away any more shape.  And you can't build shape with fill because it wouldn't be stable.  The natural slopes were pretty close to 30% anyway, just hard to change.  Plus, the right fw is a cape hole, and thus subject to the fairly straight line rule.  The last part of the left fw is on top of the dam, which by Kansas code had to be built to 100 year standard because there was no place to cut an overflow.  And it has a concrete overflow structure so large they actually found a Honduran family living in it at one point.  It is also the irrigation storage lake, and we weren't going to add wetland shelfs or anything else that would reduce capacity.  So, things happen in design.


I do like the wetland edges on the other lake he showed in that post, and agree that a lake that disappears around a corner is inherently more interesting than one you can take in at one glance.  One of the old English landscape architects was famous for that (Repton, Brown?) As to wetlands, sometimes required by enviro reggies (wetlands) and some times reviled for blocking the green just beyond it for vision! Every lake is its own design project.

[Tom_Doak]

I actually struggled with the wetland edges to the lakes, because it seemed like you wouldn't be able to tell whether your ball had carried the hazard or not, until you got around to the other side.


Of course, I don't really like lakes on golf courses at all.

[James Bennett]

David
I wonder if part of the issue is dealing with such a flat surface.  Water invariably finds its own 'level'.A wetlands can soften an edge, but can be hard to maintain to a particular standard.A clean edge is easy to maintain, but will always be a clean edge abutting a flat (watery) surface.
That might also be part of why a fully visible lake is less interesting than one than ends out of sight.  Out of sight allows a difference in horizon, and a change in 'clean edge'.
James B

[David Davis]

David,


Of course, his bad example was one of my lakes.  In it's defense, Colbert Hills is built on solid rock, those contours are mostly natural on the sides.  We felt we had moved enough rock to chip away any more shape.  And you can't build shape with fill because it wouldn't be stable.  The natural slopes were pretty close to 30% anyway, just hard to change.  Plus, the right fw is a cape hole, and thus subject to the fairly straight line rule.  The last part of the left fw is on top of the dam, which by Kansas code had to be built to 100 year standard because there was no place to cut an overflow.  And it has a concrete overflow structure so large they actually found a Honduran family living in it at one point.  It is also the irrigation storage lake, and we weren't going to add wetland shelfs or anything else that would reduce capacity.  So, things happen in design.


I do like the wetland edges on the other lake he showed in that post, and agree that a lake that disappears around a corner is inherently more interesting than one you can take in at one glance.  One of the old English landscape architects was famous for that (Repton, Brown?) As to wetlands, sometimes required by enviro reggies (wetlands) and some times reviled for blocking the green just beyond it for vision! Every lake is its own design project.

Jeff,


I had no idea it was your design, so not trying to pick on you here. I'm sure there are often reasons out of the architects control and I'm fine with that as an explanation.


Still the examples I am referring to are are yet more in your face in my mind. I get what you and Tom and others are saying about being able to see the entire lake just when the shaping and lines look like they have been done with a compass and all the features of green, bunkering etc etc. are very natural in nature. This seems to be happening a lot and sure maybe that is the easiest and cleanest way to present it. Maybe it's more functional and really serves better to guard against edge erosion yet still, to me it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing or fit the rest of the design in my eyes. Naturally just my opinion but it's a recurring theme I not too big a fan of.

[David Davis]

David
I wonder if part of the issue is dealing with such a flat surface.  Water invariably finds its own 'level'.A wetlands can soften an edge, but can be hard to maintain to a particular standard.A clean edge is easy to maintain, but will always be a clean edge abutting a flat (watery) surface.
That might also be part of why a fully visible lake is less interesting than one than ends out of sight.  Out of sight allows a difference in horizon, and a change in 'clean edge'.
James B

James,


Thanks! I think that the main answer indeed lies in functionality and cost of implementation and maintenance just as you are suggesting. I just see fortunes being invested into courses and then these kind of details falling short (perhaps only in my mind and this is not the case).

[Tom_Doak]

The reason Pete Dye started to use timber edges on hazards was to keep the line in the same place, horizontally.


The water level of many water hazards in the southeast fluctuates due to tidal influence, while ponds used for irrigation sources will be pumped down as much as one foot per day.  If the banks are "natural" that means 3-5 feet around the perimeter of the hazard that might get muddy.  Mr Dye's solution was to create a vertical edge going down a couple of feet into the water to eliminate the muddy edge.

[James Bennett]

and ponds used as reservoirs will drop 50 feet over a summer - water lapping at the edge in winter, and a barren quarry at the end of summer.  Those reservoirs aren't there for aesthetics, but to capture water necessary for irrigation.

James B