Love the notes between bunker and green with flow arrows showing drainage away from the bunker. For some reason, lately I have had trouble getting shapers to keep water from flowing in bunkers. If they stake to the green edge, it starts falling off right there. Not that my contours don't show draining back to the green or that I don't try to correct it in the field, but it is surprising how many shapers have lost that long held shaping rule of making sure water flows away from bunkers. On one project they told me it wasn't a requirement since we were using Better Billy Bunker. When the ones that they didn't shape correctly proved to wash out, they told the owner "that's how he designed it."
Jeff, please don't get me started on contractors. Okay, fine. I just don't take anything for granted with any of them and my drawings are followed up with explicit instructions NOT to do certain things, like drain into bunkers. I am also always on-site a lot questioning everything. It is amazing to me how it seems like we have to start from scratch with many very fundamental items of construction, no matter who the contractor is. It does greatly help to have my own shapers on site because there is no question with them AND they can watch the contractor's crews. That is as valuable as the actual shaping.
-It appears your back bunker would never have been visible (colored shading be damned) as graded, with a high point of 853 behind a green of the same contour on a slightly uphill hole.
Do you use cross sections in planning?
When did you figure that out and add the extra fill behind the back left bunker that wasn't shown on the plan?
I don't use cross sections and this is a great example of no matter how detailed one's grading may be thought out, nothing replaces confirmation in the field. I usually know that there may be visibility challenges with certain features and instruct my shapers to adjust in the field ahead of time. So right away, as things are rough shaped, we are going back to the tee to ensure visibility. It takes a bit of time to get it right, but as long as it is happening during the shaping process, visibility can be assured without too much angst. My guys also know that I want visibility on every penal feature so that is a goal on day one. Sometimes it is impossible (such as a bunker behind a plateau green). The extra fill needed was just scraped from around the green complex and was minimal.
The fairway bunker on nine and greenside bunkers behind ten green at Keller are good examples of not achieving visibility that I had to live with. The greenside bunkers were never going to be visible and that was understood. But we did spend some time trying to make the fairway bunker on nine visible. We accomplished it but it was going to come at a cost to the Superintendent so we decided to tone it down instead. The mounding framing the sand is visible and I decided that would be enough. So I compromised design for the Super, which was a good tradeoff here.
- On the other hand, the front left bunker looks more visible than you predicted on plan. BTW, the colored shading is also something I will add on my plans.
- It appears the front left bunker shows 3-6" of fill in front of it on the plan, but was built deeper in the field? Was a "vision slot" as shown for the right bunker considered?
The left front greenside bunker was built in the field to transition from existing grade down below to the putting surface up above so the depth just happened. I like to have it easily accessible from the low side as much as possible. It helps with golfers and also ensures some variety in bunker depth. It also looks most naturally-fitting.
As far as the right bunker, it goes back to ensuring visibility all the time going in. The plans try to express that but my shaper (in this case the very talented Marc Burger, who has shaped for me for a decade now) knows what the goal is anyway. The shaping of the approach deviated from the plan as we spent a morning creating a strong ridge feature coming out of the right side of the hole, crossing the middle at a diagonal, and then fading out toward the tee. The grading plan ensured that we had enough material there to do something creative.
-Do you actually build sand bunkers to drain out the low side, or build them as holes, which would require a closed contour in the bunker bottoms?
I always build bunkers as holes with drainage in the bottom. Sometimes I show a closed contour, sometimes I don't. My specifications clearly express sand stays in and water stays out so that is one check and balance. The other checks and balances are my shaper understanding the overall goal and me deliberately checking each bunker in the field.
So I didn't show a closed contour on these bunkers because it would not show up on the plans clearly enough. At this scale, the overall idea of the sand sloping in a particular direction was what I was trying to express.
-On another hole, your post indicated concern for circulation. It appears the front right sand bunker blocks the main path on to the green from the path, as apparently the cart path didn't extend as far as shown on plans. Grade problems, not worth grading into steep hill (it seems it would be hard to catch up to contours) or budget cuts to path?
Believe me, I know about those! The same contractor took my carefully planned cart parking wide out that was behind a green and moved it to the front, causing walk backs that slow play, etc. He just "felt" it was better. (BTW, it doesn't happen often but every so often you find a foreman or shaper who just has to build things different than the architect plans, probably a passive aggressive kind of person, at least in the case I am describing, LOL or not)
Again, it is amazing to me how contractors just change things indiscriminately. I tell them up front not to even bother before talking to me. Sometimes I give them a shot to change something because they may have a better idea, but it usually involves their desire to cut a corner. Of course, they complain when I make them go back and do things the way I directed in the first place (which would have saved them money in the first place). One even tried to call it a change order. That's a LOL.
I do try to work as many features around circulation as I can. Sometimes it sets up for the overall strategy of the hole and how that hole relates to the other holes. But sometimes I need to create variety and there just may be a bunker between the cart path and the green (as is the case for hole five). If I can solve this issue 80% of the time while creating strategic variety, it is a win and better than not thinking about it at all.
Lastly, what, if any software do you use to draw your grading and green detail plans? If you have mentioned it, I have not seen it or forgotten.
I use Autocad for all of my plans. Let's talk more in Phoenix.
Ward - I did call for new trees to be planted here in an attempt to increase the acreage of Oak Savanna, which is an environment that has been lost to development over the years in the upper Midwest. We planted Bur Oaks, Red Oaks, and Northern Pin Oaks and added 33.85 acres of Oak Savanna Restoration in the process. This was a key move in securing permits very quickly. But the most important thing to know is that the trees planted are far enough away from the playing corridors that even at full maturity, they won't create tight spaces. I am not one to add trees but in the right places, they can be an asset to permitting without compromising design.