You're walking a raw site....

[A_Clay_Man]

What are some of the first things you look for, drainage, greensites?

Everything?

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

Some of the best golf architecture experiences I've had in the past few years have involved walking raw sites. I don't know what you mean by the "first" things that you look for. However, if you spend enough time on site, you'll certainly want to look at the site from as many points of view as possible.

Intellectually it can be a very interesting and enjoyable experience.

Just as one example, when I first walked the Doonbeg site, I could see many possible greensites, but amidst the sand dunes could not see many places for landing areas/fairways. That's one reason I quickly became convinced that despite all the marketing hype, the site, while good, isn't that great.

By contrast you have a place like Inch where you find endless possibilities - greensites, tee locations and fairways all over the place - if planning permission could ever be secured.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim-Interesting about Doonbeg.

I think I would have a hard time seeing or extrapolating what could or should be built versus just finding what's there.

Are time on-site and creativity, the keys to greatness? Or can greatness be achieved with just a topo map?

[Dan Kelly]

Allow me to add a question to the architects hereabouts:

Is the "raw site" always a fait accompli? Do owner/developers ever come to you and say, either, (1) I want a golf course; help me find a site; or (2) I want a golf course; here are a few possible sites; you choose the best one?

[Brad Swanson]

Adam,
   I learned this summer that one of the most important things is to keep track of the livestock on the premesis (if you are interested in self-preservation).

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, I assume you are actually asking real life archies this question, not those of us that play one in our dreams.

That said, the most fun I ever have in this whole obsessed hobby is to obtain a good topo map (2" elevation lines are best) and make many blank copies - blowing them up and then measuring a known on the ground to get the right scale, then spend many days walking that site, pencilling in possible greens, FWs and tee locations; marking the land features that must be untouched and accepted as dominant features of the land, then going back home to work on routing the puzzle together, considering the on-site and off-site influences.  It is even better if you can get the aerial, and then measure a feature on the ground of about 100' then have the thing blown up to drafting table size and work all this out with scale ruler and compass.  I've spent plenty on copy-printer fees as a hobbiest doing this with several sites.  But, it is really fun and beats building ships in bottles for my amusement.

[Steve Lang]

 

Adam,

When I took GCA Course from MSU we used topos for exercise like RJ_D notes.. It was fun to see different ideas on same plot.

I think bottom line is unless you build a cardboard or clay model and shrink yourself onto it or get USGS DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data or better equivalent for a site and pop it into a 3-d viewer or capable software, you'll never get to line of sight and other synoptic issues.  Seems like site visits are really the easiest way to reconcile grand scale issues and leave the topos for enginering design issues from cut & fill to drainage to permitting.  

I wonder what the grand masters of gca would have done if they had had digital aids?

[RJ_Daley]

18 co-ordinates on a Sunday afternoon?

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I have almost no exposure to topo maps, but suspect being good with them is important.

One can walk a site and easily see possibilities for individual holes, but the architect has to actually put everything together and I would imagine that's where the topo can help.

Regarding on site verses the using the topo, I see them as complimentary. The topo can provide the birds eye big picture. But, time on site would be required to get all the details right.

[ian]

Natural holes: tee site, fairway and green already graded and ready.

[Tom_Doak]

I always try to get the landowner to send us a topo map to play around with before I go look at a site.  If he does, I'll sketch out a few prospective holes on it [whatever my eye goes to first], and then go out and get a feel for those.

Whether I've had this opportunity or not, what I'm looking for first when I get to a site are the things that DON'T show up on a topo map -- views to feature or views to avoid, soils, and everything about the natural vegetation [i.e. any grasses worth saving for the roughs, what are the trees like, how tall are they and do they block out views, etc.].  

I don't really consciously look for golf holes if I haven't studied the maps carefully ... although I'm bound to see a few things that look like pieces of golf holes.  The first time I walked around the site at Pacific Dunes, the seventh green site jumped out at us, and the trail going up the first fairway sure looked like a golf hole, even though there were a lot of little pine trees in the way.

I do most of my laying out of holes on the map, although I keep going out in the field to check out how they're going to work.

[Art_Schaupeter]

A_Clay_Man,

When I look at a site for the first time, I look for good natural areas for entire holes including the green site, tee location and landing areas.  These natural holes become the starting point for the initial routing concepts.  The more time I spend on site, the more I start to look at the detail type stuff, drainage patterns, stategic contours, upslopes for bunkers, etc.  I like to start with the big picture and work down to the specifics as I spend more time on site.

Tim is right about the topo and the site walk being complimentary.  The topo map is invaluable.  It allows you to work out routing options much quicker on paper once you have spent the time on site finding the best land, features, etc.  Even if you are a whiz at reading topo though, I think it is critical that the time is put in walking the site thoroughly as some of the best features don't always show up on a 100 or 200 scale topo.

Dan,

In my experience, I have not had a client come to me to help them pick the site.  That is usually already done.  I'm happy if they haven't already put together a land plan showing eighteen individual bubbles designating golf hole locations within a master plan community!  I like to have the opportunity to route the golf course first before the land planner takes their shot so I can look at the entire site for the best golf holes.  I did have one client that had two sites and asked which one I liked better.

The process of discovery on a new site is probably my favorite part of the job.

[Michael Moore]

When Bill Coore was showing me around the Old Sandwich site and explaining the routing, at one point he made a sweeping gesture with his arm and said, "Well, there's no golf over there."

You look for golf.

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx everyone for their considered method.

I know from my limited experience there are few things that just jump out at you, depending on the site. And finding the rest is why you guys bring in the big bucks.

Thanx

(i'll be at GW's Gfest, so I won't be able to ask any questions for a while.

Thanx again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Allow me to add a question to the architects hereabouts:

Is the "raw site" always a fait accompli? Do owner/developers ever come to you and say, either, (1) I want a golf course; help me find a site; or (2) I want a golf course; here are a few possible sites; you choose the best one?

Dan,

Usually its one site.  But two examples you are familiar with - The Quarry and The Wilderness at Fortune Bay - offered a choice of sites somewhat.

At the Quarry, I actually studied four sites on the Owners behalf.  I actually recommended a site across Wynne Lake, reasoning that I could get several lakefront holes, and they could, with a cart ride, use the existing clubhouse.  They picked the Quarry to minimize environmental permitting problems.  

At Fortune Bay, they asked us to examine the site we used, plus some land across the street.  The site we used was better, but rocky, raising costs, and the other site had less topo and rock.  They elected to spend more and build it as we designed it.

I also had a choice of three sites at Colbert Hills and a few others.  However, that's about five of 45 courses I've designed, so in most cases, the site is predetermined, based on my experience.

As to what I look for, I agree with Tom Doak.  I prefer to lay out some holes on topo maps even before getting to see the site, since a lot of what you have to deal with is spatial arangements that shows up well on a map, and then look at holes that I thought looked good on paper.  It is often far different than I imagine.  However, its easier to look at land with something in mind than to look at a hilltop or valley without knowing how its likely to fit into an overall scheme.

[Joel_Stewart]

Walking a site takes some imagination and a trained eye.  For us "armchair architects" it takes some real knowledge.  My hat goes off to you archies that can put the 18 pieces of the puzzle together.

A few years ago I walked around the potato fields at Friars Head.  I then announced on this site that C&C are going to work this ass off to come up with anything special.  Well I was dead wrong, the holes that now sit on the potato fields are great and the course turned out far better than I could have ever imagined.

On the other end, I looked over the land for what is now Metropolitan golf course in Oakland.  Dead flat, the land had 6 feet of dredge poored onto it.  Again I thought the archie Fred Bliss and Johnny Miller will really have to be creative.  They were not, and the course is bland.

[THuckaby2]

On the other end, I looked over the land for what is now Metropolitan golf course in Oakland.  Dead flat, the land had 6 feet of dredge poored onto it.  Again I thought the archie Fred Bliss and Johnny Miller will really have to be creative.  They were not, and the course is bland.

You find this course "bland", Joel?  I sure don't... I like it a lot and think there is a heck of a lot of creativity going on there, and they did a darn good job making a golf course out of dredging.  Of course by all accounts it's no Friar's Head, but then again it wasn't intended to be... To me it's a great addition to our area, as starved for reasonably-priced decent golf that we are.

I'd call Metropolitan lots of things, but never "bland."

Sorry for the thread-jack!