The hazards of minimalism......

[Jeff_Brauer]

On a new project, where I am trying to do "old school" design, I ran across a green site that cried out for a minimalistic approach.

There was a bank to the right, some trash pile chocolate drops left, and a small valley center.  Even though it was the first green, I decided to lay a little ground level, reverse "r" shaped green around the mounds, and even kept the swale intact, with very little ground modification.  

Of course, I did that at the end of a historic drought.  Now that it has rained a bit, long dormant spings have resurfaced, and that little biaritz style valley may be the world's first water feature within - not near - a putting surface!  I have a drainage problem, and it will require some tiling and french drains - both above the green and in the green - to keep the design as is.  Even at that, springs have a way of re-surfacing continually just outside the area that has been corrected, so I don't have 100% confidence that any solution is permanent.

The lesson here is that many gca's have probably run into similar problems over the years.  I suspect that its a reason why so many do routinely bring fill and build greens up a few feet above normal ground level.  I further suspect that other minimalist designs have, or will, face these same problems, since you never know for sure where springs might pop up.

I guess its better to be safe than sorry.  The thrill of finding a perfect green site is quickly doused by the agony of a constant drainage problem.

Go ahead and torch me if you want, but I am just posting real world gca design lessons that participants here might not consider when evaluting designs or design styles.

Make it a great day!

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, I'm not clear on this.  Is this in the design, unbuilt stage, where between the concept of the NADER and the onset of construction, the drought ended and the spring up of water began?  So, are you now faced with doing more tiling and draining than you originally thought?  Thus, do you characterize this as an abandonment from earlier minimalist approach?

I don't see the idea of minimalism relavant to those circumstances.  I think of minimalism more as doing the least one has to do, to interface with what is given on the ground.  Obviously, if you have a water table or drainage or run-off issue, you have to do at least what is required to make it functional.

How many minimalist concepts (even if isolated to minimalism of just one hole design) have had to be reworked due to unforseen or ignored engineering issues?  *&^it happens...

Were you at the Wild/Stars game.  I could have swore I saw a TV shot of you and a youngster near the glass.

[S. Huffstutler]

That's probably why Art Hills greens succeed, eh?

Steve

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

The green is in the rough shaping stage, and had just been smoothed off for drain tile when the spring made its "grand entrance."  This situation illustrates that the concept of "doing the bare minimum" may be a floating (literally) target in most cases.  Having been burned in a similar situation (and I had this in some fw areas in the past as well) it easy to see why most of us gca's (and supers) mentally see raising greens a few feet as the minimum requirement for drainage.

Yes, I was at the Wild-Stars game on the glass - but my seats are first row upper deck, the only place I will watch a hockey game cause no one can walk in front of you.  Of course, I was there yesterday (but in platinum seats from a vendor and will be back in my regular seat today)



Brad,

Certainly minimalism is often a result of incompetence when practiced by local farmers and newbie gca's of all types.

Just as certainly, the masters of the craft like TD and CC bring enough artistry to make it work.

My point is that you give to get in any design style, and in many cases, there are reasons why it doesn't really work, and I naturally experienced one of them on my first attempt out of the box.  Not hard to imagine the same happening to RTJ, Ross, etc.  It might even happen to a C&C, and in a few years we might see an evolved design style as the problems inherent in minimalism become apparent to them.

Kinda off my own topic, but what other problems are inherent in minimalism besides surface and subsurface drainage?

Definition of groud level greens is one.  I know some clamor for the hidden, etc. but really, the green is the ultimate target, and when it blends in too much its not attractive as it should be.

Some supers would say mowing quality - leaving little bumps that current mowers can't cut evenly angers some supers.  I can see why, since mowing is part of their craft, although I have never seen this as a problem.

Anything else?

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, it would be interesting to see a photo depiction of this site, before any work was done, and during the rough stage of setting the drain tile in the natural setting.  Without some overall idea of what kind of setting we are talking about, a person really couldn't say much.

What was the land used for prior to the course plan?  Was the previous owner or user of the land aware of a tendancy for that lower bankside being wet, prior to the drought?  

Do you find that taking a sort of land history from previous owner-users is helpful to determine hidden issues like dormant springs that could come back to bite you?

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

The site is a 1600 acre Texas cattle ranch sold by a widow to a developer.  There was a former ranch had who thought he would/should have gotten some benefit from the sale of the estate, but he didn't and he was no longer around to ask.  I doubt he would know every inch of the property quite that well.

I always look into site history and springs weren't unexpected.  We dug test holes (again in the drought) and knew there were rock ledges at various points, including somewhere above the green.  I had figured it was a surface collector swale, and used the cart path above the green to cut off surface flow.  Usually, there is some indication of subsurface flows.
 
Again, springs are very typical, and when present, it is just safer to build up greens for the obvious drainage/agronomic aspects, which probably trump the benefits of having a ground level green, even though I kinda like it.  

At least, I can imagine other gca's having the same feeling of not getting bit that I have right now.  And, it was harder to deal with subsurface flows in the old days than it is now (although they managed) so its easy to see why green fill pads became "standard" - they raise the greens above any such drainage problems and help with surface drainage as well.  Even back then, I think earthmoving was the cheapest solution to many problems encountered.

BTW, I doubt the photos would tell much related to the drainage problem that has crept up.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Maybe you should stick to what you know.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

In all seriousness, I don't want to be one of them guys who pumps out the same golf course time after time by "sticking to what I know."  You can have at it, though.

Once again, it just struck me as an example of why courses are generally trending for the last 100 years or so towards being better engineered, which does cause a certain look that many here dislike.

For every season, turn, turn, turn...yada yada.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
As you know from working in this GA clay...sometimes we just have to fake it and tie in earthforms as far away as 100 yards so that the untrained eye thinks it was always there.....BUT of course that is not minimalism......just $$$$$

[Jeff_Brauer]

AS we have discussed Mike, I believe you either build what you need to build and stop, accepting the fact that its a built environment, or shape all the way out like Fazio.

Once you start grading down the fw, where does it stop without giving away the "artificial grading?"  I do agree that it is wise to handle drainage problems far outside any critical play area, and minimalism be damned.  My first set of plans for KN had a major catch basin near a tee.  John Cotter of Wadsworth gently told me that they had moved it, citing their 20 some years of experience (at that point) of taking care of drainage a wee bit further away than I had planned.  He was polite enough to ask if I minded, but I wonder what he would have said if I had been brave enough to say yes!

Again, the point of this thread is that those types of incidents/design flaws have always happened, and caused the trend to more course engineering.  I get a kick out of the many here who think we should just disregard all that is learned over the years, because they think minimalism is a great new trend.  

BTW, I have nothing against well engineered minimalism, but that kind of gets to Tom Doaks point about that label - it really means not much anymore, even if it ever did.  

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I agree. I was trying to make the point that what most on here consider minimalsm is no where near minimalism....as you know there just aren't that many minimalism sites around.  Cany you say "many minimalism 5 times"

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Cany you say "many minimalism 5 times"

Not and keep my balance!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
One might route a fwy through a dry wash in the desert and call it minimalism...but that doesn't mean its good architecture. I think your example of failed minimalism isn't as much about a failed style as much as it is bad luck, or just poor routing or construction.
If you build up a pad and it settles, crushing the drains, what is that? I'd call it poor work, not a failure of some style of design.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, I thought the whole idea, all the way back in my limited experience to MacKenzie at Alwoodley, is to MAKE it look minimalistic!  It probably isn't "minimalistic" at all, but it should LOOK like a lot of grading didn't happen even thought it had to.

[Kalen Braley]

Wouldn't a minimalist golf course on a completely flat bit of land, be completely flat itself?  That is except for a wee bit of slope to drain the greens and fairways?

If that is so, then can I call my completly flat muni that is just down the street a minimalist course?  I doubt they moved much much dirt at all.  It should be rated why higher than its dog track status suggests.

I guess mimimalism is only at its best when there is something interesting already there that shouldonly be moved at a mimimum??

[SL_Solow]

Any "style" if poorly done results in "bad" architecture.  I hope I don't butcher his views too badly, but having read most of what Tom Doak has written about minimalism, he has suggested that the minimalist looks for features, even small ones, that can create interest and then attempts to develop design concepts accentuating the interest potential in those features.  If earth moving is needed to do so, then earth will be moved but only when necessary and not as a first resort. The other extreme would be the architect who has relatively preconceived notions as to the look of a course and shapes the various sites to conform to that look regardless of the underlying topography.  Different architects fall in various places along this continuum and may vary from job to job.