Is it better for a GCA to add a design feature or later remove one?

[Jerry Kluger]

Let's say an architect is designing or renovating a hole and is not sure whether a certain feature like a bunker, a mound, etc., is going to work - is it better to leave it out and if needed, add it in later, or is it better to put it in and then eliminate it if it doesn't work?  I realize there could be a cost factor but I am more interested from the design perspective. 

[Chris Ord]

As a layman, not an architect, I would think that it's easier to add the design element during initial construction and remove it later.  Give the people something to react to.  If there's nothing there, people could just have a vague negative impression of the hole.  I think this notion is true with most everything in life.  As the saying goes, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness, then it is to ask permission."  (e.g. Oakmont tree removal)  I'd be curious if any actual architects hold the same feeling.

[Jerry Kluger]

Chris: Initially I had the same feeling but today people sometime react very strongly when they see something and it can result in an overall negative opinion of the course.

[Mike Nuzzo]

"If in doubt take it out" - Don Mahaffey
That works for trees, bunkers....

When do you really need another bunker?
The drainage is what I'd consider too.

[RJ_Daley]

this presents an interesting situation involving these decisions of inclusion of a feature that ultimately doesn't work but was specifically built and then taken out after play ensues; or an omission of a feature or lack of specific construction of a feature that is ultimately found wanting and in need of doing some extra construction to make it work sensibly.

There has already been a previous thread on this topic at Erin Hills, where very unshaped or slightly shaped natural features were incorporated in the design, but were found to be wanting as they were too severe or not found compatible with the kind of play they were hoping for in terms of competitive golf and the flow of the course, so now they are being rebuilt and rerouted.  Here is a link to a recent Wisconsin Golfer Mag article, found on page 8:

http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=16381&pre=1

I remember when the course first opened, and Will Ellender called me to tell me his inegative mpressions, that were received with some disagreement of his observations by others here on GCA.com.  As this issue has progressed, and I also finally got a look and play of the course, I found myself in agreement with many of the things Will had mentioned early on.  It was suggested to me through a third party that another person very close to the situation of the first construction was also not satisfied with the evolving design-construction.  Now, some of those issues of leaving the ground too raw and unshaped or specifically not fully shaped to make for a good routing, better green siting, and better green concepts (specifically the 2nd green shape, the 4th green position and shape, and the initial desire to have a blind dell hole, now rerouted and re-parred) have come to pass.  This, I assume is at great expense to the owner (unless the USGA is coughing up some $$$ to offest these re-construction and design issues).

In my mind, this is a good object lesson in the fad or idyllic desire to create a minimalist and very natural lay-of-the-land style of GCA, VS realization that some aspects must be designed and constructed-in, so that the overall plan of golf makes sense. 

So, was it better not to do anything up front, then go back and rework it after play demonstrates deficiencies, or have done it more agressively and more conventionally up front.  Well, if this is costing the owner loss of play revenue, and construction costs, the answer might be from him, no - do it better up front and let the desire to claim total natural and minimal lay-of-the-land remain ideal not practical.  But, if he says it is worth it to evolve to the best design possible after play dictates needed changes, and his goal is met to get a major golf competition there, well then Mr. Lang can only say.