Whether a CAD drawing, a sketch, a watercolor, a routing plan, a plaster model, verbal directions given on site ...
It's all variations on the way of sharing information.
Was Thompson wrong to provide models?
Ross wrong to produce drawings?
I never understood the importance of this debate
If your not building it personally, you have to have some form of starting point with the person who is
Or your not creating the work - your just editing their work
Which can be fine too - if that's the way you want to work
Again, I don't care about your process as long as it yields results.
What I don't get I why some insist others must conform to what works for them.
Or others are less for doing something differently.
If it works for you - good
But truthfully, I only care what you've built
not how you got there....
I'm with Ian on this one. Use all the tools in the bag, why limit yourself to just one, either plans or field? I disagree with Mr. Doak that guys that draw plans hand them off with no field supervision, which is a long running myth on this website. It has also been about 50 years since anyone actually believed you could just draw a plan, so its time to give up on that little chestnut. As is the notion that TD or any other national or worldwide designer can actually be on any site full time to design in the field. (or ever has)
My mentors were mentored by RBHarris, who, I believe, actually thought you should build exactly to that bed sheet size green plan he drew. But, even then, he put a field guy out full time whenever he could. Whether the changes made were as substantial as others make, who knows. But, I do know that his protégé completely dismissed the idea of handing off plans, and the field component of golf architecture has done nothing but grow in nearly all firms, and all firms of any quality.
I understand that golf architecture is sculpture, raising and lowering a few inches in some cases, I just believe that this is the last 10% and certainly using plans to get it close before doing those minor tweaks is more efficient. As the old saying goes, drawing with pencils is cheap compared to pushing dirt with a bulldozer.
Yes, changes happen, like moving a green 30 yards, whether you draw a plan or not. Hopefully, the multi step routing process gets that figured out before construction, but it does happen. If you look at Dallas National, Fazio changed holes from one side of the creek to the other on the back nine, and you can still see the effects of the wrong clearing left over. Plans help avoid that, and there are still things easier to work out on plan, like routing, cut and fill, drainage, etc.
The freedom to make field changes does need to be there, within reason (some owners don't care, and the very best possible golf course is the only thing, but most owners are on budgets, and do care, and getting 95% of the best on a budget and schedule is more important) The old Scottish sewing (and woodwork) axiom of "measure twice, cut once" also applies.
Here is the definition of design
"a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made".
Yes, there is a long tradition of trying to figure things out to some level of detail before construction starts, for efficiency, yes, but also , the more and earlier you think about a design in any shape or fashion, the more likely it is to be a good and complete design. While golf courses aren't as strictly measured as buildings, as TD mentions, they still require some planning, more than most realize.
Do you tell your kids to procrastinate to do better on school reports? Of course not, nor should you tell your designer to leave most decisions to be made "later" in the field.
BTW, I also disagree that more design/build and less plans will cut it in the future, given every layer of regulations that seem to get added, every layer of government review. I disagree that somehow architects drawing plans drives that, as TD suggests. I think the government has its own agenda.
Yes, plans are a big part of design, obviously under rated in this crowd.