News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jim Nugent

Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2006, 03:35:15 AM »
Here is some info I picked up off the Internet that may (or may not) help someone solve the riddle...

Rock Creek is located just outside Deer Lodge, Montana.  Deer Lodge sits on the western bank of the Great Divide, 4521 feet above sea level.  10,000+ foot mountains can be seen not far away.  The course is outside the town: perhaps it is even higher above sea level.  Either way, balls will travel a long way there.  

Doak apparently has 450 acres to work with for the golf course.  That is a tiny portion of the private 80,000 acre ranch it is situated on.  Site was described as "wide open."  Doak has cleared some trees, though it brought pain to his heart.  

From Doak's website: the site is rugged.  Construction began in mid-October 2005.  They completed clearing (whatever that is) before summer of 2006.

I have zero experience with design or construction.  Do rugged sites have drainage problems?  I would think gradability and visibility would take a lot of time on a rugged site.  Though I still remember what you said about greens.  

Tom: Deer Lodge has around 3000 people, and the descriptions I saw make it sound pretty much in the middle of nowhere.  The owner is not building a Bandon-type resort there.  What is he building?  A private club for a small number of national members, ala Sand Hills?  

Guys, everyone on GCA: in a short time, Doak has designed and built Pac Dunes, Sebonack, Ballyneal, CK, Barnbougle Dunes and SA Beach, plus a slew of other top courses.  Aren't at least four of those courses reasonable 10's on the Doak scale?  And aren't the chances pretty good that the best is yet to come?

I know that some other incredibly talented architects post here on GCA.  I also think that in Doak we maybe seeing the Tiger Woods of current golf course architecture.  
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 03:37:46 AM by Jim Nugent »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2006, 05:09:48 AM »
My guess is drainage. I imagine lots of potential problems arise during the course shaping process. Get it wrong, and you'll have bird baths and other wet areas that will result in poor turf.

Tim MacEachern

Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2006, 05:44:21 AM »
Tree clearing.  You can always redo a bunker, fairway, etc., but once a hundred-year-old tree is gone, it's gone.

Scott Coan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2006, 06:57:02 AM »
I would guess that a course named Rock Creek may have some drainage issues followed by grading-visibility.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2006, 07:43:46 AM »
oooh... this IS exciting - a competition...

i'm going with fairways (if only to be different to the more obvious tees and greens option)...

drainage from 5,000 ft in the mountains shouldn't be a problem, i would have thought... but i guess it's all site dependent

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2006, 07:58:24 AM »
Bunkers
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2006, 08:30:47 AM »
Okay, here's my summary.

Grading = 10
 - 5 decisions about visibility issues (three to help the player see more, two about what we don't want him to see)
 - 1 drainage issue (the site does have 300 feet of fall which helps get rid of the water, and Eric and Brian don't make many mistakes)
 - 1 softening of a slope for mowability
 - 3 softenings of contour on approaches for playability

Tees = 8
 - 3 decisions to raise or lower tee elevation, either for visibility or to hide the tee in the landscape
 - 3 middle or forward tees moved for a better angle
 - 1 back tee moved for playing length
 - 1 changed shape for aesthetic reasons

Greens = 7
 - 1 lowered about a foot for playability of surrounds
 - 2 softening contours (my crew tends to build them severe and I tone them down)
 - 3 extensions of size to add a hole location
 - 1 shifted position about 20 feet

Bunkers = 7
 - 2 shifted in location for strategy
 - 1 removed
 - 2 added
 - 2 edited shape for aesthetic purposes

Fairways = 3
 - 2 changed mowing / turf line for aesthetics or strategy
 - 1 widened area of irrigated turf for playability

Trees = 2
 - 1 removed so it didn't block visibility of bunker
 - 1 removed several trees so they didn't block view of distant background
 - NOTE - some trees had to be cleared on 6-8 holes but most of that was done very early in construction

Cart paths = 2
 - 1 changed location for visibility and access
 - 1 moved a bridge location
 - NOTE - only about five holes had cart paths shaped in place at that point of construction, they are a bigger headache than this

Construction sequence = 1
 - Discussed ideal order of irrigation, drainage, finish, topsoiling to deal with rocky site

Finish work = 2
 - corrected topsoiling work to replace a lost contour, and to make a better tie-in around a green


The purpose of posting this was to give everyone a sense of what an architect does on site.  From reading others' threads it sounds like the business is all about "strategy" and greens contouring, which is just not so -- they are somewhat less than half the job even for me, and I believe I'm more interested in those decisions than the average architect.  But, the shapers and my design associates have a lot to contribute in those departments, too -- they take my original thoughts and run with them, and I come back and edit.

P.S. to Jim Nugent:  I'll let you know when I get up to four "10"s on the Doak scale, if I ever do.  But thanks for your comments.

Rock Creek is a very special place.  The course we are working on is part of a private fishing and golf retreat with cabins and a lodge along the creek [which are already almost ready to occupy, our client does not fool around!].  They have also increased the housing component since we got started, but I think the nearest lot to a golf hole is about 800 feet [we've got a lot of land].  I guess you could say it is like Sand Hills for Montana -- a different atmosphere with the elk and bison and moose and cattle and bighorn sheep, not golf only, but the lodges along the river are not that different.

It's possible a small resort with another course will happen on another portion of the property in a few years' time, after the timber rights have expired on that side.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 08:34:20 AM by Tom_Doak »

TEPaul

Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2006, 08:51:07 AM »
""Anyone care to guess which of the following topics consumed the most brain power?"

TomD;

Nope. I don't want to stab in the dark and guess. I expect you to just tell us."

TomD:

Isn't that odd? Post #31 is precisely what I would've guessed if I had to.   ;)  


Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2006, 09:10:10 AM »
Out of 44 decisions, the 9 probably were of equal importance.

With your list of assistants, six, and with Kye on bunkers, it's a done deal.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2006, 09:40:48 AM »
Tom Doak,

Are the visibility issues a concession to American golf or inherent in your design philosophy ?

Before answering, how much of the visibility issue rubbed off from your collaboration with Nicklaus ?

Lastly, I'm curious as to why you feel visibility is such a critical element in the design process.

Is it market and/or owner driven or influenced ?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2006, 10:13:55 AM »
Willie Dow:  Kye has worked in both Montana and Scotland this summer, but I don't think he's dug a single bunker in either place.  He's a man of many talents, and so are the rest of the crew.

Patrick:  Visibility has always been important in American golf architecture, but I didn't just learn that.  When you are trying to lay out holes without moving earth it quickly becomes apparent that there are often little things which prevent you from seeing something you thought you would see, and you have to decide how you want to deal with them.

Since I'm sure they won't publish my whole long article, here are the excerpts about visibility decisions, just so you know where I'm coming from.  It isn't always about making things more visible, as Jack's associates seem compelled to do; sometimes we decide to hide something deliberately, too.  But you can't just not decide, you are always paying attention to what you can see or not see and deciding if that's okay.  From my text:

6.   While on this side of the stream, we also glance at the site for the second tees which have yet to be built.  This tee shot plays up and over a ridge with bunkers cut into the left side … you can’t see the green from the tee but you might see the flag on the green.  It’s hard to tell right now with a pile of rocks in the way, so we’ll wait to decide on the elevation of the tee until we clean up those rocks.

10.   (Ninth hole) Kye asks about the shapes of the left-hand fairway bunkers (note to Willie:  these two were shaped by Brian Schneider) and do we see enough of them from the tee?  These are gathering bunkers as a lot of the landing area tilts over in that direction, so we want them to sneak up on players a bit.  There is also a distant scar in that direction where some work was done for the irrigation pond, and big flashy bunkers would draw people’s attention that way.  We all agree the bunkers are fine as they are.

11.   (Ninth hole) We have done some work to lower the crown of the fairway landing area to make it easier for short hitters to see the green on their second shots, but we haven’t gone far enough yet … we’ll have to lower a small portion of the fairway another two feet or so.

12.   (Ninth hole) The visibility of the green from past the trouble spot is better than expected now that we’ve ripped out a small line of rocks which was in the way.  No more earthwork needed there.

17.  (10th hole) We are burying gigantic boulders collected from other fairways at the bottom of this hill so that a second shot short of the green won’t face quite such an uphill third shot.  It looks like we will raise the fairway five or six feet when finished over a pretty broad area.  I remind Eric to make sure we don’t trap any drainage at the base of the hill.

18.   (10th hole) The approach back up to the green had a big knobby contour right in the way so it blinded any approach shot from below; this has been removed since my last visit, but the work wasn’t tapered back far enough, so the fairway leading to the green is really narrow and lots of players will likely fade their shots over the edge of the bluff on the right of the green.  I say we need to cut the approach back a lot on the left to make it wider and more inviting; Kye smiles because Eric has already anticipated this.

21.   (11th hole) There is a small hump about 6-8 feet high just before the start of the fairway which will make it really hard for forward-tee players to see where they are going.  Again, we’ll wait until the rest of the fairway is graded before we decide whether to remove the hump.  [In the end, we moved the tee on this one, and left the hump alone.]

38.   I ask Eric to stop in the fifth fairway so I can see how the green looks from the left side.  This is one of my favorite holes so far, a short par-4.  If you play safely away from a nest of bunkers in the shoulder of a hill on the right, there’s plenty of fairway, but then you have to play over native grass and bunkers to a green that’s just barely visible from the left.  The greens mix is now in and I’m pleased with what you can’t see from that side.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2006, 11:28:20 AM »
Tom D,

You started the thread by saying it was based on a stream of consciousness article you wrote for a magazine.  Out of curiosity, how do you normally run the design business?  Do you document the decisions made in the field when you visit the site?  Take minutes, and record for posterity?  If you don't record, is there ever any argument later about what was decided?  If it is documented, does the document become part of your archives for the project?  Does that devolve to the client at project conclusion?   I guess, in summary, the question is about how formalized and structured is the design process.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2006, 12:17:14 PM »
TD, if it won't be too intrusive of a question into your biz, can you explain how the process is billed relating to the "changes"?  I suspect that your method is design/build and that changes are part of the fees.  Yet, the process of construction of some other GCA firms are on bids to the likes of Wadsworth, Landscapes Unl., etc.  I suspect they smile and hear cash registers ringing at the change orders process.

Is that a fair assessment?
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2006, 12:29:20 PM »
Bryan:

Formalized and structured are not generally a part of my vocabulary.  When I worked for Pete Dye, nothing was ever recorded.  

When I make decisions on site, they become my associates' responsibility to keep track of.  A couple of them make copious notes during walk-throughs; others rely on memory.  (More than half the decisions I made that day would be carried out over the next three days when I was still on site, so it's not like we're going to forget them, or I'm not available for more input if required.)  We'll only record them for the client if they involve liability or budget issues, and in those cases, I'll write the letter when I get back to the office.

RJ:  No cash registers ought to be ringing.  I don't think a single decision I made that day would constitute a "change order" for a contractor like Wadsworth or Landscapes ... most of them involved small shaping adjustments (plus or minus a foot or two), and construction contracts all say the Contractor is responsible for small adjustments in the field, they only bill a change order if it involves moving a significant amount of earth from A to B.  I'm sure that's the same for Jeff Brauer's designs, or Jim Engh's, or anyone else who relies primarily on plans; it's certainly true for ours, we shape for the same fee until we're finished, although the client may pay for a bit more diesel fuel.

Enlarging a fairway will cost more (for additional irrigation parts), but that's all figured at the end anyway.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 12:29:59 PM by Tom_Doak »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #39 on: September 04, 2006, 01:43:06 PM »
Tom,
   This has been a very interesting thread. As I'm sure your writing will be pared down in the editing process, is there any chance of getting the original version you are submitting? Or could you put it up on your website somehow?
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2006, 02:00:15 PM »
I would be interested in one of lead architect's for Fazio or Nicklaus would walk us thru how their opertion differs from yours with Tom or Jack making fewer more scatters visits.

Are all the decisions made by you made in the field by their lead guy? and if so, what does Tom or Jack actually do?

Where are the lines drawn?
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #41 on: September 04, 2006, 02:00:58 PM »
Pat,

I don't think Tom has changed his philosopy re blindness all that much over the years. I could be wrong.  As much as this board celebrates blindness to get away from formula, has anyone really advocated it as anything other than a change of pace or something that should be allowed when the land dictates rather than blow out the ground at great expense, like the Golden Age guys did(n't)?

Tom,

Your site visits sound remarkably like mine and others as I understand them.

RJ,

Tom is right about the change orders. I doubt I have ever had one for shaping, and I even write my specs to be a bit contractor friendly in that regard.  I do require that they make up to three changes per "area" as part of their shaping price, providing that the changes get a bit smaller each time.  I jokingly call it my "yards, feet, inches" process, but that's a pretty apt desription.  

I don't think it should be the contractors cost responsibility if I can't make up my mind at least as to the basic direction the green should go, or can't get there in some timely fashion to look and direct shaping.  I also allow for change orders when mix/gravel, irrigation or drainage must be ripped out and replaced, but I can't recall making one of those types of changes that late in the process.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #42 on: September 04, 2006, 02:10:40 PM »
RJ:  I concur with Jeff on what he says above.  Because we have a design associate on site 90% of the time, the contractor should expect that we can get the green or bunker pretty close on our first try, but I DO reserve the right to change my mind.

Really, though, a contractor is going to bid the shaping work based on their perception of how much you are likely to change things in the field.  If an architect develops a reputation for changing his mind, a la Pete Dye, any contractor would bid more for that job than for an architect who has the reputation of following plans.  So, a penchant for changing things DOES cost the client a bit more, he just doesn't see the mechanism for it.

By the way, some contractors also have a reputation for leaning on young architects to accept the shaping work without making any significant changes, or else they will complain to the owner that it's costing time, money, etc.  It's just one of the many contractor ploys to make a few more bucks.  But, once you get to the point where the contractor wants your work, that stuff goes away and they get to the more advanced ploys.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #43 on: September 04, 2006, 02:13:24 PM »
Okay, here's my summary.

Grading = 10
 - 5 decisions about visibility issues (three to help the player see more, two about what we don't want him to see)
 - 1 drainage issue (the site does have 300 feet of fall which helps get rid of the water, and Eric and Brian don't make many mistakes)
 - 1 softening of a slope for mowability
 - 3 softenings of contour on approaches for playability

Tees = 8
 - 3 decisions to raise or lower tee elevation, either for visibility or to hide the tee in the landscape
 - 3 middle or forward tees moved for a better angle
 - 1 back tee moved for playing length
 - 1 changed shape for aesthetic reasons

Greens = 7
 - 1 lowered about a foot for playability of surrounds
 - 2 softening contours (my crew tends to build them severe and I tone them down)
 - 3 extensions of size to add a hole location
 - 1 shifted position about 20 feet

Bunkers = 7
 - 2 shifted in location for strategy
 - 1 removed
 - 2 added
 - 2 edited shape for aesthetic purposes

Fairways = 3
 - 2 changed mowing / turf line for aesthetics or strategy
 - 1 widened area of irrigated turf for playability

Trees = 2
 - 1 removed so it didn't block visibility of bunker
 - 1 removed several trees so they didn't block view of distant background
 - NOTE - some trees had to be cleared on 6-8 holes but most of that was done very early in construction

Cart paths = 2
 - 1 changed location for visibility and access
 - 1 moved a bridge location
 - NOTE - only about five holes had cart paths shaped in place at that point of construction, they are a bigger headache than this

Construction sequence = 1
 - Discussed ideal order of irrigation, drainage, finish, topsoiling to deal with rocky site

Finish work = 2
 - corrected topsoiling work to replace a lost contour, and to make a better tie-in around a green


The purpose of posting this was to give everyone a sense of what an architect does on site.  From reading others' threads it sounds like the business is all about "strategy" and greens contouring, which is just not so -- they are somewhat less than half the job even for me, and I believe I'm more interested in those decisions than the average architect.  But, the shapers and my design associates have a lot to contribute in those departments, too -- they take my original thoughts and run with them, and I come back and edit.

Tom, have the proportions changed at all over the years?

Were there things that you focused more on in the past that you've come to realize are less important, or things that have become more second nature, if you will?

Are there areas that you are more conscious of now, having built so many different courses, than maybe when you were starting out?

Jeff, same questions for you!
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 02:24:47 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2006, 02:18:53 PM »
The other way we try to make the process more efficient for the contractor is to issue field sketches after we see the clearing.  I often change my mind at that stage (either because of what I see in the field or just the fact that drawing a green plan, putting it in a drawer for a few months during bidding and initial construction and then looking at it again usually yields at least one idea of a way to make it better.

Or as Tom Hanks emailed to Meg Ryan in "You've got mail" I find I have a green that needs......."tweaking."
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2006, 02:25:07 PM »
George:

The above "proportions" are a snapshot of one visit, I'm sure they would be different depending on where we are in the process of construction.

My own concentration changes from one project to the next (and from one job to another) based on who is the design associate and who are the shapers and what are their strengths and weaknesses.    With some I still have to pay attention to drainage issues, with others I know there aren't going to be any sloppy mistakes.  Some are more conservative in greens contouring, others I really have to twist their arm to get them to provide enough hole locations.  Some don't want to worry about mundane matters like tees at all; some build nice flat tees with no flair; and a couple build the coolest tees anyone's ever done.  So, my attention varies.

Now that they are getting reasonably good in all areas, I find myself spending more time concentrating on creative areas like strategic options and fairway and clearing lines, that honestly had been on the back burner for me for a while.  In our early days, I got those right but didn't always concentrate on the finish work, and we got ripped for it.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2006, 03:25:22 PM »
Thanks for the architect comments to Jeff and Tom.  Can you fellows, or any other archies recall the biggest surprise you got, once the construction was underway, that caused you the biggest brainpower drain and agrivating change of plans/phasing, due to unforseen land-terrain issues?
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2006, 03:58:27 PM »
RJ,

Off the top of my head -

Wilderness at Fortune Bay and Legend at Giants Ridge -  Subsurface rock caused numerous changes. I like to think that they all came out for the better.

Peat soil at the Quarry (described last month) requiring fabric liner and fw grade changes on hole 12.

As I also once described the Champions Club in Omaha, we had some battles with the engineer, who did his plans once and then expected us on two or three occaisions just to change our plans to match his grades, generate fill for him, etc.

Westridge in McKinney, TX, where the engineer kept adding detention ponds or dry detention area in our golf course boundary, usually without telling us.

And, since I don't have my own shapers, I face the drain brain of dealing with shapers who think its fun to build something different than what I instruct.  I did get the lean to not make any changes years ago, and sometime still do, but the real frustration is when a shaper has a bigger ego than the architect......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2006, 04:19:00 PM »
Jeff:  Just because you pay the shapers, doesn't mean they always do what you say the first time.  Trust me on that one!

RJ:  Rock underground is the biggest and costliest issue:  the one time it really came to bite us was at Charlotte Golf Links, where the client refused to let us go ahead with one hole as planned, and gave me two hours to come up with a completely different alternative that didn't involve cutting!

More recently, in Scotland, the site was not as sandy a few feet down as anticipated, and there were too many sticks left over from the clearing process, so we had to do a LOT more swapping of soil to build "native soil" greens than anticipated.  And we had to build about half of them twice, because we didn't know the soils wouldn't pass muster until we had shaped several greens.  I guess that's the downside of not doing everything by the (expensive) book.

DMoriarty

Re:44 Decisions
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2006, 01:20:10 AM »
I had a chance to wander around the Rock Creek site last month, and thought a few photos might shed some light on the kind of decisions Tom had to make.  

As Tom mentioned a while back, it is really difficult to do the course justice through photos, and it will remain that way until the course is finished.  Not only is the landscape vast, but there is so much going on and so many potential visual focal points that it has to be a real challenge to integrate the course into the landscape without throwing the entire view off kilter.  So it was no surprise to me that Tom had to make some decisions regarding visibility.  

Personally, I loved the setting.  But then I am a bit partial when it comes to Montana landscapes.  

7th, long downhill par 4 from the high point of the property


13th, long par 3.  The photo really doesnt do this one justice, but it was my favorite hole so I wanted to include the photo.  


16th, long par 4, the green is tucked up on the left under the rock.


17th, medium/long par 3, the low point of the property.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back