Should the modern day architect be able to mail in his plans

[Mike_Young]

 without having to be on site more than once or twice during the construction of a project.  Seems with digital cameras, and cad programs that will convert to 3D etc this should not be that complicated.  Or do we think this would detract from the project?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I love 3D CAD (working on improving our skills the last few days) and digital camera. We have even used programs to send back "marked up" digital photos to show desired results when we can't be there.  I know have the convertible tablet laptop so I can digitally "red mark" my own plans, but those I eventually "email in" for speed.

Tech can sure help.  Nonetheless, I see it as a nice supplement, not a replacement.  Heck, if I didn't go on site, I would have to import some dirt on my carpet to kick while in my office.

[MargaretC]

without having to be on site more than once or twice during the construction of a project.  Seems with digital cameras, and cad programs that will convert to 3D etc this should not be that complicated.  Or do we think this would detract from the project?

Mike, I'm not a surgeon, but I'm a physician.  For a multitude of reasons, the concept you present is distasteful to me.  Although there are highly technical aspects to virtually every profession, IMO, the hands-on talents of an individual add "art" to the technical and make an exceptional result possible out of an otherwise okay, good or very good result.

However, if some club is willing to accept and pay $$$$$$$ for a "phone-in or mail-in" performance, I guess it's a free country.  I sure wouldn't accept it, but go figure.

[John_Conley]

  For a multitude of reasons, the concept you present is distasteful to me.  

Don't play Mike's courses then!

[Scott Witter]

Mike:

Surely you gest!   We know you better, Margaret doesn't however.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Gil Hanse once told me that he will not take on work if he is forced to do detailed construction plans/drawings.  He makes that clear right up front.  Right or wrong, he believes that they are a waste of resources.  You need to be on site to get things right regardless of how detailed your planning is.  Tom Doak told me essentially the same thing.  I highly doubt there were detailed plans done for Pacific Dunes.  I know that DMK Golf Design only used a conceptual routing for the new #7 course at St. Andrews.  They left the details to the shapers and Paul Kimber who was located on site.  

On the other hand, I remember Jim Engh once telling me that his CAD drawings are so precise that he can essentially mail in a design plan.  On a new course, he might be able to get away with this.  

[Dan_Callahan]

Don't many of them do that already? And didn't Ross do that back in the day even without the advantages of modern technology? I've heard that some of his courses turned out okay.

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me if the job has someone on it that knows the architect then maybe there is nothing wrong with the scenario.  Technology is that good.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

If there are few plans, and the gca can spend only a few days on site, then they (like Ross in the old days) hope to rely on some of their long time personell to carry out their wishes.

For those of us who rely on independent construction companies (often new to us if a public bid) visual communication is the key to getting others do what you need done.

[Mike_Young]

Well,
sort of sounds to me like most think one needs to be on site as much as possible for good results.  AND THIS IS WHERE I REALLY GET CONFUSED WITH THIS SITE.....I too don't care much for drawings once I am past the routing stage.....yet I do them becuase the client needs them in many cases for permitting and other items......however I try to be on site at least one day per week during construction and grow-in....AND this is in a day and age with planes, interstates and computers with email......
THEREFORE ....how do so many of these restoration experts and historians determine( or read the minds) of these Dead Guys that did these great projects when they only saw them one or two times during construction.....come on Ross and 400.....we have agreed it can't be done today.....and I would bet some of the restoration experts have been on site of some of these projects much more than the original archie....admit it..it's all hype...just let the good ones evolve and stop the BS.....

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike, something that your "dead guys" did a great deal of, especially when long distance commutes were impractical, was to send very detailed plans based upon a personal walk through and personal staking out of the course, and plasticene models of the green complexes.

Are there any architects today who provide hole models? Would these provide a means of project reference so that an architect could spend less time on site? Especially with so many architects now working globally? For example, hasn't Tom Doak been at work in New Zealand, Mexico, Texas, Long Island and Scotland on projects running in the same time periods? That has to take its toll.


 

[Mike_Young]

Mike, something that your "dead guys" did a great deal of, especially when long distance commutes were impractical, was to send very detailed plans based upon a personal walk through and personal staking out of the course, and plasticene models of the green complexes.

 

Begging to differ but whatever they did we can do faster and more efficiently.....much of their attention to detail is a myth that evolved because the clubs nutured their course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip,

I am with Mike in thinking that our plans today are MUCH more detailed than anything they could have produced back then.  Those were pretty sketchy by todays standards, where we have to figure earthmoving and material quanitites with higher precision.

And I would love to see a shipping reciept for a plaster model being sent to the site.    I had the impression these were more for sales and convincing the client, than as construction tools, although I guess I really don't know.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Are you suggesting more detailed plans equate to better golf courses?  Also, do think there is any correlation to time on site vs. quality of the final product?  

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't it a function of how great the architect wants the course to be?

I'm under the impression that the more time spent in the field the better the result.

So the answer is yes. The modern archie should be able to digi dial it in. But wouldn't it be nice if the dead guys could too? Or would that be a restoration?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Are you suggesting more detailed plans equate to better golf courses?  Also, do think there is any correlation to time on site vs. quality of the final product?  

Mark,
No , not at all.....but with the little time the dead guys had to spend on site and with their logistical problems.....it was impossible for them to give the time to a project that would allow for all of the detail the restoration movement says they oversaw.....
I AM A MINIMAL PLAN GUY IN THE FIELD BUT I DO A FULL SET TO JUSTIFY EXISTENCE

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike & Jeff, you misunderstand the thrust of my post. What I was doing was asking why models are no longer a part of an architect's tools. Have plans gotten SO GOOD that the field crew ability to interpret and even the clients now have an ability to visualize what a plan represents in reality with little help?

If this is so, doesn't it bolster Mike's supposition?

[Mark_Fine]

Philip,
It still comes down to the quality of the construction crew and the skill and artistry of the shaper.  If you asked the best shapers out there about construction plans I bet most would probably laugh.   It would not surprise me if many of the best ones can't even read them  Great artists don't paint by numbers and neither do great shapers.  

As Mike must know, generally the Ross "topo courses" (the 150 or so designs that Ross mailed in) that turned out the best probably had strong construction teams and good finishers.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip,

sorry to have missed the gist.

Really though, 3D renderings probably can depict anything a model can for most people who need to know.  Once drawn, you can set up a view from any angle to show any detail.  Better yet, once drawn, they can easily be redrawn and presumably improved, and new views issued.  If a gca did a plaster model, once the plaster has set is pretty well finished.  Changes would be harder.

Of course, good old fashioned arm waving while the dozer is moving on site is still the best way to get the dirt put right where you want it.

[Mike_Young]

Phillip and Mark,
Yes we have the ability to do models but , for me, sort a like Mark says, I don't know exactly what I want until I get in the field and see it...I might know the basic shape and strategy but I wing it....
Mark, you mention shapers.....this is another reason I question restoration and how legitimate some of it is......I have seen more old dead guy courses that were built by locals....now if the architect was only there 2 or 3 days during construction....heck all theyhad was some basic plans..look at a set of Ross plans......they could be interpreted several different ways as can a Flynn.....
So I say we have a major hype job, or cottage industry, going in the golf renovation business today.....we have complicated something that was n't that complicated when it began......no way it could have ever been done.....

[ForkaB]

Mike

Of course you can!

What matters is to whom you mail them........

[Jimbo]

As an owner's rep/project manager, I like having him on site to help with quality control of the builder.  To help enforce the specs before its too late.  To redesign on the fly if it can save dirt moving  or future maintenance dollars, for example, and still satisfy his eye. To help tie in design and get his input on golf course surrounds. For probably a dozen other reasons that don't come immediately to mind.

I would vote for him or his rep to be there every day the contractor is working.  But I would settle for 1 visit per week and a phone and fax line open 24/7.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I hear what your are saying and some of it I agree with.  However, if you study these guys enough (a lot of them put in writing their thoughts and philosophies about design), see enough of their courses and review old aerials, photos, etc. you can at least gain an appreciation of what they might have been trying to accomplish.  I've always said that by no means should every course be "restored".  But every course deserves a good look and you have to have some idea what you are looking for to make that look worthwhile.  Some architects, committees, etc. just don't care to take the time.  

[Scott Witter]

Didn't many of the old guard, getting tired of calling them the old dead guys, have someone they put in the field for the majority of construction?  Wouldn't this attest to the quality they accomplished, and their in ability to be on site much and also make up for the lack of detail and extent of drawings when compared to some architects of modern times and their extensive drawings with detail?

I don't remember now who said it, and I am not advocating the need of detailed drawings to produce a great project, but my experiences, except for maybe renovation and remodeling work, normally have required these type of drawings for permitting reasons.  So many towns/cities with overstuffed engineering departments taking care of job security require not only drawings from the golf architect, but also extensive drawings and calculations from engineerings to do drainage plans and stormwater pollution prevention plans.  The engineer's can't do them without first the golf architect preparing detailed grading plans...and on and on it goes.

I am at least curious then, how some architects, some of which are featured on this site, can get away without doing extensive plans?  I am all for it, guess maybe I have been unlucky regarding the municipalities I have worked in.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I hear what your are saying and some of it I agree with.  However, if you study these guys enough (a lot of them put in writing their thoughts and philosophies about design), see enough of their courses and review old aerials, photos, etc. you can at least gain an appreciation of what they might have been trying to accomplish.  I've always said that by no means should every course be "restored".  But every course deserves a good look and you have to have some idea what you are looking for to make that look worthwhile.  Some architects, committees, etc. just don't care to take the time.  

Mark,
I just don't see that any of these actions they took such as writing thoughts etc are any thing that is not done today.....
Our course is 1926...Ross....came 1 day.....built by farmers.....routing is good.....greens plans followed 80% of the time but fairly closely...very good golf course....did Ross know that???...hell no.....
but a restoration guy tells us we have a "gem"....WOW....glad to know that...now why become invasive with it.....IMHO..YOU DON'T GO HALF WAY WITH THESE THINGS..YOU EITHER ACCEPT WHAT HAS BEEN THERE AND use non invasive procedures to fix problems or you blow it up and go from there but this half way "restoration stuff" never stops....JMO