Design Rules for Designing on a (Very) Tight Budget: Which Would You Follow?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Stupid question: How would you spend your dollars if designing a course on a budget you believed to be ridiculously low? I am interested in which "design rule" or rules you might adopt. Read on...

A few days ago, in commenting on the Nicklaus redesign of N Palm Beach CC, Cary Lichtenstein made a point I hadn't really thought of.

He noted that Nicklaus appeared to spend the bulk of his budget on making the last
two holes of each nine memorable (bunkering, greens, lots of elevation change / movement, etc.).

I found Cary's comment very interesting on two fronts:
1. As a budget strategy
2. As an example of "narrative" in golf course design.  Last summer,
Ian Andrew mentioned re: Ailsa that he would have routed it
differently. Specifically, he would have brought the golfer to the
Irish Sea in the middle holes, then turned us away, and finally return
us back towards the end of the round.  The idea being one of dramatic
climax followed by denouement, then repeated.  Kinda like…

When Cary made his comment, I thought back to the movie, "The Terminator," in which then-on-a-budget director James Cameron (those were the days!) spent his special effects budget on really just one effect: the endoskeleton of the terminator that is revealed only in the final minutes of the movie.  Cameron's logic was in the question, "What does the audience really need to see?"

He figured they would accept the concept of time travel, for example,
and therefore didn't need to see a time machine. With his question
answered (endoskeleton), he put it at the climax of the movie, because that's where it would contribute to the narrative; i.e., amp the tension.

Now, suppose you were designing a course on a brutally-tight budget: you had, say 60% *less* money than you felt would have been ideal to spend, given the natural features and contours of the property, on "strategic" design elements such as elevation changes, green contouring and bunkers -- in other words, beyond such basics as drainage, cart paths, etc.

And this goes for "minimalists," too; in other words, you'd be given only 40% of the budget *you* wanted![/b]

(We'll assume you've taken the job anyway because you want to give back to the community and relive the lean, hungry years of your early career!)

So here's the question:  In these circumstances, what "prime rule" would you use as your guide?

One would be what I'd call "Cary's Terminator": decide what the golfer "needed to experience" (dramatic / amped-up holes), then locate them at the terminus of the two nines.

Another might be, "rolls in greens": blow the entire budget on green movement, leaving a pittance for a handful of fairway bunkers across the entire course.

Another might be, "one decision per hole." Here you might put one bunker somewhere that forced most golfers to make some type of choice.  An example might be a bunker right in the middle of the fairway that golfers had to negotiate off the tee.

There must be more.  If you have any ideas, tell us also whether you'd
try to spread them across as many holes as possible, in which case
you'd have to go "lite," or you'd try to concentrate them on a few
holes. Also, tell us why!

Gotta run now...
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I would spend all the money on DETAIL.

Detail is not really much more costly than no detail ... it's simply a matter of someone putting in more time and thought on a particular feature, and I've always been willing to put in that time.

I believe that the routing of the holes is the most important thing we do, because if you get the routing right it saves tons of money moving things around.  After that, the contouring of greens has the most effect on play ... but since you have to build greens anyway, putting interesting "rolls in greens" really doesn't cost anything more.

If you do it right, you won't need very many bunkers to accent the play.  But, on sandy sites, adding bunkers is not very expensive, either.

From a practical standpoint, the best thing you can do is to keep the cost of the irrigation system down.  That means not tearing up the native vegetation in the roughs, leaving native vegetation between the tees and the start of the fairway, and building a shorter course, whether it's par 70 or even par 68.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark- I get pretty much all of my work at the bottom end of the market and aways ££££ is a big concern, however adding contours into greens does not really cost any more. The big costs are high spec constructions, you can design very expensive features of course, but 3 days with a D6 just chopping away can really make some interesting features cost is maybe £700. Some nice shaping or no shaping might only add a few hundred pounds to a green complex. I think one of the important things to understand when designing and constructing to budgets is where you CANNOT cut costs and if you are designing for 50,000 rds of golf per year its no good having small tees or greens. A design should be based around what the club can afford as the annual maintenance budget, a design could be influenced to include fewer bunkers.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Adrian and Tom,

Well, so much for that thought experiment.

If I am reading both of you correctly, am I to infer that the only significant design constraint today is the architect's time and attention to the design?

That if I were building a course I should double your fee (meaning: get you to spend twice as much time on my course) and cut the construction budget in half? That, uh, sounds a little self serving! ;^)

So let me ask a different question. Can certain types of constraints (for example, construction budget) lead to better design, insofar as they force the designer to think harder?

If so, what are these constraints, and do they reveal certain design "rules of thumb" that could be "imposed" on the architect to force him to think through things like the routing? In other words, instead of paying the architect double, why not "sweat him," the way a hot, dry summer strains a grapevine, but leads often to the great vintages.

Happy new year,
Mark

[Scott Witter]

Mark:

This is an excellent question and far from a stupid question and I will be interested in hearing some of the input from the gang.

Tom's comments are logical and I fully support the quality brought out in the details, though much depends on having the right site that allows for little to no disturbance in the roughs and the areas between the tees and the start of the fariway.

Bunkers in sand...sure, but bunkers in heavy clay soils, or worse where considerable rock is presnt are another thing!  This also stands for drainage in both conditions.
IMO, irrigation is usually overdone and each year this line item is getting stupidly expensive.

I think you must also look at your market and be sure to stay on a general target of who your audence is and the product needed for the owner to be sucessful.  Too often, projects are over designed and built with the wrong focus in mind as to what the market area needs.  Working with this in mind, believe it or not this doesn't happen enough... would help the situation you describe.

No matter what the site conditions I think it is best to make the bunkers really count.  Personally, I don't like the idea of putting the shine on the last few holes, when if done right, whether through details or not, the entire course can be strong and balanced.  Once again, the soil conditions will have a big impact on the ability to spread the wealth around.

[Craig Disher]

Mark,
Very interesting topic.

A paradox in your proposal is that the fee some architects charge is based on a percentage of the overall construction cost. In the outside world I know how much contractors love cost plus arrangements. In GCA, it never made much sense to me (but I'm open to enlightenment ).

Tom - what kind of "detail" would you add for extra cost? To some, an extra cost detail might be a stone bridge rather than some wooden planks or a stone wall edging a tee box rather than a rr tie. I don't think that's what you had in mind and certainly keeping those kind of improvements out of the design keep the cost down. But I have a feeling that clubs expect an architect to include a lot of that kind of detail.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I've already doubled my fee, so you don't have to.

But my point really was that there are a lot of costs in golf course construction that aren't optional.  

Greens construction is a big one, but you've got to do it right if the greens will hold up to play ... on heavy soils that means importing materials, on sandy soils maybe not, but you've got to do what you've got to do.

Clearing is not something to be skimped on ... bad cleanup means turf problems forever, and narrow clearings are no fun, although you can waste money going TOO wide.

Drainage is another big ticket for some sites ... let the surface drainage do all it can, but if you have areas which need help, you've got to help them or the course will suck.

Grassing is another big ticket ... seed everything you can, and don't waste money on sod.  Yes, Jeff will argue (correctly) that sometimes sod gets you open faster and therefore the cost is justified, but that's probably not realistic on a very tight budget.

What it really comes down to, though, is the less ground you tear up, the more you'll save.  A shorter course and a narrow irrigation system (one or two rows) will save hundreds of thousands of dollars over a wide one, at the expense of it looking a bit brown around the edges.

Oh, yes, making players walk cuts down the budget, too, although it cuts down future cart revenue as well.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark- Tom and I build different courses so you are likely to get differentish answers here. Course I build tend aimed at regular play clubs where we target a playing audience of 40,000 per year and look to be a good value course with affordable fees (green fee say $50 ) with a course standard suitable for regional amateur events. The courses have to stack up financially and operate as a business.
If I am designing to any budget there are certain known costs like the 18+ green constructions, say 7200sq metres of teeing area. I dont think these aspects are going to cost a whole lot more on a big budget course and I feel strongly this is an area where you must not trim on the lower end ones. There are some areas where you hve a big range of price possibles.
Irrigation in the UK can be from £120,000 - £1,000,000
Fairway construction could be from zero to £?,000,000 on a low budget course, with a good routing and perhaps some acceptance of using the land features rather than it has to be 7200 yards par 72, two loops with a strong finish, par 3s spaced every 4 holes, same with the 5s..ie design around what is actually there, there are some big savings.
One thing I always try and do with a routing is to write the contour height of the 1st tee on a piece of paper, the contour height at 250 yds from the tee, the contour height of the green and so on for each hole, with the relationship between the previous green and the next tee being important; reason people in the UK mainly walk, it also means cheaper golf.
More fees- more time; I personally tend to work locally so its easy to pop in for an hour or so, however I often dont get involved in the finishing off of the bunkers and often they get finished not quite as I would have liked, they may be in the right location but it would be nice if I had more say in the finish of them, it would mean a lot of visits, costs would go up. More time from an architect can sometimes not be cost effecive, I like to be on site with 6 machines working, but some clients dont want to work that way.
Re your last Q, I try at all times not to waste any money and try and discuss the financial aspects of everthing we are doing/ changing. If a client wanted to change something very drastic I would try and argue my point the best I could, but as honestly as I could. I could not design something that was crap and I think most others would work in the same way. I actually find it quite hard to design expensive features anyway and to spend thousands of pounds or dollars just to make a hole 50 yards longer or so to make it 450 I just find wasteful.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I've already doubled my fee, so you don't have to.

Then...no Carthage Club for you!

I take issue with the notion that construction costs are fixed, in the following sense.

Tom implied the "What can we learn..." thread that a novice designer can produce a great course, but only after considerable time and expense.

I have always thought that one skill that separates the good from great designer, no matter the field, is, to bastardize a phrase from Bernardo (or was it Bob Jones?), "the ability to turn three dollars into two."

For example, in his recent design of the Hearst Magazine Building in Manhattan, Lord Foster (aka "Stormin' Norman") constructed a "diagrid," which aside from its beauty, used 21 percent less steel tonnage than a conventional building of similar size -- a really big deal given China's absorption of the new and scrap markets. (Foster: "Great architecture should wear its message lightly.")

(If you haven't seen this building, here's a link to a few pictures plus description: http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID124.htm)

So here are a few additional questions for Aidan and Tom (and anyone else who wants to chime in!): in paying the design fee, shouldn't I be paying for not just "detail" but "economy of design"? As you gain experience, don't you learn how to get "maximum design for minimum (ex design fee) budget"?

Last question: if a client cut the construction budget by 21 percent and handed that money over to you, contingent upon your spending 21 percent more time on the project, would that lead to a better, same, or worse design -- as best you can guess, given the reality that the answer is certainly unique to the site and the situation?

Mark

[Gary_Mahanay]

Tom Doak,

Were you able to use the native soil (sand) for greens construction at Ballyneal or did you have to import a special greens mix?  How many rows wide did you go with the irrigation heads on the par 4s and 5s?  Didn't you use HDPE pipe there?  Was that more expensive than PVC?

Gary

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its hard to save 21% of construction costs. Costs are fixed pretty much with the exception of adverse weather and coming across problems like Rock things should be not wildy outside or inside your initial budget figure.
I did onejob when I started where my client said "I have £200,000 to spend on building an 18 hole course, can you do it"..I came with a proposal at around £240,000.. he said "I have £200,000", I ended up cutting the spec, it was the only way, but he got into problems with an 8" rootzone mixture over pipework at5m centres. In some ways I regret taking the job on, its not one to show off, but 15 years on the trees have grown and we did build it for £200,000.

[Brian Phillips]

The big costs are high spec constructions, you can design very expensive features of course, but 3 days with a D6 just chopping away can really make some interesting features cost is maybe £700. Some nice shaping or no shaping might only add a few hundred pounds to a green complex. r bunkers.

Adrian,

Three days with a D6 surely costs more than just 700 pounds? If not then I would like to talk to your contractor...

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

The big costs are high spec constructions, you can design very expensive features of course, but 3 days with a D6 just chopping away can really make some interesting features cost is maybe £700. Some nice shaping or no shaping might only add a few hundred pounds to a green complex. r bunkers.

Adrian,

Three days with a D6 surely costs more than just 700 pounds? If not then I would like to talk to your contractor...

 

Brian, possibly slightly more. £30 per hour.

[Scott Witter]

Mark:

I am surprised we haven't heard from Jeff Brauer or Mike Young on this one yet.

Naturally, there are economies of scale and economies of design, originating from smart, wise decision making and of course from lots of experience in the field.  For the most part these to go hand in hand hopefully first in the office and then most importantly later in the field.  This is to say that you really can't afford to have someone experimenting on your nickel and they need to have a solid thought process and likely the end result in mind when going ahead with an idea and committing to the details, or else they waste money.  Having said this, and to comment on your 'details' issue, these can't be overlooked in that they truly create the distinct quality of the course and when done with sufficient attention and sound planning ahead of time add considerably to the BEST design possible and often, and I agree with Tom, with minimal or no extra cost.

"But my point really was that there are a lot of costs in golf course construction that aren't optional."

Tom D. makes a good fundamental point here...within each feature there is room to make them better (details) and there is room to create them faster and achieve what you want sooner, but this comes with considerable experience.  How to move soil with different techniques based on the soil type, the haul distance, the weather conditions that WILL change, which equipment to use, the speed of production and the damage they cause, etc... at what cost to the final product...all come into play in building the 'affordable' course.  This brings us back to the novice one-timer with no experience that yes, they can/could do a great job with the design, but during the execution many things can go wrong and go wrong fast.  Who is willing to pay for this?

"if a client cut the construction budget by 21 percent and handed that money over to you, contingent upon your spending 21 percent more time on the project, would that lead to a better, same, or worse design"

It is impossible to determine if this could actually be done, (21% savings) though I know of plenty of contractors who would tell you it could be with ease    Inherently, I believe it would lead to a better final product, though for me and many architects I know, they do the best they can all the time with a carrot hanging in front of them (not that your comment was intended this way )  21% is substantial and going back to the fundamental features..it is difficult to simply cut that much out without having some fluffy features to begin with.  If you are bare bones going in, where do you trim from?

Conclusion, if you want to proceed this way, you need to have someone with the ability to work well in the field, have solid project management skills to work with all the trades on site and have a very good understand of them ALL to know when to say no, how to negotiate and have workable solutions to achieve the design intended without losing the budget.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I always try to take the point of view that we are spending the client's money as if it were our own, and to be careful with every dollar.  My own associates have called me cheap, but it's my reputation for now, not theirs.

Turning three dollars into two is not so much a matter of design as of efficient project management, which is why I've got one or two associates and one or two interns in the field on every job we do, watching how things get built and trying to be sure it's done efficiently.  They are well paid, but I'm positive they are worth more than we get paid by the client for them.

The most cost-effective strategy is to use native soils for tee construction or greens or bunker material, if it's practical to do so.  Some architects would never do so -- Jack Nicklaus insisted on importing greens mix at Sebonack and so did the superintendent, even though I'm sure the native sand would have worked just fine.  But you are taking professional risks when you make such decisions for a client, so you'd better be sure you get it right.  (For the record, we've built greens out of native soil at Ballyneal and St. Andrews Beach and Barnbougle and Pacific Dunes and High Pointe and Lost Dunes and Archerfield and two or three other courses, and never had any trouble with it, but those were all built on great soils.)

The other most cost-effective thing is not to move earth unless it's important ... but on the other hand, moving a bit of earth (say $150,000 worth out of a $2 million budget) to make the course demonstrably better is not a bad move.  If you are going to move earth, there are much more or less cost-effective ways to do so, if you are paying attention out there.

Finally, would my spending 21% more time on site make the course better?  As I said, we get paid a lot for all my associates' time, and for my own.  If I really thought spending more time would make the course better, I would take on even fewer projects.  But I'm comfortable that I am giving every hole my best thought and effort in the roughly 30 days I'm on site during construction, because my associates have taken that input and run the right way with it for several projects now, and I'm really pleased with how each of them turned out.

[Tom_Doak]

For Gary:

Yes, we used native sand for the greens mix and tees at Ballyneal, and for the bunkers as well.

The fairways are everywhere from two heads to five heads across in places.  We were trying not to be wasteful of turf, but we didn't want people to get tired of hitting out of the yucca, either.

And the decision was made to go with HDPE pipe because we agreed with the client that it might be cheaper, in the long run.  The great benefit of it was that we could install all the main lines as well as the laterals by "pulling in" the pipe, as opposed to trenching through the sand, which is a pain because the trenches like to cave in.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Native soil greens at High Pointe, eh Tom. Interesting. I don't think I would have guessed that. Though I haven't been to High Pointe in a long time.

Question: did you simply shape those greens in place? Or did you core them out, drain them, and import from a borrow pit elsewhere on-site?

Just curious.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

We pushed off the top sand, screened it for rocks right next to the green site, shaped a well, and put the mix back in it.

There were 4 or 5 green sites on the front nine where the soil in situ wasn't suitable for greens mix, so we brought mix to those which was screened from a borrow area.

If it wasn't for the stones in the soil we would have just shaped them in place; they were just big enough that my construction superintendent, Tom Mead, insisted on the screening.  I think screening all the materials cost $25,000, and of course there was extra shaping cost that way, too ... but it was still a lot less than buying greens mix.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I don't why I'm amazed that the property there, at High Pointe, contains green mix quality sand. On top too. Neat.

I guess soil conditions must be somewhat similar to nearby Kingsley Club.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

A lot of northern Michigan is sand ... over by Gaylord, too.  It's relatively inexpensive to build courses here, which is a good thing since the season is so short.  That contributed to the boom in construction a few years back.

[Craig Disher]

Tom,
In his essay on Yeaman's Hall, Ran says that when you restored the greens they were only closed for 3 months. I'm surprised - but perhaps this isn't remarkable in that area.

Did you use seed and if so was there any issue over whether the grow-in was sufficient?

[Tom_Doak]

Craig:

The greens are Champion bermuda which is grown from sprigs [CORRECTED].  Bermuda is very aggressive and establishes very quickly.  Three months of grow-in was a bit fast, but the club is not very busy so the traffic at the outset didn't harm it much.

We built the greens extremely quickly because we shaped them out of the native soils and then rotera'd about 2-3 inches of new sand into the mix and floated them out.  Not as complicated as USGA greens construction, so it went a lot faster ... I think Jim Urbina shaped out and floated 17 greens in 36 days.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I haven't seen the greens at Yeaman's, redone. But, speaking as someone who's built greens, 17 in 36 days is pretty impressive!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Maybe with about 15-20 years more experience you'll be that quick and that good.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:  My bad; I'll correct it above.  I hesitated when I typed it, but figured someone would quickly correct me if I had got it wrong.  By the time the greens were ready to be grassed, I was long gone, so I didn't see the sprigs go down.