[Scott Seward]

It's been reported that is buiding We-Ko-Pa, Coore and Crenshaw used not plans. How common of practice is this? Other than Pete Dye, do other architects do this in the modern age? Have Coore and Crenshaw used tis priactice elsewhere?

Any help would be appreciated, I am doing some research.

[Forrest Richardson]

Without plans implies without any plans. This is rarely done, if ever. Certainly there is always a routing plan and, typically, there are a host of other "plans", although the nature of them is site dependent.

At WeKoPa I believe there were a set of plans, although it was predermined that C&C would work with each fairway and green as they got to it. They were able to do this because they had a routing plan that was carefully integrated to the desert.

I think that behind every great "no plans" story you will find plans. In many cases they may be less intensive due to the site, but there will always be some degree of plans to follow — or use as a guide.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Scott,

I've worked with Rod Whitman for six years now, and aside from a basic routing plan there's nothing else we reference on paper throughout the construction of a golf course (irrigation not included either).  

Like Coore and Crenshaw and co., we don't usually employ a golf course contractor for feature shaping (note: heavy earthwork - large cuts and fills - is contracted out most of the time). We use our own crew to shape, along with Rod and I. So, there's no need for grading plans, etc.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to contact me: jeff@mingaygolf.com

[Mike_Young]

I think a lot of guys work as FR describes above.....
Now from what I hear many of the architects that haven't actually done a course yet also don't use plans for their work......BUT....well never mind.....

[Mike Nuzzo]

Bill Coore has been in the field for over 30 years - I'd say there is a set of plans, he just doesn't draw them out and they don't come to him all at once.  Plus they tend to move little dirt, the plans wouldn't show all that much earthwork.

There are architects who have just as much experience at creating detailed plans, and the good ones allow for field adaptation.  This manner is a lot easier to manage for some price conscious owners and citys.

Why not do both?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Working with Whitman, the design of a golf course evolves/changes as construction progresses. I know this is the way Coore and Crenshaw and co. work as well; Doak, Devries, Hanse, et al too.

(Trust me: a number of the favourite courses of those who frequent this site were constructed without detailed paper plans.)

It's pretty difficult - impossible actually - to draw up a set of grading plans, designs for bunkers and greens on paper, etc months in advance of the start of construction that will actually relate to what's eventually built.

Don't get me wrong. It's possible to create paper plans. When we need to, they're done. But when a trusted crew are carry out a large majority of the construction work, along with a golf course architect who shapes (ex. Rod Whitman), creating paper plans is simply an exercise in futility.

[Philippe Binette]

at barnbougle dunes, the routing and staking was done before i got there and the only plan on site was the one in the entrance shed.

like mike said, when there's not a lot of earth movement and no contractor, it's possible to do that (after all a plan is a tool of communication, if you're on site to call the shots, than you're doing the communication.)

I would like to know if Tom Doak use a different approach for the Texas Tech course since they move a lot more dirt there.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Phillippe makes a great point I missed, too, about on-site presence.

Using our current Sagebrush project as an example, I'm on-site for 3-4 week stints, daily. And Rod Whitman will spend an extraordinary amount of time on-site, too, throughout the construction phase of a project. In fact Rod finishes shapes and floats all of the putting greens, personally.

I shape all of the bunkers.  

In absence of details plans, Rod and I are there to communicate frequently - like, more than a few times a day - with shapers and others working on the course construction. And carrying out the required work ourselves.

[Greg Cameron]

I think detailed grading plans are neccessary when costs are critical and contract tenders are being sought.Apples and apples.Ideally,design-build teams will eliminate a lot of unwanted and unneeded paperpeople and paperwork(change orders,damages,delays),but the owner and team need a mutually trusting relationship.Also plans would be more neccessary where housing is involved re drainage,easements and property boundaries  

[Forrest Richardson]

This is a math problem. On a well-behaving site that is full of "natural holes" it is certainly possible to work without much more than a routing plan and some set stakes. And, many sites are a mixed bag. At The Links at Las Palomas we built seven holes in the dunes with only a routing plan and a general idea of turf limits. We worked on a time budget with our shaper — so many hours per hole.

However, 95% (it could be more) of the courses being built are not well behaving...they require significant earthwork, drainage, and logistics I can only begin to describe (adjacent development, path work, environmental aprovals, pin-pointed budgets, etc.)  

Saguaro is among the 5%. We are discussing a very small percentage of the total...and certainly it has not much to do with right or wrong, but rather, realities.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Their own" implies that these shapers are under employment. This is rare. Mostly we "have" shapers that we regularly use, or keep busy annually.

Most of the time, in this case, the shapers are employed by the Owner or a contractor....but, they are selected by us (The GCA).

A few designers shape themselves...Gil Hanse, for example. But, this is rare.

Most golf architects (I will hazard a guess at 75%) review shapers from a list of those available and put forth. Once approved, these shapers are employed/contracted for a scope of work — a project. In many cases we maintain a small group of shapers on a preferred lis and these become the pool that are contacted to see if they are available, able and willing.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Forrest,

Sure, it is rare that a golf architect shapes. But there are a number of guys - including associates - who shape: Rod Whitman and I; Gil Hanse (as you mention) and Jim Wagner; Dave Axland and Dan Proctor; Mike DeVries and Joe Hancock; Jim Urbina, Brian Slawnick, and Doak's other associates.

I'm sure I've forgotten a few others too.  

[Ron Kern]

Against my better judgement,, I've decided to come out of lurking on a GCA thread for just a minute, even though, as a former drainage engineer, I've been tempted to chime in on another current thread...  But I've decided to enjoy that thread purely for the entertainment value.

Every golf course that I've worked on for at least the last ten years has required full plans.  For one thing regulatory agencies require to see what the final form of the ground will be to review drainage patterns and to verify the all required drainage studies and plans.  Sediment control plans require final contours to show all project grading and buld earth moving, implemented sediment containment, treatments and seeding pre, during and post construction.  If there are any required floodway or wetlands permits, final grading, clearing and seeding methodology plans and specifications are required.  Construction specifications are required for review to ensure compliance with all laws and regulations, especially related to drainage system pipes and associated elements.  There's a county in Indiana that will not allow the use of ADS pipe for any drainage element that outlets discharge into any regulated drain and require a permit for each drainage tile outlet - and they field check...  From what I now understand, every project requires review by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Waters of the United States whatever it is and they require grading and drainage plans.  Even in a county where one wouldn't think that there would be a lot of local requirements, nowadays they have an engineer on retainer to review anything that will be constructed and have regulations requiring final plans for every construction element of the golf course..  

Building a golf course without plans is a fairytale in my world.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ron,

Interesting info.

We must be lucky. Honestly. We finished Blackhawk in Edmonton, and currently have two courses under construction - one in Alberta and another British Columbia that have not required anything like you describe; neither for instruction or satisfiying authorities.

[GDStudio]

We are currently doing work in Central Europe and practically have to give the authorities full construction documents just to get through Zoning!  Luckily a project across the border about 150KM away from that project we are only required to do a routing plan and help the engineers with an impact study to get full building permits.  


It's like Ron and Jeff are alluding to, it all depends on where you are.

...and I suppose at time it also depends on who you are, but that's another topic  

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

"It's pretty difficult - impossible actually - to draw up a set of grading plans, designs for bunkers and greens on paper, etc months in advance of the start of construction that will actually relate to what's eventually built."

How would you know? You've never worked with plans, so how can you compare?

Jeff - your entitled to work any way you want - but your passing judgement. It may work fine for others, Flynn designed Shinnecock with plans, it seems to have worked out OK.

You may be suprised how many sets of engineering plans are out there that you don't know about. Somebody submitted something to get most courses approved.

[jmorrison]

As a golf course contractor it is difficult to bid on a project that doesn't have detailed plans. I believe it is in the best interest of the ownership group to support detailed plans when a project is put out to a public tender to help reduce the contingency budget.
Although I have worked with some architects who do use those plans as the so called "bible", some architects chose to supply plans to "get them by the permitting stage" and sometimes that can lead to conflict with meeting budget!
Jeff.. I too would have to agree with Ian that you are  passing judgement as I have seen a number of architects that have taken the time to produce detailed drawings that have worked very well in the field.

[Marty Bonnar]

I cannot imagine doing any kind of landscape design without knowing beforehand (even roughly) how much dirt I was intending moving. And that can change, but at least from a known base point.

I doubt if there's a contractor alive out there who, given a 'Set of Plans' from a designer which didn't specify at least some surveyed and finished levels wouldn't try to 'extract' a little more value out of his Tender.

Contractor: "So Martin, we moved a hundred and fifty thousand cube today from there to over there."

Martin: "Okay, Mr Contractor, I never specified the levels for that area so I therefore have no method of verification of your quantities. Here's the cheque. Can I also bend over that table for you?"

Old Scots phrase: "AYE, RIGHT!"

FBD.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Do you mean to tell me that greens have been constructed EXACTLY as you've drawn them on paper, weeks or months in advance of construction? I suspect you make tweaks and changes - to green and bunker designs - as previously unforeseen opportunities present themselves during the construction process?

That was my point in regard to it being very difficult to design a feature exactly as you'd like it constructed on paper. Can you actually include all of the detail you'd like to see in the finished product on paper? I've seen Flynn's drawings, and they don't include the kind of detail found in the contouring and original bunker styling at Shinnecock Hills, for example. Undoubtedly Flynn was out there, in the field, tweaking and changing and detailing things, as the construction progressed.  

IMPORTANT: People are so easily misunderstood in this forum. I want to make it very clear that I'm not criticizing or passing judgement on ANY PERSON. Kudos to those architects who use, and are effective using detailed paper plans. I'm simply presenting my experience in repsonse to the question that started this thread. And, Rod Whitman and I are not adverse to producing plans when necessary; it's just that we haven't had to for our last three projects.

jmorrison,

As you know, there are a number of different ways for a contractor to bid on different aspects of a golf course construction project. Detailed plans aren't necessary in all situations. At Sagebrush, for example, heavy earthwork and reservoir excavation has been carried out by a contrator who bid on quantities and hourly rates - which was factored into the golf course construction budget.

Last, our definition of "worked out well" is probably different    

[Tom_Doak]

Martin:

It is possible to plan earthmoving in different terms -- for example, we'll need a D-6 for two months to do our heavy earthwork.  The exact quantities aren't known but the costs are strictly controlled.  There may be a little waste in that figure but it's a couple thousand dollars out of five million; tell me the bid-and-build scenario doesn't charge you something similar.

We draw plans as required.  Sometimes they aren't; there wasn't much of any plan for Barnbougle at all, and there was only a routing for Pacific Dunes, no grading plan.  For something like Texas Tech there are very detailed grading and drainage plans.

[Adrian_Stiff]

As many of you have said each situation is very different, plans are needed to obtain permissions, from my point of view I find working with different planning authorities very inconsistent of their 'wants', one even wanted a 1;50 scaled plan of the course, others are happy with 1:2500 routing plus detailed grading plans at 1:1000. In the working situation, A3 or A4 sketches perhaps even laminated, I like to produce an individual hole plan at 1:1000 and a green complex plan at 1:200, though 1:500 sketch works nice on an A4. I dont think I have ever built a green complex exactly to any plan, but very often perhaps 12 or more will resemble the original intent.
Things almost always change on site and things become apparent that are better or more cost effective during the construction phase. I suspect im not alone in even changing routings at a late stage!
Huge earth moving projects must be costed ofcourse but as TD stated, a D-6 for a few weeks is no real cost in % terms and these machines can do a lot of on site tweaking for not a lot of £$£, especially when an architect/associate is on site.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom and Adrian make another good point relative to my comments above. Much of the work done in regard to basic earthmoving at Sagebrush, and elsewhere, is carried out under the supervision of Rod and/or I with a D-6 size machine. It's simply a matter of paying the operator's wage and the equipment rental fee.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Can you actually include all of the detail you'd like to see in the finished product on paper?" [Jeff M. to Ian A.]

Even though not asked of me, I say, yes...but it rarely presents itself as an option. Two examples, however, prove this point:

a.   At a nearly completely flat site I worked on 15 years ago, I created 18 greens of distinct quality. Each was a work of art — at least to me. I planned these greens all in adavance because the entire project was handled that way. Sure, I made some tweaks...but as a whole, nearly every one was built by the shaper to nearly exact 6-inch contours drawn on (18) 1"=20' scale plans.

b.   At a moe recent project I was fortunate to have 3 ideally suited greens....nothing — absolutely nothing — had to be done to them beyond soft clearing and excavating a core for the sand mix. So, technicaly, the plans showed exactly what nature offered — and therefore the plans matched exactly what we ended up "building".

I think you can draw strong comparisons to some golf course holes/courses and some landscape projects. For many landscape architects the plan is drawn, but specific areas — walks, natural garden areas, ponds, etc. — are often finalized in the field based on a set of plans that is intentionally vauge to accommodate such field adjustments. Rarely, however, do landscape architects work without any plans at all.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,

Sure, it is rare that a golf architect shapes. But there are a number of guys - including associates - who shape: Rod Whitman and I; Gil Hanse (as you mention) and Jim Wagner; Dave Axland and Dan Proctor; Mike DeVries and Joe Hancock; Jim Urbina, Brian Slawnick, and Doak's other associates.

I'm sure I've forgotten a few others too.  

Jeff,
I know to many on this site it sounds good for them to think  architects are out there shaping.  Most of the time that is blowing smoke.  There are architects that can shape and their are shapers that can design BUT if an architect is out there shaping his golf course he is not getting much done nor will he constantly have work.  NOW floating a green or jumping on  a dozer for a foto op or something is different but there is so much to do other than shaping that I can't see that working......but it sounds good.  JMO

[Forrest Richardson]

If it helps, I think I would be a darn good shaper! Having "built" hundreds of miniature courses out of dirt as a kid, I am convinced it would come, not only fun, but natural to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()