Architecture vs Agronomy

[Grant Saunders]

Building a new course requires a careful interaction of give and take between both of these parties. Im curious as to which one people perceive as having to make the greater compromises.

The final result is reliant on a balance of the two. However, during the construction there are times where decisions are made which fall in favour of one or the other. Some examples could be: Large areas of steep banks that require hand mowing, hollows that collect water and require extra drainage/renovation, multi-tiered or undulating greens that minimise hole locations and promote excess wear on certain areas etc.

Certainly there are occasions where the integrity of a hole and what the architect is trying to impart necessitate that a certain feature or area be constructed to their requirement. The reverse applies where agronomic pressures(maintenance budget, staff numbers, soil conditions, climate, numbers of rounds per year etc) dictate that design principals be sympathetic to the long term success of the course.

A well conceived project undoubtedly take these factors into consideration and within the planning stages seeks to undertake the architecture/agronomy relationship as early as possible.

With the high number of architects and superintendents on this site, it should be interesting to see the views represented from both sides.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I was a head greenkeeper before I moved into architecture and I find the whole process of Architecture vs Agronomy an ongoing question during the design and construction period. In many cases both aspects can be fully satisfied, I have compromised either way.
Tees backed into woodland.... Do you remove the trees or not put the tee there? Tees look nice, play nice out of trees, but growing grass is a struggle. I favour the nice tee inthe woods.
Green design, do I place a bunker in a position where it concentrates traffic movements to the next tee.. I favour the easy access to the next tee.
Without wishing to slag off Pros that become designers a common fault is that they do not think enough about how a golf course is to be maintained and so think too much about pure design as if it will only be play for a very limited number of rounds.
An important consideration is how many rounds are you designing for, also the construction and maintenance budgets.
The whole thing is a balance, probably in 90% of cases it works well for both but for the 10% it needs some serious thought and I am sure there are many 'supers' that visit this site that have some stories of some major design flaws that cause headaches to maintenance when a little more thought givento how something is going to perform in the field could have prevented the problem.

[Ray Richard]

 Golf design has gone from “design with maintenance in consideration” to a view that most architects could care less about how the course is maintained after construction.  Architects are paid to create buzz and recreate/create a design concept.

 If you try to accommodate maintenance than the following occurs:

1.   Bunker faces become flatter and the sand shape becomes rounded. This allows for more mowing by sit down rotary mowers and less string trimmer and hand work.
2.   Mounding and “chocolate drops” are built bigger with smoother, rounded shapes to accommodate rotary mowers.
3.   Greens become bigger to accommodate triplex mowers. The transition from the green collar to the surrounding rough gets flattened out so that the triplex mowers turn without dropping off the side.
4.   Fairways become flatter without strong grade changes to allow for close mowing of the fairway turf.

   I think that many architects come in to a new course or renovation and they could care less about the cost to maintain the results. Superintendents can counter this by inputting increased maintenance budget numbers to pay for steep bunkers, small greens, etc. during the Master Plan process. This can work because the club will understand that they will need to carry a bigger maintenance budget number for post construction maintenance.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Golf design has gone from “design with maintenance in consideration” to a view that most architects could care less about how the course is maintained after construction.  Architects are paid to create buzz and recreate/create a design concept.

 If you try to accommodate maintenance than the following occurs:

1.   Bunker faces become flatter and the sand shape becomes rounded. This allows for more mowing by sit down rotary mowers and less string trimmer and hand work.
2.   Mounding and “chocolate drops” are built bigger with smoother, rounded shapes to accommodate rotary mowers.
3.   Greens become bigger to accommodate triplex mowers. The transition from the green collar to the surrounding rough gets flattened out so that the triplex mowers turn without dropping off the side.
4.   Fairways become flatter without strong grade changes to allow for close mowing of the fairway turf.

   I think that many architects come in to a new course or renovation and they could care less about the cost to maintain the results. Superintendents can counter this by inputting increased maintenance budget numbers to pay for steep bunkers, small greens, etc. during the Master Plan process. This can work because the club will understand that they will need to carry a bigger maintenance budget number for post construction maintenance.

Ray - I think MOST architects do care about the points you make, you can certainly create nice looking golf courses that can still have a low cost base to keep, of the points you make its only the real jagged bunkers that perhaps add significant costs, large greens can still have plenty of movement and interest in them, out of play areas can have less cost that keeping vast areas cut. I can only speak for myself but when I 'break' an agronomic rule or good principle I make that decsion by giving the whole thing a lot of thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Grant,

As they say, its not nice to fool Mother Nature.  Also, its damn near impossible!

That, in combination with the fact that I rarely, if ever, have client who tells me "design what you want, we have no problem spending thousands each year rebuilding, resodding, re something to maintain your design" makes me consider agronomic aspects early in the design.  

Yes, there are some compromises made. However, there is always more than one way to design a good hole, so I try not to get stuck on one that isn't practical. I figure its better to design something that stands a chance of surviving, and believe if it can't be maintained, it will be changed eventually.

That should extend mostly to turf choice, green and tee construction method and contours (steep contours are just harder to keep well) and shade/air movement.

It also extends to a lesser degree to double fw - I figure that there will be another gas shortage, such as experienced in WWII or the depression, and note that many clubs eliminated all extraneous features, like double fw, figuring one should be enough. However, I like double fw, so I keep doing them, abeit less often.

I usually end up with at least a few greens per course with great contour, but try to put them in good environments to help their growth.

I always clear trees to the east side of tees and greens. If you see a tree near one of my greens, you can bet its on the west or north sides.

There is more of course, but I have to go.  Generally, I believe if a gca doesn't consider such things, he is really just playing in the dirt, and not giving the client the benefit of "professional golf course architecture" that they are presumably paying for.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Architecture vs. agronomy seems to say that the two are in conflict when I don't think that has to be the case.
Conflict usually involves egos more than professions and I think the architect/superintendent relationship can be very strong if both share the same goals.

A bigger problem that I have seen is when the client requests a certain type of course that requires a large budget and lots of hand work only to trim back the budget once he realizes that the folks he hired to do the pro forma didn't have a clue.
At that point the super, often not the original guy, points the finger at the design as the cause of poor conditioning when in fact the architect delivered what the client requested.

[Jon Wiggett]

Don,

I fully agree with your point of view. This is something that happens time and again with new build and Renovation work. The type of design depends on how much time and finances the client has.

Most clients unfortunately don't really understand the long term consequences and allow there desire to have what they feel to be the ultimate design to cloud there common sense.

On the other hand many Supers often take a negative stance to changes. It is a fact that what makes a course interesting to play is usually more challenging to maintain. If the Super is agronomist first and golfer second then this will work against an interesting design.

IMO it is the GCA job to design the most interesting course possible taking into consideration the budgets for the build and maintenance, the land he has to work with, the climate and the expected amount of traffic.
It is the Supers job to present the course in its most interesting form to play. This does not necessarily mean the best possible sward nor the neatest course.

[Grant Saunders]

"A bigger problem that I have seen is when the client requests a certain type of course that requires a large budget and lots of hand work only to trim back the budget once he realizes that the folks he hired to do the pro forma didn't have a clue.
At that point the super, often not the original guy, points the finger at the design as the cause of poor conditioning when in fact the architect delivered what the client requested"

This is an excellent point Don.

Many times the construction/grow-in superintendent does leave either prior to opening or very soon after. The replacement is thrust into the position of taking on the teething problems that all new projects encounter often in a unpleasant environment as reality can take hold and projected incomes not realised. Here begins the downward spiral of trade offs within maintenance that then reflect on the course developer, architect, superintendent, staff etc.

Do architects take the word of the client as gospel when designing a course and incorporate elements and features that require the maximum staff/budget, as quoted by the client, to maintain? Or do they make allowances for the potential scaling back of resources devoted to the upkeep of the course. Maintenance/presentation are factors within the criteria for golf course rankings and if this area is lacking it can reflect negatively on the course and its designer. Highly ranked past projects boost that architects future prospects yet much of the ranking result is dictated by the clients continued  devotion to the initial concept.

[Ray Richard]

Adrian-Your background in golf superintending allows you to incorporate maint. in your golf design philosophy, which is a great tool.
 My point is based on the large majority of golf architects who come into the golf business from a non-superintendent perspective such as golf pro, landscape architect etc. My background is also as a superintendent and I notice that when work is proposed/done by architects in new or renovation work, the potential maint. headaches are low on the list of architect priorities. I have heard the statement "the superintendent gets paid to manage what we give him-it's his problem not mine" more than a few times.

Many, but not all architects are more concerned with architectural authenticity, dramatic statement, and playability.

[Grant Saunders]

Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.

I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.

For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)

[Tom_Doak]

Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.

I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.

For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)

Grant:

I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is.  Am I "making concessions" in my work?  Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?

Are we architects really too insistent?  I suppose that sometimes we are.  But there are two sides to that coin.  It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do.  I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are.  The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.

I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though.  We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.

I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.

For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)

I dont think the question or answer has really changed, but its more about budgetting for 1) the build cost and 2) the after cost. Personally my projects have always been small so I have had to factor those things into the design and perhaps think more about what and how is a bank, slope going to be maintained...by the large the lesser it costs to maintain the more averagey or flat its going to be, equally if something is unmaintained it can be rugged.

[Jimmy Cavezza]

One of the common themes I found on the better projects I was a part of was a solid superintendent/architect relationship.  There has to be a little give and take by both sides of this team.  The architect needs to have an understanding of the maintenance challenges to know how a golf course will grow and play as it matures.  A superintendent needs to have an understanding of how the architect wants the course to play to maintain it properly.  It takes both sides working together along with solid construction for a project to flow and create great golf. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I have been called back to half a dozen of my boom year courses with the same goal - reduce the footprint and severity of bunkers.

At GIS, I was speaking to Mark Mungeam about how the late Geoff Cornish used to write of the "Design Triangle" and the balance of maintenance, playability and aesthetic needs in design.  Frankly, no one has used that term in years, but it was once a staple of design.  If it was a muni course, you were expected to lean more towards maintenance, and the triangle was quite lopsided in that direction. 

By the late 90's, the triangle seemed lopsided to play and aesthetic factors as every course was designed for "the look" and "best new" or "top 100" awards.  Yes, I was guilty, too.

It was helped along by the mfgs who did start making new equipment that mowed or raked tighter radii and steeper slopes.  Steep banks and bunkers seem to be the thing that really slow down maintenance and drive up costs, even with these new pieces of equipment, because they didn't actually save money, they just drove up expectations of what could be done towards perfection.

Frankly, only 10% of the world's new courses should have a lopsided triangle in the play or asethetic directions, or at least, the aesthetic side should find some maintenance friendly ways to accomplish aesthetic goals (and minimalism does this quite nicely, IMHO, in most cases)

[Tim Nugent]

One thing that is never really covered is Super turnover.  Every super has different ideas and something that is no big deal to one is a huge problem to another. There have been many times when you sit down with a Super and go over ideas and concerns and get it all figured out, only to see a new guy come in and wonder "what the hell were they thinking".  It's aslo nice when it goes the  otherway.  From an architects point of view, there is almost nothing worse than getting thrown under the bus when a consensus was reached.  Especially when it happens in absentia and not only can you not defend yourself but you hear it third-hand and not knowing how many other people have heard it and taken it for Gospel.

The actual "maintenance" of the golf course features is actually a small percentage of the overall maintenance budget.  Many have no idea how much it costs to make one application of chemicals or fertilizer. How often are the fairways and roughs mowed. Are clipping collected or dispersed? What the maintenance expense of the irrigation system is, etc.

Where I have seen Architectual No-No's usually stem from things like "how do you get a sprayer on that green? Where do you turn it around? Doesn't that mounding interfere with the boom?  There's only one, if you are lucky, places to get in and out of a bunker with a sand pro.  Tees too small to triplex.  Tee banks too steep to get up with equipment. Cart paths that have too many tight curves leading to worn edges.

While it seems to be fair game to criticise the design aspects, I have rarely ever had a GM come to me and say "show us how to knock 20% off our maintenance expenditures".  Once, early in my career, I had a GM ask if I knew anyone who could do that.  I called a veteran super (Several top 100's) who had a maintenance management company and told me "don't walk, RUN! - nothing will get you blacklisted amoungst Supers faster than that."  Needless to say he wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Yeah, it would be interesting to add to the list of design things Golf Course Architects could do for supers.  Here is my additions to your brief list, based on stuff I hear, or do, to better accomodate supers.  As you mention, opinions vary quite a bit.

Green Access – Sprayers, Mowers, etc.
o   <5% slope, no cross slope
o   No 33% mound slopes (at least without transition)
o   Turn around space between green and bunker
Green Access – Golfers
o   (maybe one foot per thousand rounds wide, near back to help circulation
o   <5% slope, virtually no cross slope
o   If possible, drain green away from golfer walk on areas
Green Approach
o   Sand cap and herringbone tile, if possible
o   Adjust sprinklers so part circles don’t all stop at same place, causing over watering
•    Bunkers for Sand Pro (actually not as important, as liners usually means hand raking)
Bunkers

                  More than one place to get sand pro in and out of a bunker
o   Match turning radius of sand pro (now about 6 feet, used to be 10’ or more)
o   Match turning radius of bank mowers or make “nose width” one mower width
o   Build flat enough to reduce sand wash in every rain (varies by region)
o   Cut off ALL uphill drainage from washing down slopes
o   Tile, tile, tile
Tees
o   Match turning radius to triplex.  Now usually 8’, 10’ preferred
o   Rounded, not square edges (this varies from super to super, but round is easier to mow
o   Tee banks gentle enough to mow (usually 3:1 okay, if there is a transition)
o   Where possible, combine tees – large tee surfaces quicker to mow than several small ones.
Cart paths
o   Minimum radius allows truck to drive 15MPH
o   Minimum radius of intersections about 55’ (allows carts to max out speed and stay on path)
o   Curbing at tees and greens (and don’t skimp)
o   Drains/careful grading to keep them dry so when tires go off, turf isn’t messed up)
o   Build with enough strength to last……..
Fairways
o   Don’t build them excessively wide.  They cost more per acre to maintain, so 30 acres is better than 45 acres
o   Cut of drain flows that cross fairway to minimize drainage problems
o   Make sure irrigation covers them well
Roughs
o   Minimize in favor of natives to reduce irrigation
o   Make sure irrigation covers them well
o   Reduce mounds to increase mowing productivity
Trees
o   Clear wide enough from critical areas (at least height of tree)
o   No trees on east sides of tees, greens, heavy circulation areas
                 No tree roots near greens, tees, paths

[Grant Saunders]

Grant:

I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is.  Am I "making concessions" in my work?  Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?

Are we architects really too insistent?  I suppose that sometimes we are.  But there are two sides to that coin.  It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do.  I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are.  The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.

I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though.  We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.

Tom

Perhaps my questions are worded wrongly as I dont intend it to be adversarial. It may also be too that this probably isnt the best group to put the question to as I am probably preaching to the converted. Your comment about green size is kind of what I was looking for though.

Maybe the question should address the architecture industry as a whole. Has there been a shift amongst those who traditionally have  been known for overly induldgent designs to reign in some of their ideas and be more sensitive to the ongoing cost of maintenance.

I am certainly not absolving supers of any wrongdoing as I feel they should shoulder a large (if not the largest) part of the blame for the current level of resources being committed to maintenance.

Jeff

Thanks for your reply and your list is very interesting.

Do you, and the architects, feel architecture and the realtionship with maintenance is understood well enough by supers or is it something that should be focused upon more in education?

What would be your number one point that you wish supers would be more understanding of?

Conversely, what do supers wish that architects would consider when designing a course?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Yes, I should have added "build greens (and tees) no larger than necessary (for the most part, one or two exceptions isn't bad) to keep intense mowing, irrigiation and inputs to a minimum.  I guess the same could be said about sand bunkers.  Oh well, there go those large waste bunkers so many built a decade or so ago....

Grant,

I would say supers know instantly when we build something that isn't within their usual way of doing things or done easily with their proposed or existing equipment list.

One example from my last visit to Sand Creek, the super pointed out that one particular "zig zag" in a bunker shape stopped that one from being 100% machine mowable on the banks.  I game him permisstion to take out that reverse curve.  I mean really, if that six inches happens to cost him an extra guy every other day, is it worth it for any particular "look" on a free form bunker?  I doubt it on a mid level public course that has been quite well recieved for its overall design nature.

I think supers would think architects should consider my whole list above!  They may accept that sometimes, the rules must bend, but they would want the archie to at least be cognizant of how much those little things affect their maintenance ops. 

There is nothing on that list that really stands out as more important, but if I had to pick, anything to do with the micro climates, like tree clearing, siting greens in deep valleys, etc. would take priority.  As mentioned early in this thread, bad micro climate = impossible to maintain, and a green cannot be a little pregnant - when the conditions are bad, the green usually goes out completely, although some just struggle for years.  As it happens, some of the prettiest green sites - down by creeks, in deep woods, happen to create the most agronomic problems.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Grant - I would say many architects are the ones that need greater educating so they can respect how the course will function when built.
I think the ones on here do think, its the architects that can only think about how a hole will play that need to learn, it is a balance of doing whats best for golf and best for turf. In some situations there can be absolutely no compromise and you must do whats best for the agronomy, some situations change with where they are on the planet, but in the UK and Northern Europe the architect that restricts traffic from green to next tee by chanelling the walk offs to a small area is a bad golf course architect, full stop. Theres a lot to put in the mix and its not a one size fits all, the amount of rounds anticipated will dictate certain levels of architecture, the intention of how to mow the greens will be another, often its the change from pedstrian to triplex that will cause a problem...the archie might get the blame when really he designed for something different, the client will give us his spec or perhaps between archie and client you work out the spec.
Supers are there to maintain the turf to the best they can, they will only alter the architecture by direction or by a feature which inhibits and impairs their work, their job is different and their methods will be different depending on how much cash they have to spend.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adrian,

Well said.  I go so far as to say that gca's who only consider play qualities - and only play of the tour pros or low handicappers, without understanding the agronomics, average players, etc. are just "playing in the sand box." 

The point of hiring a gca used to be (and still is, even if many don't know it) to build a golf course that functions well in all areas, and do it in an efficient manner.

[Mike Nuzzo]

"Design Triangle" and the balance of maintenance, playability and aesthetic needs in design.  Frankly, no one has used that term in years, but it was once a staple of design. 

Jeff
Where have you been?
I think Don and I broke/shrunk the triangle.  We put all three points in the excellence category, and we included construction too.
Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, it is true that they are not mutually exclusive and could all be excellent.  Have no doubt you did that, but I just said I never heard you talking about it, not that you didn't do it.......

BTW, I once had a few slides.  One showed it as a quadrangle, adding the environment.  At another point, I had one that added a lot of other factors with a lot of confusing connecting arrows.  Just for laughs.

Cheers.

[Grant Saunders]

Grant,

I would say supers know instantly when we build something that isn't within their usual way of doing things or done easily with their proposed or existing equipment list.

One example from my last visit to Sand Creek, the super pointed out that one particular "zig zag" in a bunker shape stopped that one from being 100% machine mowable on the banks.  I game him permisstion to take out that reverse curve.  I mean really, if that six inches happens to cost him an extra guy every other day, is it worth it for any particular "look" on a free form bunker?  I doubt it on a mid level public course that has been quite well recieved for its overall design nature.

Jeff, thanks for the replies.

I seem to recall (hopefully correctly) that Don Mahaffey made comment in a thread somewhere about how he, as a superintendent with a good understanding of architecture, was in fact more likely to push the boundaries of what is maintainable.

Has maintenance become overly cautious and too much emphasis placed on ease of maintenance? (I realise I am contradicting my earlier remarks by asking this)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Grant,

I would expect Don to push the boundaries, and he is certainly in a very good position to know what those boundaries are, having been there as a super.  Loving architecture and understanding maintenance is a great combo, IMHO, to be good in designing and building golf courses.  As you note, the super is often on board, but not all love architecture, however!

Has too much emphasis been placed on ease of maintenance?  Depends.  My perspective is formed by working my college summers at a public golf course circa 1974-5.  The course had rebuilt some greens, and they were domes - built by the super for drainage only.  I recall thinking (having already studied what I could) that the Golden Age of design first was over, and that maintenance concerns would forever after trump design.  Of course, I was wrong.  However, I see us moving back to that "better"balance in a lot of ways. 

I don't think it will ever go back to the low point of the 70's, because standards are simply way to high.  We aren't going full circle, we are going full upward helix, and elevating a bit each time we go through the cycle.  And, not entirely sure its not a construction cost issue.  As TD points out, when building USGA greens at $6 SF, 6K SF costs /25% less than 8K SF, both initially and long term.  Ditto for 30 acres of fw vs 40 acres.

The "there are no rules" architecture plays against us, as an owner is going to say that inherently, an 8K SF green is not any better than a 6K green, except if we can convince him its for variety, or to overcome some shade or air circulation concerns in a tight spot.  Of course, its a big world, and gca's will try, so at some point, we will see a green like the18th at Indianwood in Michigan again, even if not on a sandy soil site like TD had at Old Mac.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Grant,
I think it was more about striking a balance. If we felt there was a feature that posed a maintenance challenge, that was fine as long as we had other areas with lower maintenance requirements. I didn't want 18 holes of challenges, but didn't mind pushing it as long as I had the authority to keep some balance, knowing the resources I'd have to work with.