Is design keeping pace with improvements in construction?

[Don_Mahaffey]

I believe we are in the golden age of golf course construction as there are so many people who do it very well and the specification for materials has never been more precise or closely monitored. But does better built mean better designed?
Are the architects out there really pushing to build new and thoughtful projects or do we just know how to build ‘em better than ever before? Is the focus primarily on building something highly functional so it’s always in great shape and playable an hour after a 2 inch rain?

[Scott Witter]

Don:

Not sure I would interpret our time as the 'golden age' of construction, but I do understand the point you are trying to make.

"But does better built mean better designed?"  

I think you know the answer here, IMO absolutely not and there isn't enough time to give you all my reasons, but as we have learned in many walks, trials and tribulations of life, convenience doen't mean easier or better, IMO just another tool to be considered and dealt with.  It shakes out which GCA's use the tools, their experience and knowledge gained  along the way and to the best means possible to achieve the best product given the goals and objectives handed to them by nature, the client and from countless other influences.

I hope the GCA's out there are always pushing the envelope to design the best they can...again it depends on how hard they are able to push and knowing when to push given the budget and the client--only the individual can make that decision, some do it much better than others.

I also believe we certainly have the ability and the knowledge to build them better, at least a lot more sensible, but the advantages and excess of technology can also lead to poor work/laziness and we have seen this quite often with earthmoving and overshaping, huge greens, etc. you get my point.

To your last question, I think there are GCA's, builders and their clients who give little thought to many details, nuiances and features, simply because they can casually drop in endless CB's everywhere, shape the living daylights out of the site disregarding the existing character in the name of modern construction materials and techniques.  Don't get me wrong, functionality is essential, but how it is first identified and then executed in design & construction can quickly separate average-good-great design.

[John Kirk]

Nice reply, Scott.  I hope everybody gets a chance to read that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice reply, Scott.  I hope everybody gets a chance to read that.

Agreed - and good to see Scott's name on the board again.

Don - you answered some questions a while ago for me (and I hope I'm remembering your answers right) about an irrigation system you and Mike designed yourselves for the course you're building, one that was relatively simple and inexpensive. Was that part of an attempt to meld form and function?

Thanks
Peter

[Scott Witter]

Aww stuff it John... I was bored sitting here evaluating 184 master plan questionnaires all afternoon for a club I am working on and my reply reflects my pragmatic and functional attitude...that or else I have been reading to many of Sir Paul Cowley's replies

Have a great day

[BCrosby]

I would like to hear Scott's other reasons, but I hope one is that however wonderful modern construction technology is - and I will take it on faith that it is wonderful - you have to be able to maintain the wonderful stuff you build with it.

There was a silver lining in the not so wonderful construction technology used by Ross, MacD and others. They built a product that you could maintain with real world budgets.

Bob

[John Kirk]

Aww stuff it John... I was bored sitting here evaluating 184 master plan questionnaires all afternoon for a club I am working on and my reply reflects my pragmatic and functional attitude...that or else I have been reading to many of Sir Paul Cowley's replies

Have a great day

Thanks for the Cleaver family quality putdown (Aww, stuff it John).

It's a succinct take on the most important question for me these days, whether or not the modern courses are better.  Some are great; some seem to have bells and whistles just for the sake of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don, if this were court, I think you would get an objection for "leading the witness."

I agree with Scott that its a worthy topic, phrased as "Does better built mean better designed?"  I categorize the initial post and other parts of his response as a bit to generalized, at least for my tastes.

In some ways, you cannot separate construction from design.  After all, the contractor won't often put a basin in if the gca hasn't drawn it or directed it.  (On occaision, they try to take one out, for cost savings, and not because they are closest gca.com readers )

In other ways, you can.  You could measure construction quality in terms of numbers of wet spots, etc. although that could also be function of design.

Design is still and always will be subjective, esp. if you mean the strategic elements I think you refer to in the words "thoughtful designs."

To just plain old answer your question, I think there are more thoughtful designs than ever (Mike N's included!)  The level of lower end and mid level design courses is ever greater and the top end match the top end of any point in history.

Just to play devil's advocate here, is Mike Nuzzo's design that you are working on "thoughtful?" (Okay, softball question!)  

The harder questions are, what about the next ten gca's who try "minimalism" because it seems trendy here?  Is that thoughtful, trendy, or pale imitation?  (Granted, all of us who imitate MacK bunkers are in the same boat)

How thoughtful is any gca who places a fw bunker on the inside of a DL and greenside bunker on the outside?  More or less thoughtful than one who pinches the fw on both sides like RTJ did, just because so few are doing it now?

Or the gca who tries native areas when commissioned to do a playable muni because that seems so trendy here?  Is that trendy and misplaced?  Does a gca who does wall to wall turf, in that situation put thought into the design, even if he reduces nature more than anyone would like?

Frankly, no matter how you define thoughtful, and the above examples are demonstrating that a lot of thought goes into even decisions we don't like, I think the thought level is similar to the Golden Age, maybe more.

But, if you care to further define "thoughtful" as you understand it, I think we could have a nice debate on the subject.  At least, thats what I think after, uh, thoughtful reflection on this, uhmmmm, thoughtful thread!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Some good stuff here...thanks for replying to my thoughtful thread

What I'm seeing out of the big guns with big dollars is mountains moved and put back so carefully that we can step back and say...wow; they really worked with the land. Now, is that a function of design or improved construction technique...probably a lot of both combined with what's trendy.

I do think that improved construction techniques and materials should mean better golf courses, but like Scott and John alluded too, sometimes it's done just because you can do it.

Bob, actually I believe a well constructed golf course is very maintainable...of course one's definition of well constructed may differ from mine, but none the less I do believe that most modern courses are much easier to maintain well on a day in and day out basis than the courses built 80 years ago. Of course the standards are different so comparing maintenance from generation to generation is a bit tough.

Jeff, not sure thoughtful was the best word...but yes Mike's course is very thoughtful; in that he was given a blank slate and few constraints with ample resources and created what some would call a subdued golf course. I am biased, and I happen to think it's great, but I know enough to know that many would find it confusing and "not normal". Those who had the time to study it would, I think, learn to love to play it every day, but it is a bit of an anomaly in the golf development world.

When I say that design may not be keeping pace with construction, its because I think we are still hanging on to old rules that we can now bend a bit more as we have so much more under our control. And although I'm a Superintendent, in some ways I believe we are starting to do the game a disservice with all our technical rules about what can work and what can't.

It's grass, and if we can get water, air and nutrients to its roots, shine some sun on it's leaves, put it in a stable place, and cut it from time to time,  we can grow it to withstand the stresses required of good golfing turf.

It's time to start bending the rules.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Mike has shared the routing with me and I have seen the photos on his blog. It should be nice when open and I hope to play it.

As to doing it just because you can, I don't see the negative connotation of that as much as others.  Even with some false starts, where would design be if we kept doing it the old way, as it had been done before?  Basically, we would be designing by formula wouldn't we?

In other words, you have to experiment and you have to fail to move forward.

As to incorporating technology, I say that most gca's are not minimalists, they are necessitests.  IF a situation arises where we need to move earth, we can and will.  If we need a catch basin, we can add it easily etc.  I think there is something "sincere" or "authentic" about designing using whatever technology is available, (as opposed to building today with horse and scoops to replicate something old) and most courses are quite comfortable when designed that way.

I think mounds and catch basins (and even landscaping and waterfalls) are kind of like movie nudity - all right when really important in context, not as good an idea when gratuitously added.

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Nice reply, Scott.  I hope everybody gets a chance to read that.

Don - you answered some questions a while ago for me (and I hope I'm remembering your answers right) about an irrigation system you and Mike designed yourselves for the course you're building, one that was relatively simple and inexpensive. Was that part of an attempt to meld form and function?

Thanks
Peter

Peter,
We designed a system that we hoped would give us the right amount of water to maintain the course like we wanted and was acceptable to the client. The biggest difference between what we did and what you see done more often is we reduced the number of heads (no perimeter heads or back-to-back heads around greens) and we went with a larger head that throws farther. This is really against everything you'll hear you need to do today, but given the environmental conditions of our site (humid and wet), the fact that the greens and surrounds are the same grass and constructed in the same way (no need for two heads where one will work fine), and that the client agreed to live with some off color turf along the edges during drought, we did what we thought worked best.
We still have state of the art computerized control…single head control,,,on site weather station, radio, PDA, so we didn't skimp in that area. All in all we have the nicest system I've ever managed at about 40% the cost of what you’re seeing installed in other new courses today.  But, we don’t overseed so we don’t need the capacity to get a stand of rye up and the course open in 3 weeks, and we have no opening date that requires a quick grow-in. Believe me, many systems are over done solely because of the needs of grow-in.
We didn’t have those constraints so we could do just what was needed to maintain a nice golf course. I guess that means we melded form and function.

[paul cowley]

.....First I was going to type 'yes' in response.....and I felt good about....then things started to spin as the posts piled up and I started questioning myself.....then when Brauer used mounds and catch basins as an example, I started to become calm again as I envisioned the yin/yang relationship between the two..............while softly chanting paralysis by analysis....paralysis by analysis.....

Just joking...I love you guys

[TEPaul]

KABOOM!!

BINGO, I just had a revelation that outsrtripped that massive revelation I had about ten years ago while passing Exit 7a on the New Jersey Turnpike at around 93 mph at which time the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" was suddenly born.

THIS revelation will outstrip that one by around a factor of 13!

THIS one will finally solve the age old architectural problem of how to construct architecture that both looks completely natural and will drain beautifully at all times and in all places.

No more will golfers like me feel when they are in those obnoxious catch basins with drains at the bottom that they are standing inside the enormous breast of a 100 yard tall babe who's lying on her stomach on a really narrow diving board with her breasts hanging over the end of it. And no more will they feel when their ball comes to rest on that drain that it is on the inside of her nipple. (How the hell did those things on a women's breast turn into a "logo" on here?).

THIS revelation will revolutionize golf architecture once and for all and it will take the art form to that mysterious new level that the old guys dreamt about when construction machinery and materials of the future could take them to a sublime new height and into the sunlit upland of all things and finally to true and natural architectural greatness.



OOOPS.

DRAT IT, the whole massive global (nay universal) revelation just slipped right out of my head as I was typing.

I saw it floating in the air and I jumped up and grabbed for it but it eeled its way through my fingers and POOF it was just gone.

As it flew away it looked to me like some of the effluvium from the cotton candy I used to love when I was a kid in Daytona Beach back in the early 50s at the Ringling Bros circus which was the high point of my year---other than hanging with Fireball, that is.

Except, instead of that light spun pink color of that old cotton candy this had a light green sheen to it.

Well, although the whole revelation was clear as a bell in the overall and in its detail, it's all gone now, so I guess it's gonna be hunkering down again and getting back to the drawing board.




(There's always the land Katie Scarlett, there's always the land).

(tara, Tara, TARA)

"Fiddledeedee, I'll think about it tomorrow, FOR, TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY."


Whatever you say, Scarlett, whatever you say.



Later.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Apparently I don’t explain myself all that well.  

This isn’t about minimalism, or any other “style” of golf course design.
Some of the older courses we like so much were built before we had all these rules, things we learned through trial and error, about what we can and can’t do. Although I’m sure the ODG knew you had to cut a hole in the green, I doubt they had any 21 day formulas or whatever. I’m guessing they used common sense and their golfing sense to guide them when they thought about cupping areas…although I doubt they used that term.
What I’m saying is they did a lot of things that over time proved to not function all that well, probably as a result of increased course condition expectations. But, with the advances in construction techniques and materials…and with the agronomic advances…I think we can do more things…things like punch bowls, radically wrinkled fairways, and smaller greens with wicked contours. Rather than using all our construction expertise to move tons and tons of dirt and then put it back in a way that looks like we’ve never been there, I think we can work with the land a bit more if we’re willing to put our money into micro construction elements that allow for good drainage…yes more pipe and basins, but concealed basins, and extra care to smaller greens so we can still keep grass…things like that.
 

[Scott Witter]

John K. check your IM.

Bob:

 "hope one is that however wonderful modern construction technology is - and I will take it on faith that it is wonderful - you have to be able to maintain the wonderful stuff you build with it.

There was a silver lining in the not so wonderful construction technology used by Ross, MacD and others. They built a product that you could maintain with real world budgets."

No argument from me here, though I would say that I don't believe we should stiffle ourselves or limit the possibilities from our clients just for the sake of maintenence at least from the straight and narrow functional level.  Lets not forget though that many of our predessors created some significant maintenence headaches/issues with long steep slopes in bunkers and quick drop-offs around their green pads.  Some may say that they simply didn't maintain them the same as we do now and there is certainly a correlation there as we have experienced with putting surfaces/slopes/speeds based on equipment used then and now.  Overall though, I tend to agree with you that in the old days, design and maintenance were more complimentary of each other...whether or not that was the intent from the start is open to further debate, but history has shown that many of the past greats began their careers in greenkeeping and as such, this had much influence on their approach to design and construction.

I do also believe, however, that many ODArch's designed with simple and basic intuition, functionally sound by using the equipment thay had at hand.  Their work just was what it was...not very 'high style' or cutting edge which does tend to require more maintenance..though not always.

If I consider the work of the favorite minimalists we often discuss--they all have the modern tools/equipment at their disposal and are all well aware of what their predessors have done and as Jeff B states, they will move significant earth if needed, but I don't think their work is NEARLY as extensive to maintain as many other modern day architects who create expansive mounding and steep slopes every where.

I started in maintenance for 10 years and I am well aware of its pros and cons, but like all else in design, I don't feel it should become a 'hard' parameter or criteria I must live and die by during the design process.  Obviously, during design and probably in the back of all architects minds along with countless other issues they must deal with, there is the ever present maintanence considerations/meld and how their work will be cared for to uphold their design intentions.  Tom D recently stated this point on the Pasi thread.  This issue, while very important IMO doesn't all fall on the architects shoulders does it?  Clients, green committees, superintendents and many others making or influencing the decisions all must hopefully understand, or buy into what the architect was trying to achieve...hopefully before and during construction, or else the chances of maintaining it the right way are slim.

I know that isn't a list of my reasons...but now I am all tired out and really need to get back to work.

I should have known Mr. Brauer would find a weakness   in my post during my attempt to be thoughtful...not enough meat on the bone I guess.  Well fortunately for those who are deeper/forward thinkers such as John K.   the message was well received.  I knew I should have sprinkled a few more CB's in here and there ...maybe then he would see the way!

"Frankly, no matter how you define thoughtful, and the above examples are demonstrating that a lot of thought goes into even decisions we don't like, I think the thought level is similar to the Golden Age, maybe more."

There is no question we have much more to account for to get a project built, this has been talked about before...some of this I think maybe why some GCA's like Tom D. (sorry, not trying to leave anyone else out) seem to go to great lengths to do whatever they can during design and construction to make the course 'work' for everyone potentially keeping the process simplier and more akin to years past.

[Scott Witter]

Don,  I think you explain yourself just fine and I think I hit on some of what you say here, but obviously, the designer needs to have the right site/land to achieve much of what you discuss and clearly that is not the case very often.  Though even when presented with great sites, some still feel obligated to create something else...perhaps because modern equipment allows this to happen and perhaps in some ways justify to their clients that they are doing some cool   stuff with their $.

I believe the micro-construction approach is clearly gaining in popularity, thankfully,

"I think we can work with the land a bit more if we’re willing to put our money into micro construction elements that allow for good drainage…yes more pipe and basins, but concealed basins, and extra care to smaller greens so we can still keep grass…things like that."

That IS happening and you read about it with great examples on this site all the time, but it still may take a lot of time for this to sink in with many bigger names in the business, remember, and I am NOT saying it is right, nor do I support it, but many clients are paying for the flash and sparkle and EXPECT it to be so...until at least the top dogs allow their talented associates to 'try something new' heaven forbid.

[TEPaul]

Scott:

I thought your post was wonderful as well. And now would you please be so kind as to tell me to stuff it too?  

[Sean_A]

KABOOM!!

BINGO, I just had a revelation that outsrtripped that massive revelation I had about ten years ago while passing Exit 7a on the New Jersey Turnpike at around 93 mph at which time the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" was suddenly born.

THIS revelation will outstrip that one by around a factor of 13!

THIS one will finally solve the age old architectural problem of how to construct architecture that both looks completely natural and will drain beautifully at all times and in all places.

No more will golfers like me feel when they are in those obnoxious catch basins with drains at the bottom that they are standing inside the enormous breast of a 100 yard tall babe who's lying on her stomach on a really narrow diving board with her breasts hanging over the end of it. And no more will they feel when their ball comes to rest on that drain that it is on the inside of her logo. (How the hell did those things on a women's breast turn into a "logo" on here?).

THIS revelation will revolutionize golf architecture once and for all and it will take the art form to that mysterious new level that the old guys dreamt about when construction machinery and materials of the future could take them to a sublime new height and into the sunlit upland of all things and finally to true and natural architectural greatness.



OOOPS.

DRAT IT, the whole massive global (nay universal) revelation just slipped right out of my head as I was typing.

I saw it floating in the air and I jumped up and grabbed for it but it eeled its way through my fingers and POOF it was just gone.

As it flew away it looked to me like some of the effluvium from the cotton candy I used to love when I was a kid in Daytona Beach back in the early 50s at the Ringling Bros circus which was the high point of my year---other than hanging with Fireball, that is.

Except, instead of that light spun pink color of that old cotton candy this had a light green sheen to it.

Well, although the whole revelation was clear as a bell in the overall and in its detail, it's all gone now, so I guess it's gonna be hunkering down again and getting back to the drawing board.




(There's always the land Katie Scarlett, there's always the land).

(tara, Tara, TARA)

"Fiddledeedee, I'll think about it tomorrow, FOR, TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY."


Whatever you say, Scarlett, whatever you say.



Later.

Ideal Maintenance Meld 10 years old?  TomP, you are a legend in your mind.  

Please do continue the design conversation - I am enjoying it.

Ciao

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

My real and only goal from my  l  o   n   g  post was to gain the respect   from Mr. Brauer...doubt that will ever happen...I'll have to hang my head all day now   I knew long before that I had sucked you into my grand scheme of thinking I knew what I was talking about.  See, smoke and mirrors also works in writing too, not just design, oops, what am I saying, you are one of the great all time masters.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I didn't take it as a style of design, necessarily.  I was taking thoughtful design to mean subtle strategic challenges, even more than re-using old and neat features like reverse slope greens, punch bowls, etc.  In reading again it seems we all have a slightly different take (or examples or situations in our heads) about the concept of "thoughtful."

Now that you have narrowed it down (for my narrow mind, I suppose ) to micro construction issues I think we could have a pretty good specific debate on that.

Has drainage technology allowed for true punch bowl greens to be more doable, for example?  Can you build a green that doesn't surface drain?  (Mike DeVries has one at Kingsley that seems to work)  Do herringbone drains allow even flatter slopes and do we want them on greens?

I have given that some thought, and I willl still rely on surface drainage on greens.  Some items in design don't change, although I think its worth thinking whether they could, as you have done!

As to smaller greens, with all the new bents and bermudas available, you would think that perhaps one could survive smaller on greens. I haven't seen any research on that, and in fact, most of the genetic focus has been on smoother surfaces and heat tolerance.

I do know that the vast majority of superintendents out there manage greens with far less than 21 cup space rotations, just like they manage with less irrigation than the textbooks say they need.  

Scott,

I was certainly not trying to find fault with your post!  I said parts of your thoughtful post leans to some generalizations that I disagree with. Specifically, I have always felt that the big name guys have more variety (and thought) in their designs than some of this site's particpants give them credit for and its too easy to make this a big guy vs the rest us gca's issue.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

.....First I was going to type 'yes' in response.....and I felt good about....then things started to spin as the posts piled up and I started questioning myself.....then when Brauer used mounds and catch basins as an example, I started to become calm again as I envisioned the yin/yang relationship between the two..............while softly chanting paralysis by analysis....paralysis by analysis.....

Just joking...I love you guys

Paul,

You on the other hand.....I thought about ripping this post apart! I'm just not sure I understand your posts well enough to do it.........

I trust you were the genius behind the Nike slogan of "Just Do It?"

 

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

"Specifically, I have always felt that the big name guys have more variety (and thought) in their designs than some of this site's particpants give them credit for and its too easy to make this a big guy vs the rest us gca's issue."

More variety and thought...perhaps, though they probably have more 'freedom' in their thought to consider options that to me have resulted from the tools available.  Nevertheless, there is still more to consider in the modern age of design and construction IMO and yes the big names do think about it all...just not sure they pay as much attention to possible options as thay may have during the start of their careers.  Ditto, this was never meant to feed fuel to the us-vs-them point of view.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I definitely think the contractors building courses today are as good as there has ever een in the industry.  Some are so good and efficient with what they do that som eof the signature firms can almost "call in" much of the design having used the same guys b4 on different projects.  
I think construction might be so good that it has endangered segments of the design business.  For example, a professional golfer's agent could find him a "design" and all he would really need is a good contractor.  I have also seen some mediocre architects move up a few notches because they aligned with a good contractor.
IMHO the architect of the future will be more of a design build type guy than an office/plans/bid/contractor......notto say those jobs will not be there.  I think the entire time I have been in business i have only used a general contractor once......and I did not like it....
Plus once the contractors find that you do your own work they comment differently than if they think you may be sending work their way.....
I think that much of the work this website likes has been done by architects that are on site/ own guys/own shaper types.....
I don't know.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

"Specifically, I have always felt that the big name guys have more variety (and thought) in their designs than some of this site's particpants give them credit for and its too easy to make this a big guy vs the rest us gca's issue."

More variety and thought...perhaps, though they probably have more 'freedom' in their thought to consider options that to me have resulted from the tools available.  Nevertheless, there is still more to consider in the modern age of design and construction IMO and yes the big names do think about it all...just not sure they pay as much attention to possible options as thay may have during the start of their careers.  Ditto, this was never meant to feed fuel to the us-vs-them point of view.

Scott, I think I agree with you, but again always wonder if we have the same mental images going on in our head.

But specifically, I think that those of us who don't have the big budgets often do better design by virtue of "necessity being the mother of invention."  A typical example might be a bigger budget project simply surrounding a green with bunkers for design splash, whereas if there is no budget for bunkers, we start looking for things like one foot high chipping ridges to affect play, because they are cheap.

In the post 9/11 course construction meltdowns, my typical bunker budget has gone from 100K SF to less than half that on many projects.  While time will tell if they play well, in many ways, I like the newer designs better for those kind of subtle hazards.

I agree that Fazio, et al., MAY not have to think as hard and MIGHT just plop those bunkers in.  I am pretty sure if they do think hard, its by choice, and not forced on them by budget!

Is that kind of thing what you were trying to drive at?

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

We better not get into mental images...the site might not be ready for that

Man, I better be careful or Peter Pallotta is going to think I am some kinda nut for posting so much...not my style really.

Yes, for the most part our thinking is aligned without naming names.

I like where Mike is going though with construction expertise and efficiency and I think this is applied to large and small builders who excel in their craft.  Some of this has of course been a result of profitability and staying viable, but many stay on the cutting edge and are passionate about their work and continue to look for a better product.  The equipment can be an asset or a detriment depending on how it is used and who is using it as with any new technology.

Do you think your 'restriction' I'll call it with smaller budgets has in turn caused you to take a harder look at the subtlities of the site and your design ideas...getting them to meld better, or at least extracting more out of the site than you may have orginally thought to?  Not just putting in fewer bunkers to cut costs (I know you don't do that) but really taking a closer look.  Necessity as a result of many factors can be great to extract the best out of all of us.