[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In your research and studies would it be fair to conclude that architects from the early 20th century had less field latitude or that they were under more rigid financial constraints.

Obviously, field freedom would seem to lend itself to producing a better product.

[Tim Nugent]

Pat, the way Tom probably does his work gives him the latitude to design on the fly and adjust costs as he goes.  In a more rigid context, ie a hard bid, this latitude would be reduced or non-existent.  It would open the contract up to change orders.  Much of which depends on the relationship between the architect and contractor.
It can't be categorically stated that "obviously, field freedom would seem to lend itself to producing a better product."  It's just another means to an end.  I've done it both ways  and have enjoyed success at both.  Even with green details, you have the freedom to adjust the shape and and contours of a green as long as the overall size doesn't change.  You can also "rob from Peter and give to Paul" or add to one green if you subtract from another.

[TEPaul]

"I still don't know how you create a beautiful 3-D surface by way of a 2-D plan."

TomD:

We think Flynn got good 3-D surfaces off 2-D plans by very specific numerical instructions in the text section on the right.

But the interesting thing to me is most all his numerical instructions on the right had to do with the vertical dimension on bunkering and mounds and such. So many of his greens were just those flow lines with no real numerical references or instructions on the extent of verticality in any particular area.

I've never really thought of it this way but I'd assume he drew as he did with those boxed hole drawings because the accomplished two things in his modus operandi:

1. His foreman and crews knew how to translate those drawings on the ground because of his own time on site and his communication with his foremen as well as the fact that he constantly "iterated" through numerous drawings.

2. Basically his constant drawing iterations was a way of showing his clients exactly what the on-going decision making process was about and in the final analysis what they were paying for in detail.

Some of his working "field" topos actually show how he got from one set of individual hole iterations to another.

I don't think there's any question Flynn's modus and drawing style was representative of a sophiscated example of economic efficiency and "in the field" control with both geared towards convincing clients they could see exactly what they would get and be paying for.

Flynn's "in the field" design style was pretty different from yours and C&C. In other words, if there was going to be any "in the field" interpretation Flynn seemed to prefer to draw it. His particular design and construction modus required  a lot of drawing--a lot of iterations.

[TEPaul]

I'm glad you guys mentioned this graph drawing style. We're going to do a fairway expansion within the month at  GMGC and if they don't take it as wide as I hope they will I'm gonna tell them that the boxes on Gil's graph drawings are each 15 feet instead of 10 feet and see if I can pull the wool over their eyes. If they catch me on it later after it's been sodded I'll just say: "Whoops, I guess I'm not very mathematical!"   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Nugent,

My question was posed in the context of the times and with the understanding that many early architects were extremely frugal.

While I understand your point about the "results" of field freedom, good and bad, I was wondering if the early architects had the discretion to amend their plans in the field.

With Ross, Travis, Flynn and others drawing such precise plans, complete with accompanying, detailed field notes, wouldn't that tend to constrict or limit any field amendments to their plans ?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I've only done two golf courses out of nearly 30 where there were any change orders involved, and none of them involved greens.  Of course, on a lot of them we shaped the greens ourselves, and on some of them we built greens out of native sands so greens materials were essentially free.

Other professional architects speak often of "hard bids" but do you really believe such a thing exists?  My impression is that the contractor bids the job to make a 20% profit, and if the worst happens and he's losing money, he's just going to drag his feet until the owner makes up the difference.  Have you ever done a design where the contractor lost money?  And how many have you done where the contractor came in under their "hard bid", even with a profit margin?

Patrick:

I don't think the architects in the 1920's had less latitude in the field.  I think they had more, because most of the jobs weren't bid out in the same manner as today.  Of course, some of the architects of yesteryear weren't around to make use of that latitude, but that's another story.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You've got to understand that back then people didn't think about or worry about things like limiting field expression. Some of that early detailed drawing was done to impress clients as to economic efficiency of construction. They were basically showing them in 2-D exactly what the things they were paying for would look like.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While that may be true, wouldn't one of those architects be hard pressed to explain to his client why the as built deviated substantively from the detailed graphed schematic ?

Wouldn't that cause the client to insist on a revision ?

Demanding to get what was represented to, and approved by him ?

These questions really interest me in the context of Aronomink.

[wsmorrison]

With Ross, Travis, Flynn and others drawing such precise plans, complete with accompanying, detailed field notes, wouldn't that tend to constrict or limit any field amendments to their plans ?

I don't believe for a minute that Ross, Travis and others drew as precise as Flynn.  His drawings were followed exactly.  The final plans usually resulted after a number of on paper iterations.  If you have an example of Flynn's final plan and overlaid it on an accurate old aerial photograph, you'd be amazed at how they line up.  Craig Disher has demonstrated this fact over and over again when it comes to Flynn.

Flynn wrote about his methods.  He took advice from the membership and committees up to a point.  After that, he made it very clear that the remaining work would be his without further input.  It seemed to work quite well that way.

Another point to bear in mind is that unlike Ross and most others, Flynn spent a great deal of time on site and likely used marked stakes to show the height and depth of features, especially on the greens, and was around for much of the construction of architectural details.  Maybe that's when he was free to improvise, but that just didn't seem to be his way.  While we don't have many green drawings with details,  we have some and he did express his plans quite clearly in those.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
While that may be true, wouldn't one of those architects be hard pressed to explain to his client why the as built deviated substantively from the detailed graphed schematic?"

Patrick:

That's precisely what I'm saying about Flynn. We think his constant drawing iterations were an attempt to close the gap between "as built" and the last detailed graph drawing. In other words, the last iteration was obviously approved by the client and not deviated from in the field. This is precisely why Toomey and Flynn Co got so pissed at Dick Wilson for taking some liberties in the field at Shinnecock from their final drawings.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayno,

I understand the desire on Flynn's part to "lock in" the design.

But, what about Ross and others.

Especially as it relates to Aronomink.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim Nugent,

My question was posed in the context of the times and with the understanding that many early architects were extremely frugal.

While I understand your point about the "results" of field freedom, good and bad, I was wondering if the early architects had the discretion to amend their plans in the field.

With Ross, Travis, Flynn and others drawing such precise plans, complete with accompanying, detailed field notes, wouldn't that tend to constrict or limit any field amendments to their plans ?

Pat,

First, I don't think the plans of the day were all that detailed at all, compared to what has come since.  Its an evolving science, and computers can be a part of that.  And, due to travel constrictions, I doubt many projects in the golden age really benefitted from the head man seeing it first hand. Now days, the stricter contracts make sure gca's show up at least once per month, in addition to requiring plans, etc. in most cases.

Second, I don't think things have changed much in the field. I have seen Ross' field notes for Franklin Hills, in Detroit and they look a lot like my field notes.  Things like "Lower 3rd green for vision. Use Fill to raise 4 tee".  Ross used field visits to correct what mistakes he might have made on plan, or just make last minute changes he deemed better.

As to the best way to build greens, plan vs. field?  As all have noted, its important to keep green sizes within contract, assuming there is one, or at least a budget.  Before USGA greens, this may not have been so important.  However, in most cases, just to get it built right, I think the shaper is "owed" at least the basic dimensions, approx. grade above fw, and angle (we don't want a green turned 45 degrees across play on a long hole, for instance)  We usually provide more detailed contour plans than that, but even if we do, if the basics are in play, we can make the nuance changes.

And, if I make one change, it often leads to others.  Many of my greens are built of faxed plans,  or now PDF.s literally sent out at the last minute.  Graphs come in handy there, so contractors can check the scale of the plans easily when they print out in the construction office.  Funny story, after seeing some straight edged Ross green fronts at TePauls beloved home course, I wanted to put one in. I drew it, faxed it, and couldn' wait to see the rough shaping.  They hadn't started it, thinking that the straight front of the green was only half the drawing and a "match line".  They were waiting for the second half.

[James Bennett]

I'm glad you guys mentioned this graph drawing style. We're going to do a fairway expansion within the month at  GMGC and if they don't take it as wide as I hope they will I'm gonna tell them that the boxes on Gil's graph drawings are each 15 feet instead of 10 feet and see if I can pull the wool over their eyes. If they catch me on it later after it's been sodded I'll just say: "Whoops, I guess I'm not very mathematical!"   

Tom

if 10% extra width will do, just tell them that the grids are 10 metres, not 10 yards.  Its the eurpoean influence.  You guys on the East coast will understand that (moreso than the guys on the west coast  )

James B

[TEPaul]

James:

I meant that the boxes are 15 yards not ten yards. I really don't care much for mathematics as you can tell. 

Actually, the hell with the boxes on the graph paper. Gil and I and the super were out there last fall and we demarked the fairway expansion. I was really impressed---it's huge, maybe up to fifty five yards total. Come the spring some amongst the membership will probably be shocked and start screaming like a bunch of scalded cats that it's too wide and consequently too easy. Who gives a shit anymore, I've been down that road too many times at this point---I can handle it. But they have got to let me expand that bunker at the green-end so most won't be able to tell why they aren't hitting the green with their usuual club!

[James Bennett]

Gil and I and the super were out there last fall and we demarked the fairway expansion. I was really impressed---it's huge, maybe up to fifty five yards total.

Tom

St Andrews Beach #3 is perhaps 75 yards wide.  St Andrews beach #7 and #8 (double fairway) is perhaps 125 yards wide - even Chris Kane couldn't miss it!    And The Renaissance Club fairway corridors (next to Muirfield) were perhaps 65 yards wide.  So, there is huge, and then there is HUGE.  I would be happy with 55 yards personally, especially with amending an existing course.

Good luck with your membership.  I expect the TEPaul leadership approach will go down well, moreso than your northern/southern (depending on the season) combatant Pat Mucci's style would go at your club.

James B

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, when I refer to a "hard-bid", it usually is the type that are employed with doing Governmental owned projects where a complete set of contract documents are prepared (plans and specifications) and they put the job out to bid.  In these cases, we never know who will be doing the work and if they are even capable of procesuting it to the extent we invision (without much handholding). 
Sometines these jobs are not a general contract but rather one of multiple prime contracts (one moving dirt, one shaping the features, one installing the irrigation, etc.).  When one aspect gets changed, it opens up pandora's box for the various contractors to claim a change.  Usually this doesn't happen but there are times when an owner will go with low bid and that contractor's MO is to make his 20% on change orders and claims every minute thing that differs from "the plans I bid".
I said you "probably" because I don't have first-hand knowledge of how you contract.  I know you started with Pete and he doesn't produce detailed plan sets.  And I've read (as you stated) that you do alot of your shaping in-house.  This can allow you great flexibility and still not have to deal the dreaded change order.
As to your querry, although I don't have access to contractors books, there have been jobs where I'm pretty certain the contractor has either not made his profit margin or may have even cost him some out-of-pocket.  There are others where everything just went real smooth and if the contractor didn't make his profit and then some, he should be in a different business.  Usually, weather plays a huge role in whether a contractor does well or not.
For example, we did 2 projects in Hawaii.  One, Ko Olau on Oahu and Makelia Hawaii on the Big Island.  Same contractor for both.  Ko Olau's site was a tropical  forest with high;y expansive clay soil and in the rainy season, it rained practically every day for 20 minutes in the morning.  The first earthwork contractor  planned on moving the dirt with scapers but the slimmy soil didn't cooperate. So, they quit early on.  A big natioinal co. was building an interstate next door and took a crack at it but their equipment did function well either and they quit.  Finally, the million yards was moved by top-loaded tandems.  This caused the job to take longer than originally budgeted for. 
However, on Makelia, the site was a lava flow.  This job set a record for the fastest  course construction on the islands.  After both jobs were complete, I asked the contractor how the ended up.  He said they got killed on the first one but made it up on the second.  Big contractors can take individual hits because they can cover it with cash flow from other jobs where small "onezy-twozy" contractors bet into serious trouble.
The worst is when an owner becomes a slow-pay or no-pay.  Doing just the shaping - I bet you have about $15k/mo in dozer and fuel plus what ever you pay your operator as hard costs.  If an owner stiffs you for a month or 2,  your're out close to 40 grand.  A general contractor could be out 10 times that, plus overhead and profit.  In either case - it's real money.
I have one contractor who has had a suit for non-payment in the court system for 3 years and it probably won't be resolved for at least another year.  He had to borrow to pay his taxes that first year.  He's a small contractor (onezy-twozy) and has been hanging on for the past 3 years but he hasn't been able to shake the effects of that one hit.
Granted, there's money to be made in contracting but also money to be lost.

[Lester George]

As I remember, I also have an original set of Gordon plans that are on graph paper.  I guess he learned it from Flynn because they look very similar. 

Lester

[Paul_Turner]

Were Flynn and Ross the only architects to use graph paper for the their designs and/or field notes ?

Who would be credited for first using this method ?

Who else used it ?

Who was the last architect to use it ?

Is it a highly efficient method for presenting designs to owner/developers ?

Patrick

The earliest I'm aware of is Harry Colt using graph paper at Pine Valley in 1913.  He probably did the same at Old Elm on the same trip where he worked with Ross.  Perhaps Colt introduced the method to him?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()