News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Old fashioned design and construction efficiency
« on: April 20, 2002, 08:24:07 AM »
These days many talk about the beauty and natural integrity of "minimalism" in design and construction. Basically taking the time to identify and cleverly use natural aspects of a property and its topography in any way to create both interesting golf and also an aura about the architeture of a golf course that seems to have almost always been there.

I think we recognize that many of the early architects had to use what they found to a large degree because they had no real facility or tools to move very much. Today at the other end of the spectrum modern architects do have the facility and the tools to create almost anything they want out of sites and the natural topography. Some seem to create holes and not blend them well with the natural topography probably because of the artificial look of what they design and others are able to rearrange entire sites and make holes that blend into a constructed topographical arrangement over the entire site that seems to have always been there. Shadow Creek would be such a project although certainly an overall course and its holes that looks something like North Carolina in the Nevada desert would seem somewhat odd although it does create an interesting juxtaposition with the desert mountain backdrop.

But sometimes the look of "minimlism" needs to actually require more earth movement to "blend" the manufacturing of natural looking man-made holes into the natural landscape surrounding them that has not been touched.

Some of the very early architects didn't really seem to care if their manufactured architecture occasionally didn't blend into the natural landscape as long as whatever they did architecturally was good for golf. Certainly NGLA and many of Raynor's courses had this manufactured architecture starkly juxtaposed to natural topography with apparently no real attempt to blend it together. But somehow we seem to think that worked well, even aesthically and even in a natural sense somehow.

There seemed to be a time in early American archtiecture when increasingly large amounts of earth were moved with no real attempt to blend the manufactured and the natural land together. This era appears to be from maybe the turn of 20th century to about the 1920s when architects like MacKenzie began to really strive to either competely use natural landforms for golf or else to truly blend what he made together with what he didn't.

But yesterday walking around LuLu golf course, a really early (1912) Ross Pennsylvania design, even the majority of the greens themselves which in that era were what we refer to as "push-ups" seemed to be completely natural and almost untouched landforms. In fact they are! Ross found as many naturally interesting sites for his greens as he could on that property. Best examples being #2!!, #4!!!, #6!, #7, #8!!!, #10, #11! The rest of his green sites he seemed to use the absolute natural landform totally and appears to have created bunker features around them and perhaps not even used the fill to create the green itself or minimally so. It actually appears he used most of that nearby fill to create some manufactured looking mounds or even rear green surrounding berms. Best examples #1, #5, #8, #17. A few of the greens he seemed to use the fill to cant the green slightly from back to front, examples #3, #6!, #7, #9, #14. #12  & #16 appear leveled against a downslope. #15 seems to be the only one he built up or pushed up substantially from natural grade possibly because of the substantial bunkering around the green and the large swale behind it.

The effect of all this early minimalism or effeciency of design and construction is to make many of the greens at LuLu blend seamlessly and naturally in front into their approaches. Obviously this worked beautifully for the more prevalent ground game of that early era. But it also works beautifully in look and play with much of what some of the modern architects are trying to do again whether they find and use that kind of natural green site landform or have to make it.

Clearly Ross didn't make some of it at LuLu because he probably didn't have the facility or the tools to. Matter of fact LuLu is so early it appears to have preceded the era when those same early architects, including Ross, started to really manufacture up some push up greens or at the very least the sides and rears of them.

It's funny how if enough time goes by things begin to cycle back into popularity even from that extremely minimal era of design and construction efficiency!

TommyN;

I'd like to look again at your favorite #8 green but it appears Ross may have done a bit of everything there. It's a great green site but he may have reamed out the actual green site itself cut out a bit of a natural ridge just in front of it, thereby creating the interesting drop or rundown onto the green and the effect of a naturally depressed bowl and used the fill from the cutout and the reamed out green site to make the manufactured berm to the left and rear. Something like that would appear to be a drainage nightmare but the land to the right of the green is naturally lower so all the water would just exit there! A very efficient construction and effective design too particulary the quirkiness of it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Jeff Mingay

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2002, 09:27:39 AM »
Hey Ran,

When are you going to turn Tom Paul's "best" posts into a book to rival the great architectural texts?

 ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2002, 12:24:54 PM »
Let's just hope that disco comes back after we lose our hearing (and sight) in auld age.

  There has been much speculation on the balancing of expenditures and realistic profits from new courses and that a recession would help bring this about.  Perhaps also, there's a maturing of golfers' tastes?  Becoming more sophisticated?  More sensible?  Perhaps, also there is a maturing of Golf Architects that revere timeless design.

 I do think that the diverse market of Architects has created some real introspection by the ranks and the powers that be.    There may be a lull in construction but not in my optimism for the future of the grounds.
  
  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2002, 07:23:04 PM »
Slag- As much as I would love it to be true that man has a growing sophistication for the game... I find it impossible after just returning from a six hour round with just about the biggest boobs (not the good kind)I've ever seen on a golf course. Besides their lack of ability which paled when compared to the ettiquette displayed. I was left wondering why oh why would these boys take up golf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2002, 10:16:36 PM »
  Adam, I didn't know you were at Barona Creek? ;D  Well, just look at it this way, if demons walked the Earth today...your next round will be Heavenly.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2002, 08:28:36 AM »
Tom -

After studying some of Ross's courses here in the SE, you are constantly struck by how much of the "natural" look of his holes is a direct result of his trying to find the cheapest, most efficient way to move dirt the shortest distance possible.

There are numerous bunkers on every Ross course I've seen whose purpose was as much to provide fill for the greenpad as to create strategic options.  But they look like they've been there since the beginning of time.  Ross is an object lesson in how to kill two birds with one stone.

Construction efficiency = naturalism.

I haven't seen as many MacK courses, but I've always thought - based on photos of Cypress primarily - that the "naturalism" in his courses was more the result of conscious design.  MacK was more likely to intentionally build-in a certain look.  I'm thinking specifically of his bunkers at Cypress in Geoff's book.

For Ross, his "naturalism" was more the happy consequence of trying to build courses cheaply and on time.

Each was a genius in his very different way.

Bob

P.S.  This discussion reminds me of how much I would like to see more Flynn courses.  Is their "naturalism" more akin to Ross's? Or is his "naturalism" more of a conscious, artistic add-on like MacK's?  My guess would be that Flynn is closer to Ross on this score.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2002, 10:08:44 AM »
Bob:

That's a helluva good post you just wrote there and is right in line with some of my own thinking from my post and from what I saw at LuLu and some of the other Ross courses like my own.

When you get interested in architecture the first thing anyone might concentrate on is why did an architect do this or that for reasons of how the course might play for the golfer or strategically for some reason and therefore architectural analysts concentrate on solely analyzing architecture for the meaning of the design for the golfer only at first.

I realize it might take some of the allure out of what these early architects might have been concentrating on to come to realize that much of what they were doing may have been done primarily for reasons of cost efficiency, construction efficiency etc!

Certainly design and a good and playable one was important to them but solving the nitty gritty construction problems probably were far more so or certainly for the crews.

LuLu was apparently built in two stages separated by maybe three years but I'm struck by the true minimalism of earth moving, apparently next to none on the bodies of the hole except for bunker excavation. And even the green sites are enhanced to varying degree from next to none to a few like maybe #8 which could be very interesting in how he did it.

This kind of design is obviously very natural looking because essentially it's just that, very little was moved but what's even more interesting to me and where I might depart from your remarks about a natural look is when something like fill was either needed nearby or left nearby (so as not to haul it) it's quite interesting what Ross at LuLu, for instance, did with it by turning it in mounds and such which doesn't really look natural in the broad scheme of things on that site but is interesting nontheless.

The same could probably be said of the unsusual mounds at Somerset Hills between #4 & #6! Were they put their by Tillinghast only because such a design idea occured to him as absolutely necessary there or was there just extra fill there that he would rather not have hauled somewhere else for cost reasons. Maybe it was some of the former but I'm betting it was lots more of the latter.

And I think that's the way it generally went. The man who could design the best and make that construction process the most efficient too may have been the most accomplished overall designer and Ross was surely good at it. It obviously concerned him so much he actually wrote a lot about it in his book much of which was not architecture from the playing perspective but from the construction efficiency perspective.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2002, 10:54:03 AM »
TEPaul,

You will be glad to know that construction efficiency is still alive and well, if not with the "big name" designers, at least with us middle of the pack boys!

I spent yesterday at a local remodelling project where we are trying to minimize cuts and fills, to speed the process and stay within compensitory flood requirements.  Between the construction foreman and myself, we came up with some interesting alternatives to find "closer dirt" than what my original plans showed.  Real "seat of the pants" stuff, and also will create a few features unique (to me at least)

Necessity is the mother of invention - and quirk! Philosophically, this is very close to the approach the old guys used.  

Of course, you could come out to the project, and not like it at all.  Given the equipment we use today, and the fact that its a public course requiring large greens, tees, and even bunkers (designed to be machine raked, each lobe of the bunker must be at least 18 feet wide) so it will have typical modern scale.....

There is no doubt about it, whether we are talking golf courses, or new england fishing villages, smaller scale equates to "charm" in most cases, and larger scale equates to "wow" (perhaps) but loses charm.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2002, 06:05:48 AM »
Bob
How would you compare the construction efficiency and designed 'naturalism' of ANGC with Pinehurst #2?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2002, 06:45:10 AM »
I'll sure let Bob Crosby answer that one, particularly since I've never seen ANGC or Pinehurst and know little about their creations or evolutions, but this much I do know about the COST EFFICIENCY of both Pinehurst and ANGC.

It seems like James Walker Tufts, Leonard Tufts and maybe even Richard Tufts were some real micro-managers and "nickel nursers supreme" and ANGC's creators came up with a new and radical cost efficiency, ie; Don't pay your architect!

One of the reasons I might be partial to Pine Valley is not because I know it better or come from its area but because George Crump didn't skimp on its creation cost-wise or otherwise and if he couldn't find someone to help pay for it, he paid for it himself, and not an inconsiderable amount in those days, I might add!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2002, 01:03:09 PM »
Tom Mac -

MacK had a $100K budget for ANGC and the course was completed for less than that.  (And MacK still didn't get his full fee.  But that's a story for another thread.  Just out of curiosity, what was the construction budget for Cypress?  I would guess at least double that.)  That's not a big budget.  The budget in 1924 for the Athens Country Club on somewhat similar land  - a much less ambitious project - was $60,000. In both cases, that's exclusive of land costs.

I don't know what the budget was for PII.  Ross worked on the course for four decades, so it's probably impossible to come up with a number.  But as TEP noted, the Tufts family were not big spenders.

Both courses were built close to the land.  Neither has a lot of bunkering, relatively speaking.  ANGC only had about 25 when it opened.  The greens now resting on built-up fill pads (nos. 1, 7, 10, 17) are not original MacK green complexes. All of those greens originally sat at fairway height, thus saving construction dollars.

So I think there are lots of construction/result similarities.  ANGC had some of the MacK flair that would have been out of character for Ross.  I'm thinking of his boomerang greeens on nos. 9 and 18, and his frilly amoeba bunkers at nos. 3 and 10.  I also don't think Ross would have used water as boldly as MacK did at ANGC.  

Bottom line: Both courses were built with tight budgets that required efficient build-outs and both are probably more "natural" golf courses today by virtue of that fact.

Bob    

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2002, 01:34:56 PM »
Bob,
       Interesting post on Ross' naturalism versus that of Mackenzie. From the images of Shackelford's "Cypress Point", it is obvious how Mackenzie let his bunkers melt into the existing dunes in an very conscious effort to let the site dictate not only the routing, but the design details. I would argue an exception to Ross' naturalism was his approach at Seminole, whose pre-Dick Wilson bunkers featured faces that mimicked the waves of the Atlantic in the background.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Old fashioned design and construction efficien
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2002, 07:12:54 PM »
That is very good comparison - Cypress Point and Seminole. I would say both men were skilled at economic construction, both being of frugile Scot blood. Perhpas there styles were different, but I wouldn't consider one artistic and the other not or one more efficient than the other - Seminole being a beautiful example of Ross's artistic flair and ANGC being an example of MacKenzie's efficiency. In fact I think the 30's version of #2 also reflects Ross's artistry - much more extravagantly bunkered than ANGC and extremely natural to my eye. And speeking of Flynn, his original vision of Shinnecock is every bit as artistic as Ross and MacKenzie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »