[Mike_Young]

On the thread "notions of genius" TE Paul ask to discuss some of the technical aspects of golf architecture that may never come up on this site .
It seems to me that the majority of the topics are discussed in regard to strategic merit and design quality.  I think the lack of this plus the other "unknowns" of this discipline are why so many slam many of the modern architects and at the same time I think this part of the puzzle is what Fazio is alluding to in many of his so-called put-downs of some of the earlier architects.

IMHO, much of the " return to classic architecture" that we see today will have to be reworked much sooner than some of the modern designs that are discussed so often.
And also, I know from experience that a lesser known architect cannot get by with some of the technical flaws that some of the bigger names can present as being critical to the design.  For example I have seen a "modern classic" near me that has water running across a fairway and into a bunker.  And the same for some of the greenside bunkers.  Eventually this will have to be fixed.  I have seen incorrect grasses planted that will never thrive knowing that after the "new" they will be replaced.   If I was to do that, I would be slammed by the owner when he found out but if a "name " does it the owner is much more likely to accept it.  
Solid technical design along with strategic and/or playability are the reasons that so many of the guys that are slammed on this site still get work and the reason why many say today's architecture is better.  I don't expect many to agree but there is no comparison between the technical abilities of most modern architects and "most" of the old guys.  They had a completely different set of problems.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

I'm a big believer in the Sport-Art-Science triangle of golf course architecture.  You need to think about strategy and playability.  More importantly, you also need for it to have aesthetics and spacial flow.  And finally, most importantly, you need to know how to get the damn thing built.  And not only technically, but also financially and politically.

And yes, two of those three items is Landscape Architecture.

[Mike O'Neill]

Mike,

I am always frustrated to see bunkers catching surface water flow. And yet, I see it all to regularly. But I see it from modern designers from all categories--the modern designers favored by this website and the modern designer not favored. Admitedly, it is not always possible to contend with every drop of water.

As I have said before, the best designer in my opinion has an understanding that gravity is the greatest force in golf and he/she has an "eye" for the game. You need both strategy and a technically sound construction.

One last point while I am thinking of this subject. I do believe that for a course to be technically sound, one must expect maintenance. Sometimes drainage has to be blown out, for example. Technically sound does not equate to no maintenance necessarily, in my mind.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

Interesting.  I agree that modern architects are better educated as to technical/engineerig aspects of golf design.  Probably much better educated.  (I might make Ross an exception.  His drawings are constantly concerned with drainage and maintenance issues.)  

I wonder, though, if the technical expertise of the moderns doesn't sometimes push strategic/aesthetic issues down the priority list.  For many years they were tilted far too much to the engineering side.  

I'm thinking of RTJ whose claim to fame was that he was - unlike MacK, Ross, Thomas, Tillie, et al. - trained as a civil engineer.  One of his pitches was the he did "scientific" designs.  By which he meant he was going to design courses they way an engineer would.  None of that subjective crap the older guys designed in the 1920's.

It might be a good working definition of the "Dark Ages" to say it was an era in which notions of construction and maintenance "efficiency" took the drivers' seat and strategic/aesthetic concerns were shoved into the trunk, forgotten for decades.

I think that imbalance is changing, however.  Contemporary archies are doing a much better job of balancing the engineering and the strategic/aesthetic.  Some are doing a better job than others, but I see encouraging signs on lots of new courses.

And yeah, its going to take a while for the public to catch on to that.  But they will.

And when they do and you are rich and famous, can I say I knew you when?

Bob

[TEPaul]

Very interesting indeed!

I would hope the architects would continuously post on here on this generel subject about the technical side that they feel others don't understand and consequently complain, ask too much, ask for the impossible etc.

Drainage is certainly an interesting and most fundamental aspect of golf architecture and its planning. Occasionally in some of the books from the "Golden Age" they get into this side of things, even more comprehensively than one would expect. If some of the modern architects on here have seen these parts of the old books maybe they would comment on it, how well it worked, if not why not, etc.

At first drainage would seem to be very logical in how to handle it--gravity and so forth but maybe the architects who are posting now could give some example of drainage and how it may be a bit less logical or more problematic than one would expect. And maybe they could give some real examples of how things go awry and exactly why--particularly greens, their surrounds, what "tying in" needs to be done, why, how etc etc.

The whole issue of drainage would probably be a good place to start a technical discussion on here for the unknowledgeable and let's attempt to exhaust the subject as much as possible so we can understand it as much as possible.

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

I can't post here with the typical gravity (length   of one of your posts right now, but I will start by saying that drainage starts with the soil and builds up (or goes down) from there. The water has to go down obviously. If it cannot go into the soil, it still has to go somewhere. That is usually the first problem. And as an example for those who criticize water features, sometimes the only solution on a specific site is to direct the water to a pond or creek, even if man-made. If you must have standing water, at least it can stand in a water feature. Once you have a place for the water to go, the rest is actually very logical.

Other aspects of the importance of drainage have to do with maintenance. For those who do not think that a little casual water is a problem, remember that you cannot run a mower through standing water in some soils without rutting up the fairway. When we see courses with catch basins in the fairway, many here are offended at their sight. But if we want firm and fast, we have to get rid of the water that would otherwise stand on top of our heavier soils.

This is a good subject worthy of at least 200-300 posts!  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Drainage is a good place to start and concentrate on. Things like catch basins and drainage heads are too (if people are offended by them in playing areas, fairways etc).

A good comparison of that is none other than a comparison between Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes! A very good case study of that.

And the need for water to filter down and through too. One would think it would filter straight down too--anything but so Coore explained to me! Sideways it can and does go creating problems one would not ordinarily expect under green surfaces and such!

[Peter Galea]

To be a succesful superintendent you need drainage or common sense, what you lack of one, make up with the other.

[Lou Duran]

Great points Mike and Jeremy.  Whether a site drains well  naturally or the architect designs an effective drainage system, the ability to get water to the right places is a key in achieving the desired "firm and fast" conditions and TEPaul's "maintenance meld".  There seems to be a wider concensus that a firm, fast golf course offers greater resistance to scoring, while providing more interesting options.  Underlining the importance of drainage as a key component in design is the fact that in many metropolitan areas, land available for golf development is generally poor in quality and often located in flood prone areas.  Also, the introduction of superior bermuda hybrids (e.g. 419, Champions, TiffEagle) and bents (As, Ls) often require different maintenance/irrigation practices.  These can impact how the course drains, and therefore, how it plays.  IMO, the benefits of having lush, smooth rolling greens are greatly diminished if the drainage system doesn't handle the increased irrigation required by many of the new grasses, and the entries and surrounds become mush.  

[Ed_Baker]

Could some of the archies answer :

How do drainage concerns impact routing?

Can money and modern technology overcome virtually any drainage/water table issues?

When doing your shaping and contour maps explain the drainage issues that go in to that process.

Are drainage issues considered when designing an irrigation system for a new course? In other words if the product is supposed to be high end "Augusta Syndrome" course and that will require a triple row system to produce that product do the compromise dominos start with the routing and go right down to the irrigation system and types of turfgrass?

[Mike_Young]

Mike O,
I think your point on the maintenance of the technical aspects of a course should be heeded.  Many times an architect or builder is blamed when a clogged drain from grass clippings etc could be the whole problem.  But at the same time, I think the architect during construction should do his best to see that methods are used to keep drains from being crushed, clean gravel being delivered to the greens cavity by a clean dozier, thrust blocks, good pipe jionts and on and on.

Bob C.,
I agree that sometimes the technical aspects might overshadow the aesthic and strategic aspects for some architects.  But this is mainly project sensitive, for example: an owner sees a hole on a flat piece of land on Long Island and says this is what I want on my flat piece of land in Ga.  Well,  you can't build the same in clay as you would in sand and therefore there might be some catches etc that would not be needed on a sand base.  And a nice shaggy cool season grass on a bunker in the Northeast... becomes a nice thick , thick shaggy bermuda edge in the south...that can't be played....and a flashed sand bunker  might become a red sand bunker after the face washes a few times.
I guess we have to be more technical due to the fact that we play golf in some areas where it was just never intended to be played.
And as for your last sentence; I never knew you when....just heard stories.
Pete,
I don't know any sucessful supts. that are not smart.  I have always said buy the best supt you can and many of the problems an architect has will go away within 18 months of opening.

Ed,
Drainage impacts routings in directly.  However, I would say that many of the older courses used sheet drainage where the water flowed across a fairway onto another fairway and continued to the low point or lake.  While the advent of developments has meant that many modern holes were placed in swales where housing could sit on both sides of the fairway and this has caused a much more complicated drainage system to be developed.  Many times it must tie into the overall development.  ...and I think drainage for everyaspect of a design.  ...it is always considered along with wind when designing irrigation.....  it is many times said that water will always move from low places in fairways etc but it is speed that you are after.
Mike

[Mike O'Neill]

Ed,

Drainage does affect routing in many cases. A "natural" green site is not one in which the green is constructed at the lowest point on the property right in the middle of the water flow. In other cases, money can easily overcome that issue. Simply reroute the water flow. Money can even overcome a high water table. Just start trucking in soil to elevate the course.

[Ed_Baker]

Thanks to the two Mikes for the responses, very imformative.

[TEPaul]

Mike Young et al:

What are "thrust blocks"? Could you also talk some more about "sheet drainage" and also the old "Tile" drainage system? How did the "tile" system work exactly, how was it constructed. Maybe talk some more about what you said about the "speed" of drainage.

On the subject of "speed" of drainage, we have a hole at my course with part of a fairway that is in what I call the natural "water course" of the property. This area is between two ponds with the fairway separating them of about 35-40 yds. If we cut an opening across the fairway to take the water across the fairway it might make an ideal architectural and strategic feature, but to make it effect drainage better and to make the fairway less soaked at heavy rain occurences it would have to simply take the water from pond to pond faster and at a greater volume than the culvert underneath the fairway does now, correct? Any backup down stream or down grade would only defeat this speed and volume correct?

I'm not sure if all the run off water into the water course is getting into the first or highest pond but that needs to happen correct?

I know these things are probably sort of obvious but I thought I would ask anyway.

Do you have anything to say in the context of drainage about the "weight" of water. I do understand that the "weight" of water is necessary to calculate and is part of a pond construction formula for instance.

Hope some of these question make sense, maybe they don't.

[TEPaul]

Mike Young:

I missed until now some of the things you said about "technicalities of golf architecture" that were over on the "genius" topic.

Bury pits? Could you elaborate? Did you say something about tilting the subsurface under tees? And if there are more "areas" of problem creating situations could you just list them and we can get into them one by one?

What do you see as some of the "areas" of construction where things sort of get "dropped" transitioning from one "specialist" to another, for instance. I'm sure the supers out there could make lists a mile long!

As an example in the "design and construction" of  architecture (bunkers probably the best example) I see what appears to be an enormous "problem area" between what the architect wants and what he gets form the construction contractor and the operators.

One restoration architect I know (who will remain nameless but appears to be a great architect and a great guy) seems  unable to stay ahead of this problem because he has none of his own people on site. He can't be there enough and when he returns there are often just too many mistakes in construction, shaping etc for him to handle. The construction and shaping works well enough, of course, but it seems it never really "looks" like he wants it to. And when he gets back things are too far down the road to ask anyone to go back and make them "look" like he's want them to.

This kind of thing (in restoration particularly) seems far too common, maybe even endemic!

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

TEPaul

Sheet drainage is surface drainage:  the movement of water over the surface of the land without the aid of artificial drainage within the land.

Many architects have different ways of describing the term, I would point out the maximum distance, note many architects like to minimize or maximize surface drainage.  For instance how far do you want the water to run above ground before being caught in a pipe or catch basin or water feature.  This all depends on soil and annual rainfall and slope of land.   Sometimes you can get away with allowing water to run 150 yds. before hitting a inlet or pipe or some type of basin.

Tile/terra cotta pipes were the old fashion drainage.  On a recent renovation project I came across some very crude drainage techniques.  For instance,  imagine the terra cotta piping that many use and buy from HQ or Home Depot for wine racks.  These approx 1' long pipes were laid in a trench and pushed together and then back filled with pea gravel or whatever the contractor had.  Over time the pipes seperate and then let water undermine the trench and cause various pipes to sink and then fill and seal occurs.  Note depth of pipe is important also.

The same happens in todays drainage if installed improperly.  This where the architect has to be aware and/or employ a project manager that acts as his eyes and ears 24/7.

The issue with your golf hole...just an idea..since I am unaware of how large the ponds are or their heights in relationship to the fwy.  You may have water leaching to the fwy...which drainage could help but will not really fix that issue.  The ponds may need to be properly lined. The soil btwn the ponds may have become "rich" over time and will eventually add to the poor health of the turf.  To drain properly, the supt. may be able to do a few maintenance tactics ie: aerification, soil amendment, etc.

You can run a more sophisticated drainage system if needed, like sand slits etc working perpendicular to a herring bone  pipe system. Costly.  Plus it can sometimes changes ball reaction if its near the approach...

If you would like, feel free to email me a photo or two of the site you are talking about.  I am currently living abroad studying the golf courses of Scotland and Ireland for a year but I have worked as an associate for various architects prior to Scotland and I would  be willing to look at your problem for free...just email me a private note.

I am sure M.Young can help you also or any of the others on GCA.  Its kinda one of those problems that best serves having the problem solver to stand in the area for a complete analysis.

Cheers,

RC_Stanfield

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

When you build a tee, unless it is totally with native soil, you want a solid foundation of soil under the soil mix that you install on top of the soil. Let's say you use a heavy clay for the foundation. That foundation has to be built so that when the water drains down through the more porous tee mix and hits the clay it continues to move. So you have to grade that clay foundation to surface drain even under the tee mix or the water might just stand several inches below the tee surface.

As for bunkers, I have seen absolutely beautiful (to my eye) bunkers built right in the middle of surface water flow. Fortunately, during most construction processes, there will be some heavy rains here and there that will sort of act as a wake up call to the designers and bunker builders to tell them they have temporarily gone to sleep and built a bunker in the wrong place. As I have said however, there are still some who don't get it even after they witness some washout. And those are cases when I have to question the value of the bunker. In my opinion, you cannot say that a bunker is in the right place if it constantly catching water even if it important to the strategy of the hole. If it is that important, you have to engineer the bunker surrounds to keep the water out.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Tom,

A thrust block is used to stabilize the joint of a pipe when it changes direction abruptly like 45 or 90 degrees. Most often the thrust block simply consists of embedding the corner of the pipe in concrete. The concrete transfers the force from the small area of the pipe joint to the large area of the concrete block.

I have never heard of including the weight of water in a pond calculation.

[Mike_Young]

TE Paul,

Seems like several of your questions have been answered in the last couple of post.  Some of the things that I think get missed while transitioning between specialist are:
Cartpaths- many times a shaper will create a rough routing for cartpath which will be cleaned up by a cartpath crew.  If this is not compacted and sloped in the correct way it can cause water to hold, unnecessary cracks, and areas that were intended to be hidden may come into view.  I sometimes use curbed cartpath for drainage and it is critical that the slope and curb is correct to the plan in these areas.  Ingress/egress to Tees and Greens-  before golf cars people usually entered a green from the front and in most cases continued thru and forward toward the next tee.  With the advent of cart paths people now enter from the side in most cases.  This creates a problem ofexcess wear if not handled properly.  It is important to make sure that water moves in the area between Tee and cartpath.  As for greens, it is important to make sure that the ingress/egress area is wide enough to allow more than one exit from the green.  Ex: a narrow path between 2 bunkers on the side of a green may have been fine b4 cartpaths but once a cartpath is put in outside of these bunkers, this may become the only way to exit toward carts.  And must also be sure no water is standing in this route.
Finishing- it is critical that the transition from fine shaping to finishing is not overlooked.  Just a 1/2 inch indention will create a birdbath.
As for bury pits...these are troughs that are cut in order to bury unburned roots etc.  I have seen these being placed in the middle of landing areas etc because a contractor hit rock where it was originally located.  This is totally unacceptable.  They should be in rough areas out of play and when filling should be done in layers of debris/compacted earth/debris compacted earth.  And over time they will still sink some.
I hope this jibberish doesn't confuse.
Mike

[Jeff_McDowell]

Tom,

Here's a story about bury pits. I may have already mentioned this.

I was driving a small front-end loader full of rock down a hill to a bury pit. The bury pit was about 20 feet deep, with a vertical face, and had about 10 feet of trees piled in it.

As I got closer to the bury pit (and the tractor started to gain speed because it was going down the hill) I gently applied the brakes. I continued to gain speed, so I hit the brakes harder. I kept going faster, so I stepped on the brakes as hard as I could. My foot slipped off the brake and hit the accelerator just in time to launch me off the edge of the bury pit. (Why Kubota would put the gas peddle directly below the brake on the same side is beyond me.)

I landed tractor-nose first in the log pile, flew head-over-heals out of the tractor and bounced off the logs until I "safely" landed on a bunch of logs. All this happened with the owner standing there watching.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Thats a good one!  My first job was with LUI in N. GA and I was with the head architect and owner during the tree clearing and burning.  As we came around to a new corridor in the pick up we heard a large bang and looked back to see a dozer squirting flames everywhere.  The hoses caught on fire and the dozer burned for hours.  The dozer belonged to a shady crew subbed for clearing and the insurance had been dropped!  Nobody was hurt but it scared the hell out of me.

Speaking of Kubota, I saw a chain snap one time while trying to pull another dozer out of the wetlands that we should not have been in clearing and it flew thru the glass cabin and nailed the driver in the back.  All he said after the scare was time for a beer and Cowboy Up.....he was from Dawsonville Nascar country.  Lucky guy.

[TEPaul]

Jeff McD:

Good story on the Kubota! They're still looking for a replacement for Evel Kneivel and you just might be it!

The weight of water thing and ponds is something I learned from a really old, highly respected hydrologist many years ago when we were building a pond here on the farm where I live.

It probably doesn't much pertain to golf course architecture but there are a couple of basic formulae for pond building particularly if you have one that has springs underneath it as we did.

But firstly as water has weight (try to pick up a garbage can filled with it sometime) the banks (or walls) of the pond obviously have necessary architectural dimension or else the banks will be blown out by the weight of the water within.

The second formula pertains to the springs underneath the pond. The weight of the water on top of the springs needs to be calculated and the force of the springs do too or else the weight of the water on top of the springs will force the springs elsewhere!

Pretty mundane really but I never would have thought of basically architectural formulae for pond building regarding the weight of water unless some really old hydrologist told me!

Thanks, guys, for this interesting info--I probably won't let this topic get too far into the back pages before pulling it back up for some other questions.

[Derek_L]

Tom,

I will try to explain to you what your hydrologist freind was talking about when he refered to the weight of water being considered in the sizing of a pond.  Now keep in mind I am a civil engineer with the heart of a golf course architect, therefore I will do my best not to lose you, so here goes.  
To size a pond you need to know the surface area of the watershed or area of land that is flowing into it.  Next you need to determine what type of soil is under the surface.  Clays will allow more water to runoff or over the surface of the land vs. sand that will soak it up, right.  Are you still with me.  We determine a surface area and the underlying soil types.  Next, you determine what the surface material in a post development state will be, basically you need to determine if it will be corn fields, hay fields, fine cut grass, etc.  Basically, the denser and thicker the material, the less water will run off or over the surface.  A cornfield will let more water run vs. a fairway which will soak it up more.  So then you usually assign a value for each of the above items.  Surface area (acres), soil type, and finished surface material.  Then you run these numbers through a hydrology program called a "Walker" program which while assuming a rain storm event that drops 2.5" of rainfall in a 24 hour period, which then spits out a pond volume in cubic feet or acre-ft.  Hope you got the jist of that Tom.  Now I know that is too technical for golf courses, but the reality is that those man made ponds that you guys create on golf courses need to eventually dump into a natural water course, and the amount of water and the water quality need to be kept under control, in accordance with local, state, and federal govt. agencies.

So there you go Tom, if you have any other questions feel free to ask.  

Oh, I almost forgot to something.  When you put together your grading plan on paper or in the field, it is important that you don't "break" watersheds and dump more water into a pond, wetland, etc. than what originally was going into it.

Any other wetland, pond questions, feel free to ask.

[Derek_L]

Tom,

I personally have never built or designed a pond on or near a spring, but am sure that you need to have a specific distance between the bottom of the pond and the spring to stop water seeping into the fresh groundwater.  As far as the size thing, a good rule of thumb is a length of three times the width, but that is seldom accomplished due to space constraints and aesthetic values.  Also, side slopes of 5:1, that is 1 ft fall/5 ft run with benches are desireable.  Ponds for wetland purposes or ponds in wetlands cannot be any deeper that 2m, approx. 6.5'.  Other ponds shouldn't be deeper than 8-10 ft if you are treating water, and there may be some limits for the depth of irrigation ponds, but that again is based on the local govt. agencies.  A good rule of thumb for minimum water depths is no less than 4 ft.  Surface area size for irrigation ponds is a toss up, as a 1.75 acre pond will result in less evapotranspiration of the water and alot more water bounce resulting in variable water depths and problematic pond side slopes that may deteriate over time if not treated.  On the other hand a 3 acre pond, which is preferred, does not bounce as much but yet loses more water to evaporation.  

There you go Tom, about all I can talk about for on ponds.

Derek

[Mike O'Neill]

Derek,

I still did not get the "weight" of water unless by "weight" you mean volume. Also, when you say sizing the pond for the watershed, do you really mean sizing the overflow for the pond? Can't a pond be a variety of sizes as long as the overflow can accommodate the volume of water from the watershed?

Thanks,
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()