Local low cost material use influencing design

[Don_Mahaffey]

I have to believe that long ago, golf courses were more representative of the local area. For instance, a sandy area well-drained area might have a lot of open sand and bunkers while a course built on clay would have fewer bunkers and less open ground. In the sand, the golf turf could have been nurtured by the lay of the land since surface drainage was less important and greens didn’t have to be quite so crowned for surface drainage. But, greens built on heavy soil had to shed water quickly and thus might have been built up a bit more with more severe fall offs in multiple direction. I wonder how many of the older severe greens were more a result of designing for function first?

I know at Wolf Point we wanted to work with local materials, and that meant using a sand that was closer to a loam then a USGA green’s spec.  That meant shedding water off in multiple directions and not relying on percolation thru internal drainage. We also wanted contour and low maintenance so we tried to marry our agronomics to the contours. We also wanted firm greens. As a result we have heavily contoured greens that shed water quickly, we keep the grass a little longer then the norm, but the contour and firmness brings plenty of challenge. We used what we had to try and create fun golf. Same philosophy with our bunkers as most are small, but many gather shots making them play a little larger. We didn’t have enough sand to build large bunkers, so we tried to make the ones we built count.

In today’s golf architecture, how much does the quantity and quality of local materials influence design? If the local sand that you can get for a reasonable cost doesn’t meet spec, why not adjust your design to the sand rather then spend huge amounts importing material to fit design?

Water quality is one local input that often impacts grassing and irrigation decisions, but should it also impact design decisions? Poor water quality usually means high salts that can build up in the soil. Because of this great surface drainage is a must as any areas that pool or drain slow will result in turf loss. Yet I continue to see courses in the south built with large water shed areas and long distances for water to flow before it gets into a pipe or off the grass. What not break up the ground a little more and instead of installing large drains, use a network of smaller drains so the water doesn’t have to travel so far?

Solving the problem of using local low cost materials that don’t quite measure up is one of the interesting challenges of golf design, or at least I think it should be. How much of golden age design was driven by function more then golf, and what are some of the ways we can build fun golf courses while working with what we have?

[Tom_Doak]

If the local sand that you can get for a reasonable cost doesn’t meet spec, why not adjust your design to the sand rather then spend huge amounts importing material to fit design?

Water quality is one local input that often impacts grassing and irrigation decisions, but should it also impact design decisions? Poor water quality usually means high salts that can build up in the soil. Because of this great surface drainage is a must as any areas that pool or drain slow will result in turf loss. Yet I continue to see courses in the south built with large water shed areas and long distances for water to flow before it gets into a pipe or off the grass. What not break up the ground a little more and instead of installing large drains, use a network of smaller drains so the water doesn’t have to travel so far?

Solving the problem of using local low cost materials that don’t quite measure up is one of the interesting challenges of golf design, or at least I think it should be. How much of golden age design was driven by function more then golf, and what are some of the ways we can build fun golf courses while working with what we have?

Don:

I never saw this thread; it must have passed off page one pretty quickly.

The answer to your question is that most architects don't consider such changes because

(a)  Things like soil specs and water quality are not really our forte; and/or

(b)  It's easier just to go with the status quo and tell the client it's worth it to pay for the highest quality materials and drainage &c.

I have tried to be more thoughtful and adaptable on some past projects, but it's hard work.  You open yourself up to liability when you spec something that's different than the norm.  You also have to find an owner and a superintendent who are on the same page, and that's pretty hard to do sometimes, especially since the superintendent is often not on board when the specs are written. 

Also, it's not as easy to budget a new spec as opposed to the "same old, same old", and there is potential for cost overruns -- even though the "overrun" may still be significantly less expensive than the conventional approach!  We've done "native soil greens" on a couple of courses where the superintendent got cold feet late in the game and wanted to screen all the material because of debris from clearing .. that's a tough change to make at the 11th hour.

Heck, I've had problems just trying to write a grassing spec that's perceived as "different", just because I know that if the superintendent doesn't believe in it, he can easily prove it was the wrong decision, to everyone's detriment.

You are asking great questions here, but what you're really saying is that projects should get people with practical knowledge on board right at the beginning, instead of waiting until it's too late.  I've managed to do that sometimes but it's not always so easy.

[jeffwarne]

 We also wanted contour and low maintenance so we tried to marry our agronomics to the contours. We also wanted firm greens. As a result we have heavily contoured greens that shed water quickly,
 we keep the grass a little longer then the norm, but the contour and firmness brings plenty of challenge.
We used what we had to try and create fun golf.

 We didn’t have enough sand to build large bunkers, so we tried to make the ones we built count.

Some of the best quotes I've come across.

I have nothing to add but bumping it so those that do, will.

[Andy Stamm]

What are some examples of low cost materials that could be used even on a fairly conventional project?

Bunker sand would be one I think. Old Works is one example. I wonder what the cost difference was there compared to bringing in 'normal' sand. In southern Indiana we had crushed limestone, which played fine. It's not very soft, but I think it would be appropriate for any project in the area.

What other examples are there that are feasible?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I agree with your point.  Contrary to popular belief, most of us have to do this all the time.

Here in TX, its greens mix.  A decade ago, a turf consultant swung through trying to convince everyone that native Texas sands didn't meet USGA specs, as they were "calcarereous" (sp) The net effect of such sands is that they tie up some fertilizers, but budget wise, spending 3% of ferts over 2-3X up front for sand wasn't really smart, IMHO.  Also, some of it drained slower than recommended USGA spec, but still fast enough to overcome even the worst rains we get.

White bunker sand has to be imported here, too  at great cost, so its an ongoing discussion of how much whiteness are you willing to pay for.  Also, some local sands slump more than imports, and the bunkers should be built flatter to account for it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
We did not import materials to build the greens
We used what was on site
No USGA greens in this instance - that is one of Don's many points
Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Didn't they use some sort of mining waste black or dark red color on a course in New Mexico, and aren't there two courses, Anaconda and at least one other that use some sort of coal based crushed material?  What about the use of coconut cor in greens mix?  Spagnum peat was just a local peat from somewhere in Saskatewan at first, wasn't it.  You know, that place in Canada where you can watch your dog run away for three days...