Is it Hard to think in 3D? Easier in plan or field?
The short answer is yes, which is why we architects get paid the big bucks!
While you would think most architects are pretty good at three dimensional “seeing” because they have to visualize the final product, but in my experience, some excel more and some less so.
Many things affect your ability to see in 3D. Some believe that those who draw plans are automatically less able to see in 3D. However, there are also some field constraints that make the final results look worse than they might in an ideal world. I think the answer is to just keep working at it, first in plan, then in the field, to get the best visual results.
I wonder if certain architects really understands 3D design. I wonder this, because I have seen examples of the same less than stellar greens and bunkers on multiple courses by the same architect, even the big ones. Some have postulated that early Pete Dye courses, with their large flat bunkers were as much a result of Pete trying to learn to think in 3D as any particular design choice.
While I have always my design ideas 'on paper' in 2D grading plans, and more recently in 3D on CAD, I never just leave a crew to build it. I go out and when I see something I either really like or dislike, take the surveyors level to it to assess what is good/bad about it. (and frankly, am always amazed when someone brings up the false stereotype that drawing plans means the architect never goes in the field......most do both, perhaps to varying degrees)
My mentors had some good ideas on how to improve grading plans for better 3D. Then and now, a design has several layers of tracing paper. We put the green and bunkers shapes on one layer, and the grading contours on the top layer. Once they basically fit, they told us to remove the green shape underneath, and redraw the contours without regards to the golf features. We did that a few times, until the contour lines really flowed, and the adjusted the shapes, if required. More often than not, contours that flowed on paper flowed well in the field.
I still think this has merit, when I see a modern course with mounds lining the fairways, but the fairways being flat, and the contours and ridges never crossing over the fairway in naturalistic ways. Some blame that on Tour Pros who think a tee shot in the fairway ought to be flat. My take is that the design didn’t pull out that extra layer of tracing paper and make the contour lines a bit sexier!
And in this case, architects who work more in the field may be less prone to “hold that line” with contours crossing fairway edges. But, there are other limitations. If walking to mark out a fairway or bunker edge, the tendency is to take the flat route, avoiding a climb that might give something some necessary vertical elevation. Even if riding in a cart, the cart generally slides a bit on the side slopes and you may not exaggerate the vertical as much as would be required for maximum aesthetics. Of course, some say if a cart won’t ascent a hill, a mower won’t either, and it’s sort of cross check for maintenance practicality.
My mentors also suggested that one way to assess what it looked like to the golfer is to put your head on the drafting table to get sort of that worms eye view. (Of course, they never failed to ask if I was asleep if I stayed down there too long…..) What that really did was give a sense if features were lined up behind each other, and thus less likely to be visible, but you still had to use your imagination to “see the mounds, etc.”
And I always draw cross sections on key points to make sure things aren’t hidden behind. If eye level from the tee is 100, and a bunker top is at 104, if the next bunkers are at 102, the golfer simply won’t see them.
I still also measure grades on things I like. If a bunker looks good, I measure the ups and downs to find out just how much vertical change there was (and when digital levels became available, measure green and bunker slopes). However, we can still get tangled up in “plan bias” meaning what we think a plan representing what we built should look.
A case in point was a green I built for Killian and Nugent. I had noticed, playing many of the classic courses around Chicago, that architects like Colt and Allison had basically round greens with mounds edging into them on many sides, which created a very rolling edge and a good look. The design trend at that time was multi-lobe greens with the surrounding mounds on the inside corners, which took the rolls out of the putting surface.
So, he didn’t like my plan, but let me build it. He liked it in the field, and sent me out to survey the green for an “as built” contour plan. He said it couldn’t be right, because his plans usually had the contours following the green edge, not cross it, and mounds on inside curves. We rebuilt it to his new plan, but he didn’t like it. We built again to the old way, surveyed again, and he didn’t like the way the plan looked. The green stayed after a few rounds of this, and I am not sure he was ever convinced.
When we first got into 3D visualizations, one associate declared that our software wasn’t that good, because all his mounds looked like pimples, with steep slopes. Truth is, he usually drew them that way and good shapers probably bailed us out many times. I redrew his grading plan, making sure the skyline of the mound had gentle slopes, input it back in the computer, and it looked much better. Sad to say, he didn’t really change his drawing ways, as some people just resist change, even when the evidence stares them in the face.
Lesson learned, if it looks good in the field, that is the right answer in most cases. But, there are many benefits in trying to get it close on plan, and using cross sections to test vision, such as faster construction, better quantities, and keeping certain key distances and dimensions correct, because those are hard to eyeball in the field.
We just have to learn what our style looks like on paper. Some stuff is pretty subtle, but I have found things like:
Green edges need to roll at over 5% to even be noticeable. Over 11%, they get more prone to damage. Mounds should have their long dimension about 90 deg. to golfers view. The top skyline should be at least 20% max, but 10-15% is more graceful.
I could go on, but it would bore you. My point is that some people think they are artistic, but the professional architect at some point needs to get down to some real world numbers and situations via experience to get the artistry to work right. And, as my Dad used to say, some guys have 30 years experience, others have one year of experience 30 times over......