Designing for Maintenance and Beauty

[MCirba]

After WWII, and particularly after the rise and popularity of Arnold Palmer who truly grew the game with the common man, a golf course construction boom took place.   It was largely led by men like Robert Trent Jones and Dick Wilson on a national level, but there were any number of more regional architects who created many courses in their respective areas such as Edmund Ault, William Mitchell, Billy Bell, et.al, but one of the most prominent in the northeast was the late Geoffrey Cornish, who over the years partnered with William Robinson, Brian Silva, Mark Mungeam, and others.

I grew up playing a number of Cornish's courses in the northeast and they had their pros and cons like most.   Recently I came across two articles written by Cornish and Robinson from 1967 that I found very interesting in retrospect to better understand his thinking which better explained some of his design decisions I found questionable, but also to see how it differs from much of what we discuss here as "ideal".

I'm not sure these will load as I have them listed here but they are easily findable if they don't.  I hope you find them as interesting as I did.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCQQFjABOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.lib.msu.edu%2Ftic%2Fgolfd%2Farticle%2F1967jun36.pdf&ei=lR0MVbSCFILnsAT56oHYCA&usg=AFQjCNHhzYLziTQld7Oq3rhrt5WNCmVTnw&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CB8QFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.lib.msu.edu%2Ftic%2Fgolfd%2Farticle%2F1967apr36.pdf&ei=lR0MVbSCFILnsAT56oHYCA&usg=AFQjCNHhsrYadMWYfq82IZo5f7aHdv6hvQ&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

[Joe Bausch]

Here is the first article in larger size:

[MCirba]

Thanks for the assist, Joe!

[Kyle Harris]

Interesting that he notes eliminating all the bunkers from a golf course has been tried by some committees.

I wonder where?

[Peter Pallotta]

Wonderful, thanks gents. They knew it all back then (and I don't know why that should surprise me): the relationship of soil types and drainage and air movement and judicious tree planting etc, all in support of having the "outstanding" courses that golfers expected/expect -- with "inspired" designs and "magnificent and beautiful" settings mentioned almost as a given.

Peter

[Joe Bausch]

The other article:

[Mark_Fine]

I will go out on a limb (a fairly strong limb) and argue that maintenance costs for a golf course are one of single biggest influences on design.  EVERY course is concerned about maintenance, but NOT EVERY course is concerned about maintenance “costs”.  If an architect is lucky enough to get a project where they don’t have to worry about the cost of maintenance this presents huge design advantages over projects where they do because their design options are almost limitless.  And yes all architects on all projects need to be sure that what they design is “maintainable” at any cost, but some don’t have to worry how much that cost will be.  There are huge design advantages if you don’t have to worry about green size or green side hazard placement or worry about hand mowing or triplex mowing or tee size or the number of bunkers or whether the bunkers can be hand raked or must be machine raked or how much fairway acreage they have or how much water they can use or how much irrigation they can install (or how much turf must be irrigated) or how many trees they can add (or remove), …, and the list goes on and on.  

Maintenance costs are a BIG factor for the far majority of golf courses and architects that have to deal with tightening budgets (and most are tightening) have to incorporate this into their design considerations.  If you beg to disagree, think of it this way, do you think Michael Pascucci told Tom and Jack to be weary of what it was going to cost to maintain Sebonack once it was finished?  I don’t think so.  

Maintenance costs/budgets play a big role in renovations/restorations as well.  Design features tend to “shrink” over time.  Bunkers get smaller, greens get smaller, fairways get narrower, tees shrink,…   Restoring most of these features tends to add to maintenance costs (not always but often) as bigger bunkers means more sand (and with classic bunkers often hand raking), larger greens means more maintenance, fairway grass is more expensive to maintain than rough,…and so on.  

Managing design with maintenance costs presents a huge challenge for most architects!

[Garland Bayley]

Interesting that he notes eliminating all the bunkers from a golf course has been tried by some committees.

I wonder where?

Not just by committees. Pete Dye's mentor, Bill Diddel, made an effort to make interesting golf courses without bunkers.
The highest percent of his work is in Indiana, his home state.

[Garland Bayley]

Slag Bandoon told me he found reference to William Robinson working on my home course. I know there is an architect's report suggesting adding trees behind greens to aid depth perception. I find mention of the use of trees for depth perception in the first article.

My problem with that. Our ninth used to play uphill to a skyline. Trees were added behind the green. No more skyline green.
Our clubhouse dining room used to look out over the ninth green to a great view of Mt. Hood. Added trees = no view. 

[Joe Bausch]

Slag Bandoon told me he found reference to William Robinson working on my home course. I know there is an architect's report suggesting adding trees behind greens to aid depth perception. I find mention of the use of trees for depth perception in the first article.

My problem with that. Our ninth used to play uphill to a skyline. Trees were added behind the green. No more skyline green.
Our clubhouse dining room used to look out over the ninth green to a great view of Mt. Hood. Added trees = no view. 

Yea, but I bet they are very pretty trees.

 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

I won't BEG to differ, but maybe if you'll allow another perspective; I think the premise that a less limited design budget leads to more designing by the architectural team is likely to be true. The premise that more designing equates to a better golf course is arguable.

Designing for maintenance is a priority for most in the business. However, golf courses are not always maintained as it was originally designed, so I don't know if you can pin all maintenance costs on design.

Question; would architects be able to design bigger greens if we didn't have green speeds, and the associated costs, as they are today? How about bunkers? Would designers build larger(or more) bunkers if they weren't filled w/ expensive sand(and liners) and meticulously hand raked every day?

I agree with your comments in general. Until the industry/ golfing contingency decides to change it's priorities, we'll get less golf course...albeit a pretty one.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

A third perspective, that of an outsider: an architect (like a tv commercial director, to name one analogous art-craft) will make every choice and decision that the client will let him get away with, and will make those choices/decisions based on a variety of reasons, both personal and professional, both conscious and unconscious, and for ends that are either/both worthy and noble or self-seeking and short-sighted ones. How a course will be maintained years and decades after he has done his work (just as whether or not a tv ad actually sells more product) is not something I imagine most architects have been unduly worried about.   

Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
As you know, a good superintendent can tell you how much it cost to maintain his greens by the square footage.  It is almost a straight formula.  Same for bunker square footage and fairway acreage. An architect also has a ton more latitude with his green complexes if they are hand mowed vs. triplexed.  Green speeds matter but so does number of rounds, climate,...

Peter,
Most architects had better worry about how their course/restoration/renovation work will be maintained after it is finished (I know I sure do).  We often provide a recommended maintenance plan with our designs and always work extremely close with the Super and grounds committee.  Maintenance and design go hand in hand and most architects I would think and hope want to remain proud of their work long after it is first finished.  Colt was one of if not the first architect to provide maintenance plans with his designs including where to plant trees,..etc.   He definitely was concerned about how his courses would look years down the road.

[Don Mahaffey]

Superintendents having some input during the design/construction process is a good thing. Communicating the resource availability and general maintenance plan to the architect during design is a good thing.

No offense to any architects, but I haven't meet one who I'd want writing my maintenance plan. Tell me what you want, how you want it to play, what you want to see, fine. Tell me how to do it? Nope. I know more about that than you do.

There is also part of me that thinks a Superintendent ought to just find a way to maintain whatever the architect wants to build. I know that sounds controversial, and some fool is sure to bring up some extreme design idea as a justification for countering me, but I don't see many modern architects doing much of anything in an extreme way, except designing for maintenance in an extreme way.

[MCirba]

Some really interesting discussion and I appreciate everyone's input.

One of the things I found very controversially different than modern thinking was Cornish's thoughts about "above ground" bunkers.   As mentioned, I used to play a number of his courses and the bunkering, while sometimes visually appealing, had a functional aspect that was somewhat off-putting.   As indicated in the articles, he'd build a mound, and then carve a bunker into it.   In some/many cases, that would mean a player who was in a bunker would actually be elevated above the surrounding fairway and/or green.

Similarly, his contention that greenside bunkers be kept at least 12 feet away from the edges of his greens meant in reality that most of them truly didn't come into play.   One of his courses I played in high school had 72 bunkers, yet I rarely remember being in any of them.

This is not meant in any way to criticize Mr. Cornish, who was one of the great and most admired figures in golf course architecture, but to examine the appropriate calibration between great architecture and affordable maintainability.

I think "sustainability" is going to be the watchword of golf in the 21st century so this is an area I think we can help examine and even intelligently shape with the folks who participate on this site.

[Garland Bayley]

...
One of the things I found very controversially different than modern thinking was Cornish's thoughts about "above ground" bunkers.  ...

Here's an "above ground" bunker for you.



I think you will find Mr. Doak does lots of "above ground" bunkers. He just doesn't build the "above ground" to do it.

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
I totally agree with you; if I were the super at a course, I wouldn't want the architect independently writing a maintenance plan for me. But what if the architect worked with you to jointly prepare that plan and helped you get it approved/accepted by the club/your grounds committee?  Then you might be pretty happy knowing you will get what you need to maintain the golf course as the architect intended.  That is what we try to do.  Win win  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I'm sure that you won't be surprised that I'm going to offer a contrarian view.

I'm familiar with several courses where GC's alterations drove the maintanance budgets higher.

Straight fairways were scalloped in random patterns, trees were planted in abundance to reroute the playing corridors to match the new fairway lines, and all of these things added to the budget.

Maybe it's a "do as I say and not as I do" situation.

But, presenting a stable budget or lowering the budget was never a consideration with the alterations.

[Don Mahaffey]

Don,
I totally agree with you; if I were the super at a course, I wouldn't want the architect independently writing a maintenance plan for me. But what if the architect worked with you to jointly prepare that plan and helped you get it approved/accepted by the club/your grounds committee?  Then you might be pretty happy knowing you will get what you need to maintain the golf course as the architect intended.  That is what we try to do.  Win win  
Mark

Mark,
Collaboration can be good, and helping a team member be successful is admirable, but architects taking credit for developing maintenance plans is more sales talk than substance. 

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
It has nothing to do with taking credit.  It has everything to do with helping the super get what he needs to be successful.  Some supers need the help and support and others don't (you might be one who doesn't and that is fine).  Many stuuggle to convince their members/golfers what it takes to properly maintain their golf course.  If they can get help with this they love it.  I have a superintendent on my team who who works great with his peers and assists me as needed.  The whole goal is to present a properly conditioned design. 

[Adam Clayman]

So many contrarian views.

The timing and substance in this article, imo, is one of the Banana peels on the slippery slope that golf course architecture went down, during the dark ages. Formulaic reasoning and pampering the player, while ignoring the golfer/sportsman.

The subsequent Chicago school's influence, is still deeply imbedded in the modern PLAYER's pathos.

There really are so few courses that get it just right. Kingsley Club for example, is one of the few that likely violated everyone of those formulaic rules mentioned..

[MCirba]

Good point with Kingsley Adam.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mike,

My first golf course superintendent seminars were in the early 80's. There were entire panels of speakers on tree planting and developing tree nurseries. I don't recall one of those speakers ever mentioning such principles as understanding the architects original intent, the effects that shade has on putting greens, avoiding the use of softwood trees or exotic species. The USGA Green Section gave a talk on reducing fairway acreage to allow for catching clippings with triplex greens mowers or the triplex banks mowers that could be converted to mow at fairway height.

My first superintendent position was in 1985 at a club built in 1912 - we never did find out who the architect was but I suspect it was Chick Evans because his name was signed in the club guestbook on opening day. Anyways, the club had about 40 acres of strait edge un-irrigated bluegrass fairways and flat sand trench bunkers around the greens. I went right to work edging out the bunkers into nice curvilinear flashed shapes, contour mowing the fairways down to 25 acres and planting lollipop trees in the scallops. Ultimately I convinced the club into irrigating the fairways and dropping the height of cut to promote Poa/bent.

The role of the superintendent in those days was to put curvilinear lines on golf courses and plant the shit of them with trees. That's what we did.

[John Connolly]

The subsequent Chicago school's influence, is still deeply imbedded in the modern PLAYER's pathos.

What is "Chicago school's influence"?

[Adam Clayman]

It's what I call what would be almost every project that I have ever played of a Killian & Nugent pedigree. Designs that have features that TRY to speed play of the masses. i.e. Rear (and sidewall) Containment mounding, flatter greens ...etc.

I've never laughed so hard as when I walked up the closing hole on "The Port" at Harborside. After years of emulating many of their courses, It was confirmation of how, in golf course architecture, one's earliest formed opinions can be so ignorant.