Why do signatures receive so much leeway in technical design issues?

[Mike_Young]

 I played a course today that many of you like and that I also appreciate very much.  I love the routing except for one hole and the greens are some of the best complexes in our area.  The present conditions arr also very very good except for bunkers.  The bunkers were originally a shaggy edged bunker built down here in red clay and incorporated into the design where water could cross entire fairways or across greens and flow right into a bunker.   The bunkers contain silt and a mixture of red clay and sand.  Often they are unplayable as many areas were today.  The long bermuda grass edging and washes would be totally unacceptable at every other private club in the state.  However at this particular course the developer had hired a signature and had basically Proclaimed that "he( the developer) got it" when no one else did for that "minimalist" style.

Now, I personally like the place except for the condition of the bunkers.  However, if myself or any other regional archie had built these bunkers we would have been fired.  The so-called architecture experts would proclaim that no water should drain into a bunker and the edging and sand specifications would have been much more sophisticated.   Members would be slamming us and constantly bitching but if a signature does such the member, board member or owner accepts such and makes sure it is explained as part of the signature design.  In other instances I have seen a signature have to come back and rework greens a few years after designing such and it is promoted as a plus.  If t were a regional, the rework would be proclaimed a failure by some local nut and the rework would be done by another.  Why are our minds programmed to let the signature slide and slam the non sig on these matters?   

[Matthew Petersen]

The more well known you are, the more people assume you know what you're doing. True in every walk of life.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, what would you do to make those bunkers more playable?   Can they be saved?

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
The strategery of the bunkers is fine.  I actually like the possibility of a ball rolling off of a green and into a bunker but with a clay base it would probably be best in my opinion to divert the water or use more drainage etc.  All I'm saying is that only a signature can build that bunker and have it considered proper.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sounds like the Signatures receive the same treatment as the large banks - too big to fail. 

[Chris Cupit]

On this course (I am guessing a little east of ATL ) would the newer bunker construction methods today ("Billy bunkers" with the sprayed in liner) fix or alleviate their problems?  I know my old course had clay based "old" bunkers and they were an absolute mess.  We did, what was then, the billy bunker method in 2006 and frankly, the extra expense has been the best money I ever spent--our bunkers are still fabulous with no washes and little or no contamination.

I am not saying that when that course was built the designer did nt make a mistake given what construction techniques were available then and what he "should have known" but could the design be saved given new construction techniques and allow the course to avoid re-shaping and/or drainage basins everywhere?

[Mike_Young]

CC,
I'm sure it would be fine and someone was saying yesterday that in the next year or two something was going to take place.  My thing is if this look and condition of the bunkering was part of the design concept, then only a signature could get away with it......if you had a tournament there tomorrow and it rained over night, the bunkers would have to be lift , clean and place...and all I ever hear is people bragging about the bunkering...

Did you see the big boy last week?

[Anthony_Nysse]

I played a course today that many of you like and that I also appreciate very much.  I love the routing except for one hole and the greens are some of the best complexes in our area.  The present conditions arr also very very good except for bunkers.  The bunkers were originally a shaggy edged bunker built down here in red clay and incorporated into the design where water could cross entire fairways or across greens and flow right into a bunker.   The bunkers contain silt and a mixture of red clay and sand.  Often they are unplayable as many areas were today.  The long bermuda grass edging and washes would be totally unacceptable at every other private club in the state.  However at this particular course the developer had hired a signature and had basically Proclaimed that "he( the developer) got it" when no one else did for that "minimalist" style.

Now, I personally like the place except for the condition of the bunkers.  However, if myself or any other regional archie had built these bunkers we would have been fired.  The so-called architecture experts would proclaim that no water should drain into a bunker and the edging and sand specifications would have been much more sophisticated.   Members would be slamming us and constantly bitching but if a signature does such the member, board member or owner accepts such and makes sure it is explained as part of the signature design.  In other instances I have seen a signature have to come back and rework greens a few years after designing such and it is promoted as a plus.  If t were a regional, the rework would be proclaimed a failure by some local nut and the rework would be done by another.  Why are our minds programmed to let the signature slide and slam the non sig on these matters?   

I couldn't agree with you more. They should have been redone when the greens were regrassed.

[Chris Cupit]

CC,
I'm sure it would be fine and someone was saying yesterday that in the next year or two something was going to take place.  My thing is if this look and condition of the bunkering was part of the design concept, then only a signature could get away with it......if you had a tournament there tomorrow and it rained over night, the bunkers would have to be lift , clean and place...and all I ever hear is people bragging about the bunkering...

Did you see the big boy last week?

Agreed with above and yes, I had dinner with him.  Sat in on the tail end of one of the wrap up shows too.  He is doing great 

[jeffwarne]

The same reason raters are predisposed to like or dislike a course

[Sean_A]

The same reason raters are predisposed to like or dislike a course

Well yopu see what happens when a guy doesn't line up with ga ga comments over the sacred cows.  Its as if the man is a leper, a degenerate and obviously a moron to boot.

Ciao

[Jonathan Mallard]

Sounds like the Signatures receive the same treatment as the large banks - too big to fail. 

I've said this in another thread about the Colorado Board now requiring an engineer to have the proper training to seal earth moving and the associated drainage.

It's coming, and it sounds like this would be a classic example of the question: Does it rise to the level of gross negligence? If so, one of the members could complain to the licencing board.

[Mike_Young]

Jonothan,
I don't think there is any negligence and don't mean to imply such.  It's art and a style that an architect has put on the ground.   All I'm saying is not all architects can get away with that.  I guarantee you the supts know it and can't say anything and yet if I were to go in to a course and do it the supt would be all over my butt....I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

[BCowan]

Jonothan,
I don't think there is any negligence and don't mean to imply such.  It's art and a style that an architect has put on the ground.   All I'm saying is not all architects can get away with that.  I guarantee you the supts know it and can't say anything and yet if I were to go in to a course and do it the supt would be all over my butt....I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

''I guarantee you the supts know it and can't say anything''

Mike,

   What a good keeper will do is contact another area keeper to give a 2nd opinion, usually ownership/membership will rethink.  Usually one that freely gives his opinion, that keeper isn't employed by that course. 

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
I've seen it too many times.  The supt is in a bad spot and he just does what he is asked until the day comes when he is asked for an opinion.  The most obvious and blatant abuse of this is when you see a signature go back into a place and rebuild the greens a couple of years after a course is built and his greens are too severe or not working as planned.  The signature comes back in and reworks the greens and it is promoted as a big deal by the PR company.  Now if a regional guy were to build a set of greens that needed reworking in two years, he would probably be sued and bashed.  Signatures scare most developers and green committees....it's a jock sniffing thing....

[Jonathan Mallard]

...I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

If it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.

If you read the licensing board minutes of any state, every month there are folks disciplined for this happening.

[Mike_Young]

...I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

If it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.

If you read the licensing board minutes of any state, every month there are folks disciplined for this happening.

Jonothan,
With all due respect it is a different thing.  It's not something you can license and one certainly can't tell an owner he can't build his bunkers the way he wishes. 

[Jonathan Mallard]

...I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

If it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.

If you read the licensing board minutes of any state, every month there are folks disciplined for this happening.

Jonothan,
With all due respect it is a different thing.  It's not something you can license and one certainly can't tell an owner he can't build his bunkers the way he wishes. 

I hear you.

However, at least one state licensing board disagrees with you. More will come.

Your issue now is that they are in a position of authority to determine what falls under thier jursidction, can dictate terms of compliance, have subpeona power, and can impose financial, and other fines.

[Mike_Young]

...I like the look but technically it doesn't work here...

If it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.

If you read the licensing board minutes of any state, every month there are folks disciplined for this happening.

Jonothan,
With all due respect it is a different thing.  It's not something you can license and one certainly can't tell an owner he can't build his bunkers the way he wishes. 

I hear you.

However, at least one state licensing board disagrees with you. More will come.

Your issue now is that they are in a position of authority to determine what falls under thier jursidction, can dictate terms of compliance, have subpeona power, and can impose financial, and other fines.

Jonothan,
I'm curious.  which state is that?

[Jonathan Mallard]

Colorado.

[Mike_Young]

Colorado.

I would be interested in seeing more.  I don't think bunkers or greens can be considered earthmoving and if they ever do come under licensing then golf design will be done....

[Jonathan Mallard]

From 01/28/2015:

Please be advised that the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors (“Board”) considers grading certifications and grading design statements that include language stating or implying that the grading design accurately reflects the design intent of an approved grading plan, that the grading will or will not cause storm water damage, or that the lot will drain adequately to constitute the practice of engineering.
 
As the design, evaluation, and analysis of grading and/or drainage plans are considered the practice of engineering, these plans should be prepared by an engineer utilizing data provided by a professional land surveyor. Preparing grading and drainage plans is not within the scope of the practice of land surveying. If a land surveyor makes a certification on a grading or drainage plan, it should be limited to determined elevations of land parcels and must not contain statements of engineering design, evaluation, or analysis.
 
An individual who, without being licensed as a Colorado professional engineer, prepares, signs, or seals such a grading design statement violates state statute and may be subject to legal action by the Board, including but not limited to a cease and desist order or injunction. Professional land surveyors who are not also licensed as a Colorado professional engineer are not authorized to engage in the practice of engineering.

So... The question becomes how bunker work escapes the definition of grading and drainage, which was the earlier discussion.

[Mike_Young]

I don't see those requirements affecting greens and bunker designs......JMO

[Jonathan Mallard]

I don't see those requirements affecting greens and bunker designs......JMO

I understand.

But, again, it isn't up to you to make that call.

It's up to a board with the statutory authority vested unto it, with other powers noted earlier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

From 01/28/2015:

Please be advised that the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors (“Board”) considers grading certifications and grading design statements that include language stating or implying that the grading design accurately reflects the design intent of an approved grading plan, that the grading will or will not cause storm water damage, or that the lot will drain adequately to constitute the practice of engineering.
 
As the design, evaluation, and analysis of grading and/or drainage plans are considered the practice of engineering, these plans should be prepared by an engineer utilizing data provided by a professional land surveyor. Preparing grading and drainage plans is not within the scope of the practice of land surveying. If a land surveyor makes a certification on a grading or drainage plan, it should be limited to determined elevations of land parcels and must not contain statements of engineering design, evaluation, or analysis.
 
An individual who, without being licensed as a Colorado professional engineer, prepares, signs, or seals such a grading design statement violates state statute and may be subject to legal action by the Board, including but not limited to a cease and desist order or injunction. Professional land surveyors who are not also licensed as a Colorado professional engineer are not authorized to engage in the practice of engineering.

So... The question becomes how bunker work escapes the definition of grading and drainage, which was the earlier discussion.

Of course I am not sure of Colorado laws, but most such are to guard basic public safety, and that specifically mentions lots, etc.  A bunker wouldn't affect drainage of individual lots or even a regional watershed.  In most places, golf course architects are already not doing master drainage plans for a site, that determine pre and post construction drainage flows, detention and compensatory storage, etc.

Of course, I do share your concerns as to where an overzealous govt. department can keep adding regulations that aren't remotely necessary just to keep their own jobs and department funding levels.....and yes, you can call me a cynic if you want.  But, it has happened, at least in the opinion of some or many.