News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #75 on: January 04, 2018, 04:05:31 PM »
Mike,


That quote from Tom sounds great but there's no truth in it.


Tom building Peter's course if he himself had no knowledge as an architect would be pretty useless. Tom could only make Peter's course work because he'd do most of the design himself whilst building it.


Which is - of course - the point.


I find these Design / Build versus Design / Tender arguments to be a bit repetitive and not very helpful. I subscribe to the school that says the architect needs to be fully in control of building the course. But there are plenty of grey areas. And most people on this site who aren't in the business are presented with a very black or white view on it.


They are either with Tom Doak (Course Builder) or Jeff Brauer (Traditional Course Architect). But I'd hazard a guess that both cross in to the other's realm more than most people would realise.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #76 on: January 04, 2018, 04:27:39 PM »
Ally,
I'm sure there is some cross over and both styles will probably continue but what was asked was " current trends".  I think the business and the cost savings lean toward the design build.  Actually I think beginning in the mid 1940's a concerted effort was made to disguise a craft as a profession and it led to a dark ages in design.  When the 80's came around and there was enough work for builders and shapers to learn the trade at a rate much quicker than the existing traditional golf architect, then that builder had something to sell.  (The builder of the 70's was not the builder of the 90's. ) And he could go to a very dull architect and tell him he would make him look good if he just would get him the job and follow along.  We all know that happened.  As these general contractor builders became busier and busier then naturally they gained experience across the board and knew they could sell it to architects.  So, I think TD's statement can be true in many cases....
Cheers
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #77 on: January 04, 2018, 04:35:12 PM »
Fair enough, Mike. Everything you say above seems to ring true.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #78 on: January 04, 2018, 05:03:24 PM »
Ally, Mike - every once in a while it hits me how insane it is that you and the other professionals choose to hang around this place.
Years ago, when I was really studying and struggling to learn my craft as a playwright, at least once a month someone at the end of the bar or cafe would say:
"Yeah, I'm gonna try some writing too. I got a lot of great ideas, I just have trouble putting them down on paper".
or
"Oh yeah? Maybe we could co-write something together - I got this fantastic idea, but I don't know how to make it into a story...I guess you could help with that part".
I was young, and aiming to do great work, and it took all the good will I had and all the patience I could muster not to say: "Are you effing kidding me?! Getting ideas 'down on paper' and 'making them a story' IS the writing!"
And the same applies ten-fold to gca, it seems to me - since reading topos and putting together the jig saw puzzle and clearing the brush and moving dirt and getting the drainage right and shaping everything etc etc is a lot harder than typing words on a piece of paper; getting 'the ideas' is the easy part!
Which is to say: it must be that you're all a lot older and wiser and more mature than I was, but I marvel that you don't say "Are you effing kidding me?!" way more often than you do.
In one sense, it really is binary -- the finished golf course, on the ground, ready for play is ALL that matters; there rest is b.s. To quote a great playwright: "Cause that's how we keep score, bubbe"
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 05:14:36 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #79 on: January 04, 2018, 06:15:20 PM »

Peter,


Bingo on the main point.  Believe me, we often read this site and say exactly what you think we say, just we don't type it.


Ally, Agree, the entire discussion of DB vs plans is repetitive and overblown.  We all know the final design and tweaks are done in the field.  Some of us just believe its more cost efficient to figure it out ahead of construction (as is traditional in all design professions) and that it is cheaper to move a mouse/drafting pencil than it is to move a bulldozer.  What do the Scots say, "Measure Twice, Cut Once?"  Plans to get started and close can be of great help, and in most cases, are necessary to some degree.


Mike can postulate all he wants, but he is just justifying his method, as I am justifying mine.
And, that I find one fall out of the big recession to be clients more interested in financial accountability via plans and third party independent oversight, just shows that the US market is too big and diverse for anyone, least of all Mike Young, to declare any definitive trends, beyond their experience and wishes. 


Not that a good natured internet post ought to cause any cat fights, its all in good fun, so we go along.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #80 on: January 04, 2018, 06:49:51 PM »

Peter,


Bingo on the main point.  Believe me, we often read this site and say exactly what you think we say, just we don't type it.


Ally, Agree, the entire discussion of DB vs plans is repetitive and overblown.  We all know the final design and tweaks are done in the field.  Some of us just believe its more cost efficient to figure it out ahead of construction (as is traditional in all design professions) and that it is cheaper to move a mouse/drafting pencil than it is to move a bulldozer.  What do the Scots say, "Measure Twice, Cut Once?"  Plans to get started and close can be of great help, and in most cases, are necessary to some degree.


Mike can postulate all he wants, but he is just justifying his method, as I am justifying mine.
And, that I find one fall out of the big recession to be clients more interested in financial accountability via plans and third party independent oversight, just shows that the US market is too big and diverse for anyone, least of all Mike Young, to declare any definitive trends, beyond their experience and wishes. 


Not that a good natured internet post ought to cause any cat fights, its all in good fun, so we go along.

JB,
That's right...just justifying my method and looking for a cat fight...it's too cold here to go outside...

Peter,
Writing is your talent and I appreciate it because I can't do it.  To be clear I don't think myself or TD was saying you could not design a golf course just using you as an example for the method being discussed.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Peter Pallotta

Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #81 on: January 04, 2018, 07:23:58 PM »
Thanks, Mike - I know you didn't, nor did Tom.
The truth is, as often happens on such threads, I realized 4 pages in that I was wrong, ie that my initial thoughts needed serious refining.
Tom's reference just got me thinking about my own 'creative process', past and present. And I realized that my 'current trend' has little to do with the 'idea', has a little more to do with my 'ideal' and has a heck of a lot to do with what's possible and do-able and who I can get to help me and the resources available to me and my limitations and strengths and weaknesses etc etc.
In short: it's about getting it done, 'on the ground'.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 07:31:02 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2018, 09:40:46 PM »
I don’t know...I want to respect everyone’s opinion...but to me the biggest misconception, and largest cost plus changer, is thinking you can plan it all way out in advance.   
I get planning, I get doing your homework, but it’s like calling all the plays in a football game in advance and now your QB can’t audible out of a bad situation.  Anymore I think all that planning just means you have to spend money to create the environment where the planning might work.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2018, 10:41:26 PM »
Good points Don. I do not think anyone here is of the mindset that you can plan 100% in advance. I think the points brought up about how PLANNING has resulted in a lot of good for the built environment needs to be considered. Putting ideas on paper is not for everyone, but it has been used successfully for centuries...ever since mankind took to drawing.

Just because Tom D has little use for master plans and foresight (on paper, and mainly for renovations) it does not necessarily mean he is right. As I aptly reminded him when he spoke so forcefully about his ideas on Askernish several years ago, "Tom, what if you are wrong...?" I do not believe I ever got an decent answer, which I suspect is because he believes that his role is to show up, get something in mind, and then get it done. Which I absolutely envy and adore. Most of my clients do not subscribe to that journal.

From the very limited time I have spent with Tom, I enjoy him a lot. He is a visionary and uber-talented. I do feel he often looks for the 180-degree trot in matters, regardless. That is Tom. It may be just my take, but a guy who loves math would ordinarily be expected to also enjoy the diagramatic world...which, of course, involves formulas, charts and visual stimuli....e.g., "master plans."
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #84 on: January 05, 2018, 12:58:18 AM »
Lou,

Yes, I recall those Mansfield TX meetings and was thinking of those as I posted. Not sure who did the pro formas, but recall Southwest Financial cut them down in size.

I agree with you on nearly every point.  I have never seen a golf study that didn't project first year revenues, and then add 2-3% from there.  Yet, we know the stock market dips and economy typically contracts about every three years, every third dip is more substantial, etc.  And we know there will be a war event or natural disaster that will affect the economy.  It would seem pro formas should include things like, not to mention consideration of actual potential rounds, as affected by hours of daylight, length of season, tendency of courses in severe floodplains to flood, with annual or semi annual closures (and reputation damage), attendant reconstruction costs, etc.  For the most part, golf studies ignore those, and just add a disclaimer that no one can predict unforeseen events.

In the monthly rounds report, NGF has taken to comparing weather year over year.  That is, they report rounds down at X% (or up) but note the number of rain days, etc. that affect the ability to play.  Like I say, they try to get more sophisticated every year, but as you say, it will never be an exact science, and investors are the ones who take the risk, as it probably should be. 

I believe the best predictor of future revenues come from the bids those who put up actual money to own or lease a golf course.   

I did the economics for the proposal, but we never got that far at the meeting that included the bond agent.  You may recall that this started when my then partner was asked by the city to submit a plan for a public/private sector JV using the remaining land it owned around its athletic fields.  Jim P. had a good relationship with the city manager and the planning staff as they worked on two or three sizable housing developments in their jurisdiction.  We presented a concept plan with top-line numbers to them and were given a green light to move forward.  The meeting with the bond agent was to get the process going formally.  Of course, the guy cut us off at the knees immediately as he didn't think that the city had much bonding capacity left, and we never got to the financial presentation. 

Re: incorporating unforeseen events into forecasts, I nearly always provided clients with three scenarios, "most likely", "best case", and "worst case".  As you note, at least on the buy side, nobody accepts the high numbers.  Typically, "the most likely" gets massaged down a bit and becomes the outline for the pro-forma.  Unfortunately, the "worst case" can't consider Black Swan events (unpredictable and rare)  that 9/11, the large gasoline spikes of '07-'08, and the housing  meltdown in the same time period surely were.

I am not suggesting that NGF's forecast of demand was correct- in hindsight it was terribly off.   I am saying that based on the accepted methodology and the demographic data the analysts were looking at during a long optimistic period in the economy, from Reagan through Clinton, some 20 years, their conclusions were arguably reasonable.

The "course a day" was hype, a "best case" scenario that would be restrained by equity and debt investors.  In hindsight, Mansfield's bond agent did his job.  The city, many years later and quite a bit richer, did a near copy of the JV I had proposed with a golf management company.  The economics were nearly the same, only the private sector developer got its own financing (reducing the city's risk) and the city provided the land (without subordinating title) on a long term lease with options, as well as roads and utilities to the site.  From what I understand, it has been a homerun for all the stakeholders with the exception of the owner of the country club nearby.

By the way, at least back at the time I was active in real estate, most cities and institutional investors would not consider a design-build model or a "by the seat of my pants" plan.  Don's comments about planning are understandable for those seeking the freedom to carry out their work without many constraints.  Defense contractors loved loose, cost-plus contracts.  Nearly every organization I've been involved with resisted plans and budgets to some degree.  Perhaps current trends in architecture have quite a bit to do with the new type of clients and the nature of the relationship with the architect.  Or maybe I am just tired.

The last sentence is probably right-on, especially on purchases and leases requiring a sizable capital contribution.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #85 on: January 05, 2018, 07:34:27 AM »
After reading the last few posts....

I don't think anyone on here who believes in the design/build model has said they don't believe in paper and plans.  They just believe in different kinds of plans.  Speaking for myself, I can give a client a conceptual rendering and a routing as good as any dude who draws pages of plans.  It's just a personal preference of where you stop.  And the same goes for specifications.  Drawing a detailed green drawing with contour lines and elevations out the wazoo does not work IMHO.  Why?  Because there is no topo which is that accurate for a base map and most good shapers will not duplicate such in the field.  Now guys will argue "oh yes they can...but they will be off inches here and inches there and it stifles the freedom to work with the land.  Now if one subscribe to the theory that they are placing a golf course on apiece of land instead of finding the golf hole that is there then perhaps it works.  But MHO is that no design build dude is saying he doesn't use some plans.  He is just saying he designs it and builds it without handing over a stack of drawings to several contractors that will restrict the freedom that IMHO is needed in the field to make something work.

Lou,   back to the NGF..I still think they are BS.  Their website says they have done 900 consulting gigs in 30 years.  Many of those were for other elements of the industry such as club manufacturers, irrigation companies or management companies .  (That's why you see the BOD loaded with all those types).  So let's say they did maybe 450 golf course feasibility studies.  That's 15 a year.  I've seen a few, especially in the early 90's and they were pretty cookie cutter.  Most all I saw without exception always said the course would attract 40,000 rounds from the market area. 
Cities and design/build- Presently I am doing a design/build for a city.  There were plans but not 50 pages of plans.  And design/build does not mean  "by the seat of your pants".  Winter Park, Florida did a similar type of project and I have read the letters the mayor and project director wrote praising the savings.  Most guys I know  that do design/build have drawings but they stop before they get into the small details that can't possibly be put on paper.  As an example, if you were to look at the plans of a city sewer system you would see all of the pipe up to the home or business where it connected.  To me a design build guy might do something similar with a golf course drainage plan.  He would note the major drainage areas where pipe was needed but he would not go into details of the drainage under a green but instead may just estimate that each green would need linear ft. of pipe equivalent to 10% of the green square footage.   You can lock in design build just by using units. It can be as strict as the client wishes.  For example if you say you will build 125,000 square ft of greens then you have so much more freedom than drawing 19 greens and adhering to such. And there is no change order.  The clients I have worked for have bought into the method only after spending the time witht em and showing them projects where they understood that a golf course is not paper.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 08:57:52 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #86 on: January 05, 2018, 09:39:20 AM »

Mike,


Yes, as usual, the true answer is in the middle.


Agree the routing is best done on paper, or at least formalized. Yes, you have to walk the site, but many things like wetlands, property lines, woodland edges, even topo are best seen on plan.  Of course, TD routed Sebonic on paper before ever seeing the site.  And, I usually test route at the office, then walk and revise.  Space relationships are best explored on paper, and refined in the field after walking something that approximates how the property might be used.


Except for a very few dream projects, the legal issues of property lines need to be settled on paper.  And those lines need to be set (if divvying up the property for real estate, etc) to even plat it, sell it, and start development plans.  Most plans require a bunch of paper planning to set the basics.


Like you, I have given up on tile plans and started using the 1 to 10 ratio, and 1 to 20 on sand bunkers (sometimes a bit more)  Whether design build or design bid to a qualified contractor, the standard pattern and amounts have become so well known that there really isn't any point any more.  We often bid projects with "plug in" quantities at the Design Development level, providing green detail plans as we go, since those can best be seen after bulk clearing. Even us plan guys prefer to reduce plans to save money, and then put more time in the field, but leave only the final details to the field.  Sometimes we redraw the early green details, often very sketchy over the existing plans, as construction progresses.


As to someone's comments about shapers never using plans anyway, well......the best comment on it I ever heard was from a shaper that "at least give me the approximate green size and angle of the green, a base elevation, etc. to get me started.  I still believe the angle, shape, and quantities of greens mix (and to a lesser extent sand bunkers) are important.  Sometimes, like when trying to keep the green above the 100 year flood plain, grades can be extremely critical. 


After working with one of your long time shapers in East Texas, I got a feeling about how he never cared to follow plans! LOL.  Finally, I had to tell him to start with plans, and let me adjust.  First green he built was, on plan, a 10K SF green with 4 decks.  His version was a 6500 SF green with a 40% cross slope.  I planned that green specifically to be oddly large for variety.  No way someone other than the architect can wing it, and understand the overall design intent.


I did the hat slam to express my displeasure......then asked him and the foreman for their hats so I could do a "hat trick hat slam."  Those remaining on the job still laugh about it.


And, my experience is closer to Lou and Forrest.  While design-build can save money, the real question for the financial types is "How do we know without a competitive bid?"  For many, its a bigger question now than before.  There is also the "can't wear two hats" question.  When the architect is also the builder responsible for construction cost, what happens when a 20 foot fill is required, but he is behind budget?  Does he favor his wallet or design quality?  Yes, cost plus contracts ( a la Pete Dye) mitigate that somewhat, but 
perception can become reality, and it has for many design builders.
For example, you are touting this method, but have always questioned whether RTJ (and probably many others) were ethical. 


And, the typical architect charges about 5-7% of expected construction cost, usually converted to a lump sum, so there is no question that he profits by running the cost up.  The typical low bid is usually about 1-7% cheaper than second bid (any more than 5% and we start wondering, though).  Better plans usually equal tighter bids.  Presumably the cost evens out somewhere.


As you say, it's just a matter of how much detail you believe can be left until later.  I have never seen the harm in figuring out as much as possible in advance. It seems to be more efficient, but I understand there are different strokes for different folks. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #87 on: January 05, 2018, 09:52:32 AM »

For example, you are touting this method, but have always questioned whether RTJ (and probably many others) were ethical. 


We are not going to change either's mind so I am will just keep doing my thing...As for RTJ..hell,  I never had a question about his ethics.  He did design build but tried to make it look like it was separated out.  Even had two construction companies he owned bidding his work sometimes.  I love it when ethics comes up in this business.  I judge a guys ethics by two things...if he shakes my hand with two hands while not looking me in the eye and then says "let me be honest with you"...that's when I know I have a problem....otherwise ethics is usually just an excuse the loser uses.   
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #88 on: January 05, 2018, 10:10:17 AM »

Mike,


Agree for the most part.  It seems when there is a big job to be had, the losing firms always figure the winner had some in or another.  Of course, they probably did, having earned it through work quality, contacts and marketing.  In our industry, where only a few big jobs come across our desks per year, and the hit rate is perhaps 5-20%, the losses do sting for a while.  And some murmur about ethics playing a part, but in reality, big ethics breaches are few and far between in our field, and usually stand out.


I have always felt someone saying they are going to be honest with me raises the distinct possibility that they often aren't.


Have a good new year.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2018, 10:12:47 AM »
I am (most) always enlightened by the discussion here. This qualifies.

From experience looking at courses that have been created by the "no plans, anytime, anywhere" crowd, I can say that they excel even without plans in most all cases. The exception is, as Jeff B describes, when there has been lots of soil to move. I was involved in a project that eventually fell to another GCA, yet I stayed involved. I was there to "help make decisions and to keep the permits in check..." Not my idea of fun, but I was young and needed the work. When it came time to grade the irrigation reservoir lake my "no plans, anytime, anywhere" counterpart had little clue what to do and winged it with a few shapers using very, very large equipment. The result was awful and I did my best to correct it. Perhaps the worst part of the course, and it unfortunately still exists to confuse even the most seasoned golfer.

The take-a-way is that the "no plans, anytime, anywhere" folks, many times, find themselves punting with a full blitz when they encounter situations where lots of soil needs to be moved. It MAY come out OK, or it may explode.


This is also true in reverse. At a "minimalist" project by one of the most beloved of GCAs here on this discussion group, I witnessed a huge missed opportunity to screen rooftops from several holes on a terrific course — but this was lost because there was no foresight to so so — and there was no foresight to do so because there were no plans — and there were no plans
because this was the mindset. Now, when I say "no plans" I am talking about some level of detail that shows proposed contours and grading. There were plans, they were just loose routing plans and some green/bunker sketches. The result is a great 15 hole course with a few holes where the view is a great commercial for a manufacturer of roofing tile.

Without plans, at least in my world, we have no way to appropriately budget and plan. Funny...that word "plan" has dual meanings... n. and v.
 
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 10:15:53 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2018, 10:31:20 AM »

Forrest,


Yes, mass grading and permits fall into that area that is just best handled well in advance. Cheaper to move a mouse than a bulldozer and several scrapers.  No way you can efficiently figure detention or balance cut and fill in the field.


And you example fits my theme. Maybe there are smarter guys than I, but I believe routing and walking, studying everything that goes into a good design for that site should be started early and often....sort of like Chicago voting!


Of course, I doubt any field architect shows up without pre-thinking the basics that need it.  And all the wanna be architects participating here are dreaming of dream jobs like Pac Dunes, where its pure golf on an ample site, etc.  While TD has had quite a run of these, in reality, unobstructed projects are few and far between for us mere mortal architects.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2018, 10:37:52 AM »

Forrest,


Yes, mass grading and permits fall into that area that is just best handled well in advance. Cheaper to move a mouse than a bulldozer and several scrapers.  No way you can efficiently figure detention or balance cut and fill in the field.


And you example fits my theme. Maybe there are smarter guys than I, but I believe routing and walking, studying everything that goes into a good design for that site should be started early and often....sort of like Chicago voting!


Of course, I doubt any field architect shows up without pre-thinking the basics that need it.  And all the wanna be architects participating here are dreaming of dream jobs like Pac Dunes, where its pure golf on an ample site, etc.  While TD has had quite a run of these, in reality, unobstructed projects are few and far between for us mere mortal architects.

Jeff and Forrest,

I don't disagree with what you are stating above.  HOWEVER,  I have seen and I'm sure you have seen some guys who just tell the developer of such a project to give me an engineer to work out these permit issues and the mass earth moves needed.  then the golf designer/builder just puts the micro on the macro....PD used to do that often.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2018, 10:40:24 AM »
It has been discussed before, but I would be hard-pressed to find the thread. In reality, THIS IS WHAT DIVIDES the two camps here on GCA...

On one side we have the favored designers who rarely use plans, do not like them, poo-poo them and generally think they are a waste of time. Nearly all of their work has been on sites where there is no need or requirement to move material around. (In fact, some of these GCAs will not ever accept an otherwise dictated site.)

On the other we have designers who have spent most of their careers working with projects where large amounts of material has needed to be shifted around in order to create a golf course.

Perhaps this IS the distinction...it all boils down to sites. What is interesting is to know in our modern (post WWII) days is what percentage of courses built have been in each camp; e.g., what is the ratio. I will guess it is close to 1:40, with the larger share being sites that have needed significant material handling due to associated development, floodways, etc.  Whereas the smaller share has been the occasional fresh terrain with little to no encumbered conditions.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Peter Pallotta

Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2018, 10:54:12 AM »
I've been in and around the film/writing industry for many years. If it is in any way analogous to gca:

A 'character' piece, actor-dependent and dialogue rich where the essence/strengths lie in the relationships and in the interactions, needs a very good script - but it doesn't need a 'story-board' (visual or otherwise) and indeed even the script will evolve greatly through the rehearsals and (on set) improvisations and then in editing. With such films, you usually have a 'writer-director' who sees it through from beginning to end.

A 'high concept' piece, on the other hand, painting a 'big picture' story/concept in broader strokes with characters being more 'types' meant to drive the narrative speedily and inexorably forward, and, given this, being dependent on very top-level and precise visuals, a "story-board' is almost essential, as it serves as the puzzle pieces that absolutely must fit together if such a film is to work at all. In such films, not only are the writer and director two different people, but the latter usually doesn't even want the former on the set!

     
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 11:28:13 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2018, 11:01:52 AM »
Peter — Having a daughter who is an actress, I could not agree more. Haley has just finished her 12th film and they have all been different in terms of script and planning. So far she has not done an extremely loose project, but there have been auditions for such and I believe when the time comes she will find this a fun experience...providing the director is up for it!
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2018, 11:05:00 AM »
It has been discussed before, but I would be hard-pressed to find the thread. In reality, THIS IS WHAT DIVIDES the two camps here on GCA...

On one side we have the favored designers who rarely use plans, do not like them, poo-poo them and generally think they are a waste of time. Nearly all of their work has been on sites where there is no need or requirement to move material around. (In fact, some of these GCAs will not ever accept an otherwise dictated site.)

On the other we have designers who have spent most of their careers working with projects where large amounts of material has needed to be shifted around in order to create a golf course.

Perhaps this IS the distinction...it all boils down to sites. What is interesting is to know in our modern (post WWII) days is what percentage of courses built have been in each camp; e.g., what is the ratio. I will guess it is close to 1:40, with the larger share being sites that have needed significant material handling due to associated development, floodways, etc.  Whereas the smaller share has been the occasional fresh terrain with little to no encumbered conditions.

No doubt that is the distinction.  But could we all agree that most of the pre-site preparation is engineering and can either be handled by the golf architect or an outside engineer.  And in most cases an engineer will need to stamp housing development plans and any integration whereby the golf course is a part of the drainage etc.  But they usually stop before they get into 12inch pipe or smaller and give the golf course that freedom.  I think we all know of sites where the land planner did the routing for overall development purposes and an engineer did the big work before some golf pro/designer stepped in. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2018, 11:14:52 AM »
Mike — Disaster to not have the golf course architect involved in pre-engineering/planning. Been there, done that. Sucks.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2018, 11:21:49 AM »
Mike — Disaster to not have the golf course architect involved in pre-engineering/planning. Been there, done that. Sucks.

Forrest,
I did not say to not have him involved.  Of course you do.  BUT most of that BIG work is engineering needed to coordinate course with development etc.  Sure the golf architect will have his opinions and his ideas but for most projects I have done like this the engineering/development drainage/wetlands/flood plains all superceeded the actual golf design.  I have seen it also where some goofy routing a land planner did could be changed and save a few hundred thousand in dirt move which ten gets weigh against lot density.  Oh well...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2018, 11:44:47 AM »
I do not look at it that way. Long ago I designed a course, Coldwater, here in Arizona that involved about 2 million cubic yards of soil to be moved for golf and a community. Every day for a month I drove to the civil engineer's office and we would work together on a large work table — jointly working out any possible logistic you could imagine from earthwork to drainage, and from environmental permitting to power line relocation. Had I not been involved it would have come out looking like an engineer design it and it would have been C+ to D-

Dick Nugnet, who just passed away, was trained as a civil engineer. To many of us, the best background for a golf course architect — besides playing, studying great courses and the work of others — is civil engineering. With this backround we can "cheat the system" and manage the site properly while still creating an exciting and fun golf experience.

When the GCA stands by and allows land planners and engineers to proceed without the golf perspective...ukkk!
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Current trends in Architecture
« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2018, 12:53:34 PM »


Forrest,

Ken and Dick studied landscape architecture at University of Illinois, as did their predecessor RB Harris. They (and from my time there, University of Illinois) just had an engineering bent.  The reason was simple - they felt the landscape architect was devalued if he/she had to turn over too many services to architects and engineers.  Years ago, the well trained gca did the irrigation, sometimes the feasibility study, the land planning (at least RBH) and so forth.  Just as superintendents fight the "Bill Murray" image as something less than top professionals, landscape architects fought and fight the image of being tree and bush folks.   Of course, ASGCA felt similar when founded, and always touted plans, specs, and engineering required for golf courses as an important distinction.   
If Harris or Nugent were still practicing, they would lament projects being "fee'd" to death, starting with irrigation designers, irrigation programmers, land planners, wetland experts, historians, engineers, pro consultants, etc.

Between the world getting more complicated, and even the profession itself is de-valuing the plans approach somewhat now. 
Maybe its the lawyers who advise us, but design contracts now are a few pages of what you will do, and dozens more saying what you won't or can't do for fear of liability.  And certainly, fewer plans (think cart path, drainage and irrigation, where is where things tend to go wrong the most) make for less liability.  Hard to get sued for art, arm waving and the like, but to me, the perception and practice of having more of the big picture problems being solved largely by others, as Mike suggests, is a bit troublesome for gca's.






Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back