This day in Dig it or Dig it Up History - Alister MacK.

[SPDB]

"The jury has reached its verdict: two enormous square voids, set on the spots where the twin towers once stood, will be the centerpiece of the World Trade Center memorial. But now a jury of a different kind must weigh in: the engineers, horticulturists, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who will actually build it."

Transforming the design by Michael Arad and Peter Walker from a rough sketch into what will almost certainly be one of the nation's most popular memorials may require significant changes or at least ingenious solutions to important questions the two architects acknowledge have already surfaced about their seemingly simple composition of water-filled voids in a parklike plaza."

This is from an article last week about the problems that arise from the conceptual to the practical in the design of the WTC memorials. I think it fairly illustrates the point I was trying to make.

This design looks great, but its probably destined for problems, whether it be drainage or a maintenance (i.e. spending maintenance time (and dollars) on a feature that is seldom if ever played).

[T_MacWood]

RJ
Are you sure you aren’t confusing Lake Merced with the Meadow Club which is built upon clay. SFGC is right down the street and it is built upon sand (and incidentally had very similar bunkering). Whatever the material all the bunkers in this picture are elevated…in my highly amateur opinion drainage wouldn’t have been an issue—there is an even better picture in Shackelford’s anthology on golf design.

Sean
I don’t see the correlation between a design concept or conceptual vision (WTC)….and a golf course that was actually constructed (Lake Merced). LM existed, it was a reality. We know it was the victim of a highway project—it is well documented. No need to speculate if the maintenance is going to be an issue or speculate if drainage is going to be a problem, because the golf course was built, either it was or it wasn't. Is there any evidence that LM experienced maintenance or drainage issues?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said:

"No need to speculate if the maintenance is going to be an issue or speculate if drainage is going to be a problem, because the golf course was built, either it was or it wasn't. Is there any evidence that LM experienced maintenance or drainage issues?"

Tom:

With all due respect, SPDB's original question of whether a green surrounded with bunkers in topography like that would be a maintenance and drainage problem is a very good question.

I can't see what your rationale is by saying 'the course was built, either it was or it wasn't'. He wasn't asking if the course was built that way, obviously it was, as we can see in that photo.

Mackenzie built some extremely beautiful and stylish looking architecture, particularly in California, but the question of whether what he did, particularly some of his bunkering, was a maintenance problem or even a maintenance nightmare, is an excellent one!

From the look of a good deal of Cypress's sand waste areas and bunkering, some of Pebble's "artifical dunes" and certainly the bunkering in this photo really does look to be a maintenance issue, perhaps a real maintenance problem or even a maitenance nightmare. Where does the sheet drainage look like it will go? How will the sand areas be expected to be maintained effectively if sheet drainage is occasionally washing across and through them?

This is a excellent question in an historic sense and the answer very well may shed some light on why some of Mackenzie's (and Egan's and the American Construction Co's) architecture did not remain as it was built!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Why I'm responding on this I don't know, but it will be the one and only response tonight, this week, this month.

The green in question would not have a drainage problem at all.

Sean, How many MacKenzie courses have you seen to verify your findings on how unmaintainable his bunkers used to be?

Before Robert Muir Graves destroyed this hole in the early 60's, I believe this hole still existed. In fact, I have in the other room, (which I nether care to dig out, nor care to scan) a book (Thanks Mike!) from the early 50's when it was still in play. It looks as if it had evolved beautifully some 25 years after its construction, still looking as fearful as ever. (George, you seem to be one of the few sporting gentleman in this thread, because I too wish I could have had a chance to play this awesome looking golf hole--from the sand!)

Tom Paul--here is a perfect example, why this thread doesn't work, because of most NOT having knowledge of the site. For those of you that have been there, do you know where this hole was on the site? Mike, Lynn and myself  spent a good portion of time trying to figure it out one wet day, and I think I might have some knowledge where it may have been. The fact is that the hole has been erased from not only existence, but the area sort of totally removed from the routing. Most of you see a downhill hole, when in fact, in TRUE MacKenzie fashion he placed it in a very distinct set of features from the property, from one hill to the next with the low point of the area below the tee. Down there, which you can't see in this picture is, SURPRIZE! a creek bed which crosses the hole.

So, to let you know, the hole is this, From a tee on top of a rather large hill, the land dropped off to a creek rising-up again to the convergence of two lower hills, to a hollow for a green.

For those of you that read about Golf Architecture, (as opposed to those who like to talk about it and are all knowing) I think there is a picture of it from Geoff Shackelford's Masters Of the Links which has the cover of the hole when it was in its youth that was from Pacific Golf & Motor Magazine which will show all of those who really care to see how the hole played.

Simply put, it was a hole of a uphill nature.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Go back and read Sean's comparison between the proposed design of the World Trade Center and this golf hole that was actually built--the one has maintenance record, the other is simply a proposal. Did LM have a maintenance problem?

The bunkers at LM have no relationship to the bunkers you cite at Pebble Beach--apples and oranges. By the way do you know when and why the bunkers at PBGL were changed?

[SPDB]

Tom M. -
Like Tom P said, I'm not arguing whether it can be built or not. Nor was the article about the WTC memorial. But what happens when the reflecting pools the designer included freeze over in the winter?

How do you know so much about Friar's Head?

Tommy -
You would think from the tone of your response that I was talking about your mother. But the reason why this thread works is because you responded.

[JakaB]

Why I'm responding on this I don't know, but it will be the one and only response tonight, this week, this month.

For those of you that read about Golf Architecture, (as opposed to those who like to talk about it and are all knowing)

Come Tommy my friend..tell us what got your panties in a bunch..

[TEPaul]

"Did LM have a maintenance problem?"

Tom MacW:

That's the question, isn't it"?

"The bunkers at LM have no relationship to the bunkers you cite at Pebble Beach--apples and oranges. By the way do you know when and why the bunkers at PBGL were changed?"

The bunkers at Pebble, LM and Cypress have no real relationship to each other in the context of this discussion except how much of a maintenance issue any of them may have been.

Do I know when and why the Egan's "artifical dunes" bunkers were changed? Not really except what I've gathered from a few general discussions about them with someone like GeoffShac et al. From that the feeling seems to be, unfortunately, it was felt back then they were a pain in the ass to maintain and they were done away with eventually.

Also the correspondence between Mackenzie and Morse in which Morse somewhat tries to negotiate a real disagreement between Mackenzie and the Pebble greenskeeper could shed some light on this subject. It appears Hunter may have been brought in to negotiate somewhat of an agreement to bring Egan in more than previously. Do you know who built those "artifical dunes" bunkers at Pebble? Do you think perhaps it may have been Hunter's American Construction Co--the same company that built the bunkers of Cypress Point?

[TEPaul]

I wouldn't be concerned with maintenance and drainage problems with those bunkers on the left if that hole was from a high point through a creek to a green that was somewhat raised from the creek.

What I would be concerned with from a maintenance and drainage standpoint with those bunkers on the left of that green is if sheet drainage flowed across them profusely and if they were at a substantial left to right angle in relation to that green and if they were higher than the green. I'm not sure anyone is questioning if that green drains properly or is easily maintainable--I think the question is the bunkering on the left.

Maybe that photo is some kind of real distortion or optical illusion but it sure looks to me like those bunkers on the left are set on a rather steep left to right hillside going right at that green. I've never seen that original hole in person but from that photo I could see those bunkers having sheet drainage coming off the hillside above them and running across and through them (down onto the green) thereby creating a maintenance problem.

But maybe not. All I know is that photo looks like those bunkers are set on a left to right hillside and slope above that green and that water generally seeks the lowest point.

Whether it's that way or not I still can't see how this question is dealt with by simply saying the hole was built and that's the end of it. I've seen a whole lot of otherwise good holes that had drainage problems with bunkers or whatever and consequently maintenance problems. Again, I'm not saying this one did or that I know anything about it's drainage and maintenance history only that it looks to me like it certainly could've had drainage problems through those bunkers and maintenance problems becasuse of that.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

JakaB,
I want miles to go before I sleep.

Sean, Dick and others,
This is a golf hole that does not exist in any way or form anymore. No part of it is in the current routing, also from memory, yes Dick, the creek was further filled-in, but much of the hillside you see was shaved-down. I would suspect it was used for fill for the creek below.

The hole, from the several pictures I have seen of it, shows exactly as Tom MacWood has stated: The picture on the opening of this thread was taken high above a hill; it dropped down to the creek and then climbed back up between the two hills and into a hollow where the putting surfaced was located. From the images, ALL of the bunkers were in play, although all were flaired for the dramatic in true MacKenzie fashion-the man wanted you to think, unlike others today who want to lead you to water and then force-feed it to you. (controlled golf) In all of the images I have seen of the hole from difering times during its existence--they all showed the MacKenzie bunkering holding its true form. In fact, it looked cleaner in the earlier images because it had a chance to evolve until the killer of many great golf courses here on the West Coast destroyed it. I can't imagine what was going through his mind when he allowed it--no matter how many people want to blame the membership. Another place, another time is his only excuse, and its a poor one at that. From my weak and fading memory, the tee for this hole was somwhere in back of #7 green, and was easy to see that nothing was left to reclaim. Lord knows Ree........Forget it!

As far as the hole draining, well, as much rain as the Bay Area gets, coupled with the images shown from the date mentioned, I don't think it had a problem. That is until a freeway decided to forever alter the club's existence. If it hadn't, I would suspect that most of you would have kidnapped Mike Golden.

Sean, now that I think of it, that image shown on the first page maybe one I scanned and gave to Ran some years back. It is from the 1950's. I believe the Pacific Coast Golf & Motor Magazine issue that has this on the cover was from like 1933.

[tonyt]

We can talk all we like about the maintenance cost of this bunkering.

But at the end of the day, I have some beautiful wall photos of early Hirono at home, which never fail to evoke a tear or shiver from the true golf loving visitor to my house or myself. Great holes without the bunkering, but the bunkering is the first and most substantial cause of our emotional "moment" when eyes are laid on these photos.

When they are done well, by a good archie, Give me crinkles  

[T_MacWood]

TE
In Sean's hypothetical arguement he says the bunkers at LM should be dug up, his reason, they are a maintenance nightmare. I'm still waiting for proof.

You are right MacKenzie built stylish bunkers in California, and in Georgia, Australia and elsewhere. Tillinghast built some pretty stylish bunkers less than block from Lake Merced - were they a maintenance nightmare? If they were, the club has accepted the nightmare and decided not to dig them up. Perhaps Sean would recommend SFGC dig their's up too?

Could you explain to me the correlation between a conceptual proposal for the World Trade Center and the old 17th hole at Lake Merced?

Sheet drainage, I'm affraid you lost me there. I'm not a hydrology expert...but I am contemplating a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Sean
All I know about Friar's Head is from the articles I've read and comments from friends who have played the course or who are members (and of course the numerous articles you posted when the club was battling for its survival and things were looking quite bleak). Why?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

I see the problem you're having on this thread with SPDB; You probably think the discussion here is only about whether bunkering that looks like that photo on page 1 should be dug up if it had drainage and maintenance problems. Maybe that's what SPDB is saying and implying but I'm not.

I'm simply interested in knowing if bunkering like that had maintenance problems because of how it was constructed or where it was constructed. I've also wondered if some of Mackenzie's bunkering at Cypress had maintenance problems and the same goes for Egan's "artificial dunes" bunkers at Pebble.

Why do I wonder that? Well, first of all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think of the look of those bunkers. To me they're undeniably and incredibly beautiful looking--a beautiful aesthetic although often quite stylized in a natural sense. But just looking at them they appear to be almost too fragile, almost too precarious sometimes in where they appear to be placed and how they're placed to withstand the forces of nature its wind and water to survive without tremendous maintenance dedication. Tremendous maintenance dedication takes time, it takes a good deal of money generally involving a good deal of repair over time.

If you have GeoffShac's book on Cypress just look at those early photos (with Mackenzie playing golf) of the sand areas so closely juxtaposed to the turf areas and look how low-profile and almost fragile some of them look. Just looking at that architecture despite its fascinating high style and beauty I'd fear that eventually (or at any time) wind and water would play havoc with it. Wind and water playing havoc with architecture like that is what maintenance problems are generally made of.

Why did bunkering that looks like that get changed and not last? I'm really not sure Tom, but I'm sure some research could give us some accurate answers. That's basically the question here to me.

If bunkering such as Egan's "artificial dunes" at Pebble were an on-going maintenance issue I'm sure that could rather easily be determined by club records or some other source etc. The same at Cypress. My sense with some Cypress sand waste areas is it was simply allowed to vegetate over to a large extent for stability and preservation. Other areas of  sand even more formulized bunkering may have had wind and water play havoc with them.

Did Mackenzie, Hunter, Egan or the American construction Co expect or foresee issue or this evolution? Did they expect that some of those bunkers and sand waste areas needed to vegetate for stability or be strengthened and inured to natural forces? Did they warn the clubs that some of the more formal bunkers like the ones to the left of the green in the photo on this thread would need extra maintenance care and dedication? Or were they perhaps not concerned about that or even aware of it? These are some of the things I'd like to know.

It's certainly not lost on me that a man such as Max Behr wrote specifically about the structural integrity of golf architecture. He premised his assumptions and conclusions that if man-made golf architectural features closely mimiced the lines and formations of nature they'd have increased inherent structural integrity and that they'd last better against the forces of nature and consequently cost less to maintain and result in what he termed "Permanent Architecture".

But at least I surely do hope that this discussion does not get shut down or diverted because someone wants to assume or promote the belief that some of the well respected architects of that time could never build something that had anything less than total structural integrity and never had maintenance problems.

A good example of problematic maintenance issues would be PVGC's original fronting bunkering on #2 and #18. It was expansive and awesome looking at first, with sand sweeping up more vertically against the inclines to those greens but it had no real structural integrity and kept collapsing. In the case of #2 it took the front of the green with it when it finally collapsed for the last time before the bunkering on both holes was redesigned for structural integrity against the forces of wind and water.

As for sheet drainage Tom, it's a term and a fact you do need to know to have an intelligent and informed discussion on maintenance issues to do with drainage and golf architecture. If they teach something to do with "sheet drainage" at Holliday Inn Express then by all means check in at once!  

[SPDB]

People have got to calm down. Because something is posed in a thread doesn't automatically mean it is being asserted as fact. If it wasn't clear in my original post, that's my fault, but let me clarify - I've never seen or played Lake Merced. There, that should qualify everything I wrote/write.

Tom - the analogy to the WTC article still is valid. It merely illustrates that there is often times a discrepancy between what is conceived and what is practicable. That it was built is not prima facie evidence that it won't encounter problems in practice, i.e. that these bunkers were built doesn't automatically mean they will drain properly or will not be expensive and time consuming to maintain.

Similarly, designing a memorial to include reflecting pools or fountains can easily be built, but that doesn't mean it is going to run into complications in the winter - as this photo of the FDR Memorial in D.C. amply illustrates:



Even if it wasn't the case at LM that the hole was scrapped because of maintenance issues, I think the question in the abstract is worth discussing. If bunkers serve no strategic purpose and are merely added for style but are costly to maintain, you can understand how a club rationalizes their narrowing or elimination. It is useful discussion to see the root causes of course alteration, and helps a club in choosing whether or not to restore such hazards.

[George Pazin]

Sean -

Interesting that you admonish others to calm down whilst casting aspersions on others' posts....

As to your point re: superfluous bunkers, to me it's pretty simple - if it is indeed a major maintenance headache, I can see foregoing them. If someone is just complaining about a little extra hard work, I think the result is worth it. I don't think they are automatically out of play for everyone, I don't think you have to eliminate all challenges for the lesser golfer who might end up in them and I find the result quite aesthetically pleasing. I'd say the same thing if TF or Rees designed 'em.

[SPDB]

George -
Where are these aspersions? Don't incite a riot.

[T_MacWood]

TE
The reason the bunker at LM did not last is well documented and it had nothing to do with drainage or maintenance. See Tommy's post regarding the photo of the bunkers in the 1950's and the highway project that resulted in the course being redesigned by Graves. Less than a block away SFGC would be a better example for you to investigate.

I'm certain MacKenzie understood the ramifications of his bunker style....after all he had been designing similar bunkers since Alwoodley (1907). As an astute observer of Nature he would have appreciated how dunes change over time. The original creations are beautiful, but the evolved bunkers are equally beautiful IMO. The general haphazard outline and 3-D quality has remained decades later--the same could be said for Thomas, Thompson, Alison and others with similar styles.

I'm not a Behr expert, but I don't believe he spoke of permanent architecture from a structural integrity point of view. His theory was that artificial hazards were more likely to be changed, because they were unnatural. Natural hazards--because they are part of Nature (even when they are man-made)--would be consciously (or even subconsciously) accepted and therefore would not be changed. He goes on to relate Art with aesthetics and nature, and permanance...but it has nothing to do structural integrity...that is the way I understand it.

Sean
Its not good analogy because the WTC design is a working design. Not only is the design not built, it is still in the design process. The designers are prudent...they are exploring the challanges of the medium they have selected, before a finalizing their design and construction can begin. They are trying to avoid their memorial being dug up.

The FDR memorial is a bad example, it was designed for the cold. In fact IMO it most beautiful in the winter when the water feature begin to freeze. In the event the water features completely freeze....they can simply turn it off temporarily. Perhaps a minor maintenance issue, but no damage done, not a dangerous situation...no need to dig it up.

If you are using these examples to illustrate the consequences of poor design (and that MacKenzie's design for 17 was poor design)...I believe you failed. If anything your examples illustrate how practical design and beautiful design are equally important to good designers...and MacKenzie track record as a good designer IMO is also apparent.

Now you appear to being saying that not only should the 17th at LM be dug up because it was a maintenance problem, but also that the bunkers served no strategic purpose and were merely added for style...you are obviously not a student of MacKenzie.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Does somone have to be an uncritical apologist to be a student of someone or something?  I was a student of Joyce many years ago, and I can (or at least could) argue about the value of some of his techniques and theories, and even his style.  I might have been wrong, but I surely had the right to try to make those arguments.  Does one have to give MacKenzie unconditional love before one can be a "student" of his work?  For all I know, Sean may be a more competent student of MacKenzie than you, or Tom Doak or even Tom Huckaby.  I, for one, am interested in learning from what both he and you wish to say.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not a Behr expert, but I don't believe he spoke of permanent architecture from a structural integrity point of view."

Tom MacW:

That is most assuredly not the case.

It's true that one of Behr's primary points or premises was that golf architecture (man-made or natural) that consciously (or unconsciously) appeared to be natural to a golfer would logically be something a golfer would face less critically than some obstacle he perceived was put before him by another man (architect)--eg patently man-made architecture.

However, Behr also wrote specifically about the structural integrity of created architecture. He believed man-made architecture should mimic the structurally sound lines of nature or it would not last and this primarily had to do with analyzing the forms of nature which best weathered natural forces, partiuclarly drainage.

Please refer to Charles Ambrose's article "Golf---and the Landscape" in Golf Illustrated March 4, 1927 (No.22---American Notions). It's primarily about Behr and his theory on the structural integrity of man-made golf architecture. There's enough to quote from Behr himself but this from Ambrose should suffice;

"Mr. Behr has a theory that all concave work, as such, is inherently weak, and that all convex work, on the contrary, stands for strength."

There's no question that Behr's theory on "Permanent Architecture" involved the natural "look" of architecture, whether natural or man-made, but it also very much included his ideas on the structural integrity of architecture (to be considered more permanent architecture).

Too bad you missed that because it involves approximately one half his overall premise on his theory on "Permanent Architecture".

   

[T_MacWood]

TE
Where does Behr relate his ideas of permanance to structural integrity?

[ForkaB]

Tom P

That "convex=good, concave=bad" concept of Behr's is GOOD!  I shudder to think of how many words it took him to say it, but your precis tells me that whatever he said, he was onto something.  There was something similar in one of the golf magazines I read on my recent flights to and from the states.  It showed what happened to shots which landed short of a hyopthetical green, depending on whether or not the run up was flat, convex or concave, and also depending on the accuracy of the distance control of the hitter (i.e. short, "right on" and long.  It showed that the convex "hazard" gave generally greater variability in results, which, I , at least, think is good.  Not to mention maintenance problems or convex structures, of course......

[George Pazin]

Rich -

I'm a little confused by your last post. You say convex is good, concave is bad, yet your example says concave yields greater variability, which is good. Were you fingers working faster than your thoughts? I think the article you're referring to was a Dave Pelz article where he said to aim for valleys (concave) because there was less variability in the result. (As an aside, I don't think TM is trying to stifle discussion from Sean, merely point out why he feels he's wrong in this instance. How would you propose addressing something you feel is incorrect?)

Sean -

The snide remarks regarding FH. You stated Mackenzie's bunker was torture on the super - Tom merely asked if it ws any more difficult to maintain than bunkers at FH, SFGC, etc. No need to have played FH to ask that question and your repeated question smacks of the "if you haven't played it you can't comment" faulty mentality. Sorry if I read too much into it.

[ForkaB]

George

Thanks for trying to keep me on my toes, but I think you misread what I said!

I said convex was good and my example was about the "good" results (greater variability) from a convex structure, (same observation as Pelz, different conclusion due to diffferent purposes/attitudes).  Where I did get it wrong in typing too fast was in my last snetence.  What I meant to say was ".......maintenance problems of CONCAVE structures."

I never said nor implied that Tom MacW was trying to stifle discussion.  I just said that he was mistaken in strongly implying that because Sean had a different opinion on the quality of some of MacKenzie's bunkering, Sean could not possibly be a "student" of MacKenzie.  Does someone wanting to be a student of Lenin have to believe that everything that Lenin said was true, and everything he did was commendable?  I think not.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP, Rich and Tom MacW:

In my opinion, these essays of Behr's or the articles of Ambrose when he talks about Behr's ideas on the structural integrity of golf architecture (concave is inherently weak and convex is inherently strong) need to be looked at in their entirety.

The reason for that is Behr's essays which are based on his theories of architecture are a series of a priori reasoning. In other words, he mentions various assumptions (generally cause and effect) and goes about trying to prove them to reach a conclusion. That conclusion then becomes the basis from which he begins to make other assumptions and reach another conclusion etc, etc.

In laymen's terms regarding this subject at hand---maintenance and drainage problems and/or the structural integrity of architecture---Behr is not exactly saying that concave is bad or convex is good, he's merely saying that convex is necessary for structural integrity due to the destructive forces of the elements of nature--eg wind and water. He's not even saying that concavity in golf architecture cannot be used, he's merely saying that an "overlay" of convexity needs to protect concavity in particularly a draingage sense (sometimes viewed as the destructive force of running water).

Behr often mentions that the "look" of nature (natural lines in architecture even if man-made) will appeal more to the conscious (or unconsious) mind of the golfer but he also develops why some natural lines withstand the forces of nature better than other natural lines (convexity better than concavity).

This is really all about drainage in the end. Bunkers, for instance (generally low concave spots), need convex forms around them to protect them from the destructive forces of water running through them (sheet drainage). Water has weight and water (weight) in motion tends to seek the lowest spots (concavity) and to destroy things such as concave sand bunkers and such!

Behr's ideas on "Permanent Architecture" were based on golf architecture mimicing the lines of nature to still criticism from the golfer who Behr figured would be more inclined to accept what looked natural rather than what looked man-made but that when an architect went about constructing such things he should fully understand what natural forces do to various landforms (concave and convex) and why!

Behr recognized that what was more often destroyed by natural forces needed to be repaired more often also---that cost more money and if it did it was not as likely to remain as permanent. After a while, he figured man would grow tired of repairing it and would be more inclined to change it (redesign) to something he would not have to repair as often--eg something with more structural integrity!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I believe I have read most of Behr's essays, including the essay in which he discusses permanance.....where does he discuss structural integrity within his theory of permanance?