Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Grant Saunders on September 02, 2007, 04:18:05 AM
-
Building a new course requires a careful interaction of give and take between both of these parties. Im curious as to which one people perceive as having to make the greater compromises.
The final result is reliant on a balance of the two. However, during the construction there are times where decisions are made which fall in favour of one or the other. Some examples could be: Large areas of steep banks that require hand mowing, hollows that collect water and require extra drainage/renovation, multi-tiered or undulating greens that minimise hole locations and promote excess wear on certain areas etc.
Certainly there are occasions where the integrity of a hole and what the architect is trying to impart necessitate that a certain feature or area be constructed to their requirement. The reverse applies where agronomic pressures(maintenance budget, staff numbers, soil conditions, climate, numbers of rounds per year etc) dictate that design principals be sympathetic to the long term success of the course.
A well conceived project undoubtedly take these factors into consideration and within the planning stages seeks to undertake the architecture/agronomy relationship as early as possible.
With the high number of architects and superintendents on this site, it should be interesting to see the views represented from both sides.
-
I was a head greenkeeper before I moved into architecture and I find the whole process of Architecture vs Agronomy an ongoing question during the design and construction period. In many cases both aspects can be fully satisfied, I have compromised either way.
Tees backed into woodland.... Do you remove the trees or not put the tee there? Tees look nice, play nice out of trees, but growing grass is a struggle. I favour the nice tee inthe woods.
Green design, do I place a bunker in a position where it concentrates traffic movements to the next tee.. I favour the easy access to the next tee.
Without wishing to slag off Pros that become designers a common fault is that they do not think enough about how a golf course is to be maintained and so think too much about pure design as if it will only be play for a very limited number of rounds.
An important consideration is how many rounds are you designing for, also the construction and maintenance budgets.
The whole thing is a balance, probably in 90% of cases it works well for both but for the 10% it needs some serious thought and I am sure there are many 'supers' that visit this site that have some stories of some major design flaws that cause headaches to maintenance when a little more thought givento how something is going to perform in the field could have prevented the problem.
-
Golf design has gone from “design with maintenance in consideration” to a view that most architects could care less about how the course is maintained after construction. Architects are paid to create buzz and recreate/create a design concept.
If you try to accommodate maintenance than the following occurs:
1. Bunker faces become flatter and the sand shape becomes rounded. This allows for more mowing by sit down rotary mowers and less string trimmer and hand work.
2. Mounding and “chocolate drops” are built bigger with smoother, rounded shapes to accommodate rotary mowers.
3. Greens become bigger to accommodate triplex mowers. The transition from the green collar to the surrounding rough gets flattened out so that the triplex mowers turn without dropping off the side.
4. Fairways become flatter without strong grade changes to allow for close mowing of the fairway turf.
I think that many architects come in to a new course or renovation and they could care less about the cost to maintain the results. Superintendents can counter this by inputting increased maintenance budget numbers to pay for steep bunkers, small greens, etc. during the Master Plan process. This can work because the club will understand that they will need to carry a bigger maintenance budget number for post construction maintenance.
-
Golf design has gone from “design with maintenance in consideration” to a view that most architects could care less about how the course is maintained after construction. Architects are paid to create buzz and recreate/create a design concept.
If you try to accommodate maintenance than the following occurs:
1. Bunker faces become flatter and the sand shape becomes rounded. This allows for more mowing by sit down rotary mowers and less string trimmer and hand work.
2. Mounding and “chocolate drops” are built bigger with smoother, rounded shapes to accommodate rotary mowers.
3. Greens become bigger to accommodate triplex mowers. The transition from the green collar to the surrounding rough gets flattened out so that the triplex mowers turn without dropping off the side.
4. Fairways become flatter without strong grade changes to allow for close mowing of the fairway turf.
I think that many architects come in to a new course or renovation and they could care less about the cost to maintain the results. Superintendents can counter this by inputting increased maintenance budget numbers to pay for steep bunkers, small greens, etc. during the Master Plan process. This can work because the club will understand that they will need to carry a bigger maintenance budget number for post construction maintenance.
Ray - I think MOST architects do care about the points you make, you can certainly create nice looking golf courses that can still have a low cost base to keep, of the points you make its only the real jagged bunkers that perhaps add significant costs, large greens can still have plenty of movement and interest in them, out of play areas can have less cost that keeping vast areas cut. I can only speak for myself but when I 'break' an agronomic rule or good principle I make that decsion by giving the whole thing a lot of thought.
-
Grant,
As they say, its not nice to fool Mother Nature. Also, its damn near impossible!
That, in combination with the fact that I rarely, if ever, have client who tells me "design what you want, we have no problem spending thousands each year rebuilding, resodding, re something to maintain your design" makes me consider agronomic aspects early in the design.
Yes, there are some compromises made. However, there is always more than one way to design a good hole, so I try not to get stuck on one that isn't practical. I figure its better to design something that stands a chance of surviving, and believe if it can't be maintained, it will be changed eventually.
That should extend mostly to turf choice, green and tee construction method and contours (steep contours are just harder to keep well) and shade/air movement.
It also extends to a lesser degree to double fw - I figure that there will be another gas shortage, such as experienced in WWII or the depression, and note that many clubs eliminated all extraneous features, like double fw, figuring one should be enough. However, I like double fw, so I keep doing them, abeit less often.
I usually end up with at least a few greens per course with great contour, but try to put them in good environments to help their growth.
I always clear trees to the east side of tees and greens. If you see a tree near one of my greens, you can bet its on the west or north sides.
There is more of course, but I have to go. Generally, I believe if a gca doesn't consider such things, he is really just playing in the dirt, and not giving the client the benefit of "professional golf course architecture" that they are presumably paying for.
-
Architecture vs. agronomy seems to say that the two are in conflict when I don't think that has to be the case.
Conflict usually involves egos more than professions and I think the architect/superintendent relationship can be very strong if both share the same goals.
A bigger problem that I have seen is when the client requests a certain type of course that requires a large budget and lots of hand work only to trim back the budget once he realizes that the folks he hired to do the pro forma didn't have a clue.
At that point the super, often not the original guy, points the finger at the design as the cause of poor conditioning when in fact the architect delivered what the client requested.
-
Don,
I fully agree with your point of view. This is something that happens time and again with new build and Renovation work. The type of design depends on how much time and finances the client has.
Most clients unfortunately don't really understand the long term consequences and allow there desire to have what they feel to be the ultimate design to cloud there common sense.
On the other hand many Supers often take a negative stance to changes. It is a fact that what makes a course interesting to play is usually more challenging to maintain. If the Super is agronomist first and golfer second then this will work against an interesting design.
IMO it is the GCA job to design the most interesting course possible taking into consideration the budgets for the build and maintenance, the land he has to work with, the climate and the expected amount of traffic.
It is the Supers job to present the course in its most interesting form to play. This does not necessarily mean the best possible sward nor the neatest course.
-
"A bigger problem that I have seen is when the client requests a certain type of course that requires a large budget and lots of hand work only to trim back the budget once he realizes that the folks he hired to do the pro forma didn't have a clue.
At that point the super, often not the original guy, points the finger at the design as the cause of poor conditioning when in fact the architect delivered what the client requested"
This is an excellent point Don.
Many times the construction/grow-in superintendent does leave either prior to opening or very soon after. The replacement is thrust into the position of taking on the teething problems that all new projects encounter often in a unpleasant environment as reality can take hold and projected incomes not realised. Here begins the downward spiral of trade offs within maintenance that then reflect on the course developer, architect, superintendent, staff etc.
Do architects take the word of the client as gospel when designing a course and incorporate elements and features that require the maximum staff/budget, as quoted by the client, to maintain? Or do they make allowances for the potential scaling back of resources devoted to the upkeep of the course. Maintenance/presentation are factors within the criteria for golf course rankings and if this area is lacking it can reflect negatively on the course and its designer. Highly ranked past projects boost that architects future prospects yet much of the ranking result is dictated by the clients continued devotion to the initial concept.
-
Adrian-Your background in golf superintending allows you to incorporate maint. in your golf design philosophy, which is a great tool.
My point is based on the large majority of golf architects who come into the golf business from a non-superintendent perspective such as golf pro, landscape architect etc. My background is also as a superintendent and I notice that when work is proposed/done by architects in new or renovation work, the potential maint. headaches are low on the list of architect priorities. I have heard the statement "the superintendent gets paid to manage what we give him-it's his problem not mine" more than a few times.
Many, but not all architects are more concerned with architectural authenticity, dramatic statement, and playability.
-
Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.
I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.
For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)
-
Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.
I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.
For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)
Grant:
I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is. Am I "making concessions" in my work? Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?
Are we architects really too insistent? I suppose that sometimes we are. But there are two sides to that coin. It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do. I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are. The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.
I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though. We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.
-
Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.
I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.
For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)
I dont think the question or answer has really changed, but its more about budgetting for 1) the build cost and 2) the after cost. Personally my projects have always been small so I have had to factor those things into the design and perhaps think more about what and how is a bank, slope going to be maintained...by the large the lesser it costs to maintain the more averagey or flat its going to be, equally if something is unmaintained it can be rugged.
-
One of the common themes I found on the better projects I was a part of was a solid superintendent/architect relationship. There has to be a little give and take by both sides of this team. The architect needs to have an understanding of the maintenance challenges to know how a golf course will grow and play as it matures. A superintendent needs to have an understanding of how the architect wants the course to play to maintain it properly. It takes both sides working together along with solid construction for a project to flow and create great golf.
-
Yes, I have been called back to half a dozen of my boom year courses with the same goal - reduce the footprint and severity of bunkers.
At GIS, I was speaking to Mark Mungeam about how the late Geoff Cornish used to write of the "Design Triangle" and the balance of maintenance, playability and aesthetic needs in design. Frankly, no one has used that term in years, but it was once a staple of design. If it was a muni course, you were expected to lean more towards maintenance, and the triangle was quite lopsided in that direction.
By the late 90's, the triangle seemed lopsided to play and aesthetic factors as every course was designed for "the look" and "best new" or "top 100" awards. Yes, I was guilty, too.
It was helped along by the mfgs who did start making new equipment that mowed or raked tighter radii and steeper slopes. Steep banks and bunkers seem to be the thing that really slow down maintenance and drive up costs, even with these new pieces of equipment, because they didn't actually save money, they just drove up expectations of what could be done towards perfection.
Frankly, only 10% of the world's new courses should have a lopsided triangle in the play or asethetic directions, or at least, the aesthetic side should find some maintenance friendly ways to accomplish aesthetic goals (and minimalism does this quite nicely, IMHO, in most cases)
-
One thing that is never really covered is Super turnover. Every super has different ideas and something that is no big deal to one is a huge problem to another. There have been many times when you sit down with a Super and go over ideas and concerns and get it all figured out, only to see a new guy come in and wonder "what the hell were they thinking". It's aslo nice when it goes the otherway. From an architects point of view, there is almost nothing worse than getting thrown under the bus when a consensus was reached. Especially when it happens in absentia and not only can you not defend yourself but you hear it third-hand and not knowing how many other people have heard it and taken it for Gospel.
The actual "maintenance" of the golf course features is actually a small percentage of the overall maintenance budget. Many have no idea how much it costs to make one application of chemicals or fertilizer. How often are the fairways and roughs mowed. Are clipping collected or dispersed? What the maintenance expense of the irrigation system is, etc.
Where I have seen Architectual No-No's usually stem from things like "how do you get a sprayer on that green? Where do you turn it around? Doesn't that mounding interfere with the boom? There's only one, if you are lucky, places to get in and out of a bunker with a sand pro. Tees too small to triplex. Tee banks too steep to get up with equipment. Cart paths that have too many tight curves leading to worn edges.
While it seems to be fair game to criticise the design aspects, I have rarely ever had a GM come to me and say "show us how to knock 20% off our maintenance expenditures". Once, early in my career, I had a GM ask if I knew anyone who could do that. I called a veteran super (Several top 100's) who had a maintenance management company and told me "don't walk, RUN! - nothing will get you blacklisted amoungst Supers faster than that." Needless to say he wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.
-
Tim,
Yeah, it would be interesting to add to the list of design things Golf Course Architects could do for supers. Here is my additions to your brief list, based on stuff I hear, or do, to better accomodate supers. As you mention, opinions vary quite a bit.
Green Access – Sprayers, Mowers, etc.
o <5% slope, no cross slope
o No 33% mound slopes (at least without transition)
o Turn around space between green and bunker
Green Access – Golfers
o (maybe one foot per thousand rounds wide, near back to help circulation
o <5% slope, virtually no cross slope
o If possible, drain green away from golfer walk on areas
Green Approach
o Sand cap and herringbone tile, if possible
o Adjust sprinklers so part circles don’t all stop at same place, causing over watering
• Bunkers for Sand Pro (actually not as important, as liners usually means hand raking)
Bunkers
More than one place to get sand pro in and out of a bunker
o Match turning radius of sand pro (now about 6 feet, used to be 10’ or more)
o Match turning radius of bank mowers or make “nose width” one mower width
o Build flat enough to reduce sand wash in every rain (varies by region)
o Cut off ALL uphill drainage from washing down slopes
o Tile, tile, tile
Tees
o Match turning radius to triplex. Now usually 8’, 10’ preferred
o Rounded, not square edges (this varies from super to super, but round is easier to mow
o Tee banks gentle enough to mow (usually 3:1 okay, if there is a transition)
o Where possible, combine tees – large tee surfaces quicker to mow than several small ones.
Cart paths
o Minimum radius allows truck to drive 15MPH
o Minimum radius of intersections about 55’ (allows carts to max out speed and stay on path)
o Curbing at tees and greens (and don’t skimp)
o Drains/careful grading to keep them dry so when tires go off, turf isn’t messed up)
o Build with enough strength to last……..
Fairways
o Don’t build them excessively wide. They cost more per acre to maintain, so 30 acres is better than 45 acres
o Cut of drain flows that cross fairway to minimize drainage problems
o Make sure irrigation covers them well
Roughs
o Minimize in favor of natives to reduce irrigation
o Make sure irrigation covers them well
o Reduce mounds to increase mowing productivity
Trees
o Clear wide enough from critical areas (at least height of tree)
o No trees on east sides of tees, greens, heavy circulation areas
No tree roots near greens, tees, paths
-
Grant:
I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is. Am I "making concessions" in my work? Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?
Are we architects really too insistent? I suppose that sometimes we are. But there are two sides to that coin. It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do. I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are. The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.
I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though. We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.
Tom
Perhaps my questions are worded wrongly as I dont intend it to be adversarial. It may also be too that this probably isnt the best group to put the question to as I am probably preaching to the converted. Your comment about green size is kind of what I was looking for though.
Maybe the question should address the architecture industry as a whole. Has there been a shift amongst those who traditionally have been known for overly induldgent designs to reign in some of their ideas and be more sensitive to the ongoing cost of maintenance.
I am certainly not absolving supers of any wrongdoing as I feel they should shoulder a large (if not the largest) part of the blame for the current level of resources being committed to maintenance.
Jeff
Thanks for your reply and your list is very interesting.
Do you, and the architects, feel architecture and the realtionship with maintenance is understood well enough by supers or is it something that should be focused upon more in education?
What would be your number one point that you wish supers would be more understanding of?
Conversely, what do supers wish that architects would consider when designing a course?
-
TD,
Yes, I should have added "build greens (and tees) no larger than necessary (for the most part, one or two exceptions isn't bad) to keep intense mowing, irrigiation and inputs to a minimum. I guess the same could be said about sand bunkers. Oh well, there go those large waste bunkers so many built a decade or so ago....
Grant,
I would say supers know instantly when we build something that isn't within their usual way of doing things or done easily with their proposed or existing equipment list.
One example from my last visit to Sand Creek, the super pointed out that one particular "zig zag" in a bunker shape stopped that one from being 100% machine mowable on the banks. I game him permisstion to take out that reverse curve. I mean really, if that six inches happens to cost him an extra guy every other day, is it worth it for any particular "look" on a free form bunker? I doubt it on a mid level public course that has been quite well recieved for its overall design nature.
I think supers would think architects should consider my whole list above! They may accept that sometimes, the rules must bend, but they would want the archie to at least be cognizant of how much those little things affect their maintenance ops.
There is nothing on that list that really stands out as more important, but if I had to pick, anything to do with the micro climates, like tree clearing, siting greens in deep valleys, etc. would take priority. As mentioned early in this thread, bad micro climate = impossible to maintain, and a green cannot be a little pregnant - when the conditions are bad, the green usually goes out completely, although some just struggle for years. As it happens, some of the prettiest green sites - down by creeks, in deep woods, happen to create the most agronomic problems.
-
Grant - I would say many architects are the ones that need greater educating so they can respect how the course will function when built.
I think the ones on here do think, its the architects that can only think about how a hole will play that need to learn, it is a balance of doing whats best for golf and best for turf. In some situations there can be absolutely no compromise and you must do whats best for the agronomy, some situations change with where they are on the planet, but in the UK and Northern Europe the architect that restricts traffic from green to next tee by chanelling the walk offs to a small area is a bad golf course architect, full stop. Theres a lot to put in the mix and its not a one size fits all, the amount of rounds anticipated will dictate certain levels of architecture, the intention of how to mow the greens will be another, often its the change from pedstrian to triplex that will cause a problem...the archie might get the blame when really he designed for something different, the client will give us his spec or perhaps between archie and client you work out the spec.
Supers are there to maintain the turf to the best they can, they will only alter the architecture by direction or by a feature which inhibits and impairs their work, their job is different and their methods will be different depending on how much cash they have to spend.
-
Adrian,
Well said. I go so far as to say that gca's who only consider play qualities - and only play of the tour pros or low handicappers, without understanding the agronomics, average players, etc. are just "playing in the sand box."
The point of hiring a gca used to be (and still is, even if many don't know it) to build a golf course that functions well in all areas, and do it in an efficient manner.
-
"Design Triangle" and the balance of maintenance, playability and aesthetic needs in design. Frankly, no one has used that term in years, but it was once a staple of design.
Jeff
Where have you been?
I think Don and I broke/shrunk the triangle. We put all three points in the excellence category, and we included construction too.
Cheers
-
Mike,
Well, it is true that they are not mutually exclusive and could all be excellent. Have no doubt you did that, but I just said I never heard you talking about it, not that you didn't do it.......
BTW, I once had a few slides. One showed it as a quadrangle, adding the environment. At another point, I had one that added a lot of other factors with a lot of confusing connecting arrows. Just for laughs.
Cheers.
-
Grant,
I would say supers know instantly when we build something that isn't within their usual way of doing things or done easily with their proposed or existing equipment list.
One example from my last visit to Sand Creek, the super pointed out that one particular "zig zag" in a bunker shape stopped that one from being 100% machine mowable on the banks. I game him permisstion to take out that reverse curve. I mean really, if that six inches happens to cost him an extra guy every other day, is it worth it for any particular "look" on a free form bunker? I doubt it on a mid level public course that has been quite well recieved for its overall design nature.
Jeff, thanks for the replies.
I seem to recall (hopefully correctly) that Don Mahaffey made comment in a thread somewhere about how he, as a superintendent with a good understanding of architecture, was in fact more likely to push the boundaries of what is maintainable.
Has maintenance become overly cautious and too much emphasis placed on ease of maintenance? (I realise I am contradicting my earlier remarks by asking this)
-
Grant,
I would expect Don to push the boundaries, and he is certainly in a very good position to know what those boundaries are, having been there as a super. Loving architecture and understanding maintenance is a great combo, IMHO, to be good in designing and building golf courses. As you note, the super is often on board, but not all love architecture, however!
Has too much emphasis been placed on ease of maintenance? Depends. My perspective is formed by working my college summers at a public golf course circa 1974-5. The course had rebuilt some greens, and they were domes - built by the super for drainage only. I recall thinking (having already studied what I could) that the Golden Age of design first was over, and that maintenance concerns would forever after trump design. Of course, I was wrong. However, I see us moving back to that "better"balance in a lot of ways.
I don't think it will ever go back to the low point of the 70's, because standards are simply way to high. We aren't going full circle, we are going full upward helix, and elevating a bit each time we go through the cycle. And, not entirely sure its not a construction cost issue. As TD points out, when building USGA greens at $6 SF, 6K SF costs /25% less than 8K SF, both initially and long term. Ditto for 30 acres of fw vs 40 acres.
The "there are no rules" architecture plays against us, as an owner is going to say that inherently, an 8K SF green is not any better than a 6K green, except if we can convince him its for variety, or to overcome some shade or air circulation concerns in a tight spot. Of course, its a big world, and gca's will try, so at some point, we will see a green like the18th at Indianwood in Michigan again, even if not on a sandy soil site like TD had at Old Mac.
-
Grant,
I think it was more about striking a balance. If we felt there was a feature that posed a maintenance challenge, that was fine as long as we had other areas with lower maintenance requirements. I didn't want 18 holes of challenges, but didn't mind pushing it as long as I had the authority to keep some balance, knowing the resources I'd have to work with.
-
Don,
I think you bring a great perspective to the projects you work on. I tried to gain that perspective by a few summers of maintenance work, but yours is obviously much greater.
As an architect, I find that many supers don't mind some difficult maintenance if they can plan for it. If a guy has a big green, or heavily mounded course, it simply takes three guys rather than two to mow.
The biggest gripes are the designed in wear patterns and the "can't predict rain" bunker washout/shovel ups. Of course, bad drainage is always frowned upon, as it's predictably a constant problem.
-
Grant,
Since you started this post in 2007 you have developed your own skills considerably. You are back being a green keeper now, but have been involved with the construction and shaping of others. I know you think deeply and care about these matters, where do you think the best balance lies?
scott
-
Hi Scott
Hope you had a good trip back home.
I agree with exactly what Don has said. Challenges are fine as long as theres allowance made in other areas to free up the resources to commit to them.
For me, Harewood was a good example of this on a number of levels.
Firstly: the bunkering isnt suited to being maitained with a sandpro yet with only a dozen or so on the entire course hand raking isnt a problem.
Second: the fifth green certainly pushes the boundaries of what a triplex mower can achieve. As we talked about the other day, if the mower can follow the contours well on 3 different directions of cut yet on ther fourth it may struggle a bit, I have no problem with that at all. Also, during construction, I had talks with Colin about the possibility of hand mowing either the whole green or just the perimeter if the triplex was not going to cope. Colin, who was incredibly open minded (which has proven to be a big factor in the success of that project) had no problems with doing so if needed.
Third: The contouring around the greens is much more intricate than what existed previously. With the switch to short grass around those greens, cutting with a reel mower reduces the potential for scalping and allowed more freedom in what could be created and resulted in a more interesting and natural product.
During a greenkeepers filed day/course visit these features where not meet with enthusiasim at all. The overiding opinion was maintnenace would be an issue and many of the visitors were heavily critical of the design because of that. I personally was very diappointed in the reaction as they failed to view the course as a golfer and see how much fun it was going to be.
Since I have been in this industry, my views have changed a number of times as I have been exposed to new ideas and seen different ways to accomplish things. I feel that I now have the best grasp of balance that I have experienced to date and find myself constantly assesing the course to see how I can enhance the golfing experience while working within the constraints placed upon me. It is at times difficult as my views certainly position me in the minority, by a considerable margin, within the local /national industry.
-
Grant,
I’m disappointed by the reaction the features received at the field day, but not surprised.
Tell a young superintendent that one of the 18 greens can only be cut in three different directions instead of the normal four, and the likely response is someone did something wrong.
We have some greens at Wolf Point that don’t handle a certain direction of cut very well. Most of the time, on the day we’re supposed to cut that direction we just drive on by and roll the green instead.
We have some areas that are tight to mow with a triplex and if they start to wear, we just cut them with a walker for a few weeks. It is the superintendent’s physical fitness program, plus it helps keep him off of Golfclubatlas.
-
The first and only greens I've ever cut are at Wolf Point on a triplex. Most of the greens looked to be "out of the limits" of what a triplex could do from my extremely basic knowledge at that time. Then I started mowing. Seemed to work just fine! I can count 2-4 spots on 18 greens where I slowed down to ensure I wasn't making a mistake that would be caused by the contour and the lack of articulation of the reels. I wonder how many supers would freak out over triplex use on those greens if they saw them.
What makes Don such a great mentor is that he isn't shy about letting me know when I'm buying into something rudimentary and basic when he sees a chance to be aggressive and challenge conventional wisdom. Conversely, he isn't shy about telling me I'm a dumbass when I dismiss conventional wisdom as something that lemmings would do.
Architecture benefits from maintenance professionals that are informed and intellectual about their craft in such a way that allows them to push the envelope. There is nothing safe about maintaining bunkers right up to a green edge, or mowing a fairway bunker to the lip, or accepting drier high spots and lower wet spots for the sake of having fairway undulations. But great architecture has traditionally had landforms that are unique and aggressive. It takes unique and aggressive maintenance to take care of those forms.
-
Most superintendents tell me that architects don't give a damn about maintenance.
I've witnessed a few renovations where the architect could have made minor changes that would have made a world of difference for years to come. Which sadly led me to believe that architects don't concern themselves with maintaining the golf course once they leave the property.
I know if I were an architect I'd be very concerned about maintenance because it can really affect how the golf course is played. I'm still an assistant superintendent but I can guarantee you once I'm a head superintendent I won't recommend an architect that isn't conscious of how the golf course will be maintained.
I still have faith in a few of my architect friends and drainage is everything!
-
SNaugler,
My only comment, its a golf course, not a turf research area. Its not about how easy it is to maintain, its about how good it can be with what you have.
-
Don-
I apologize for being vague because I don't want to name the courses or architects. With that said, my comments were more about maintaining consistently fast and firm playing surfaces. I do know that many superintendents complain about bunker placement, trees, artificial mounding, etc. Having worked on and played some of the most respected designs in the world, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of golf course architecture. The last thing I want is a turf research area!
Regardless, I believe every golf course architect should have a general understanding of turfgrass management. I've seen approaches designed to allow for low shots to be played into the green but there was little concern for surface drainage, therefore the conditions rarely allow for ground game options. It looks like a great golf course but it rarely plays the way the architect intended it to be.
I don't believe a golf course is great unless it's consistently maintained in the way the architect designed it to be. Imagine The Old Course without fast and firm playing surfaces.
Proper drainage seems like a no-brainer but I've seen basic drainage principals ignored more than once. I've also seen artificial mounding create drainage nightmares!
-
Thanks for your feedback guys.
The more I thought about this and greenkeeping in general today, I came to the conclusion that as an industry we have become far too focused on growing grass and forgotten what greenkeeping is really about.
-
Hi Grant,
Yes in some instances the cart has got in front of the horse, and agronomy has ridden roughshod over design but there is a consideration to be made, and it is cost. If designs become so intricate that maintenance costs skyrocket, then those cost must be passed on to the people who play that course (members, green-fee players). Some wealthy clubs can afford this, but for others it would send them to the wall.
Astute Club owners and managers, know their market, know their costs and sit with architects and green keepers and work together to ensure the club is a viable business.
The overriding concern is that if golf becomes overly expensive if becomes inaccessible to the average person. If that happens at the grassroots level (excuse the pun), then the golf industry starts to shrink and we all lose.
You are on the right track though.
scott
PS- and Harewood is a good example of how it could be done. (PS- I think they have only 13 bunkers on the course)
-
The "blame game" is what kills me.
I think everyone (the board, superintendent, architect) all desire the the golf course to look as
good as it can be. The architect recommends it, the board approves it, the superintendent
implements it. Occasionally, even with everyone trying their best (architect providing vision, board
approving budget, superintendent agronomy) the desired "ideal" is simply not a reality. It's at
this point where parties involved need to stop pointing fingers and find a solution. The road you
travel reaching that point can be unbearable... but once you get there it's a wonderful thing.
-
Second: the fifth green certainly pushes the boundaries of what a triplex mower can achieve. As we talked about the other day, if the mower can follow the contours well on 3 different directions of cut yet on ther fourth it may struggle a bit, I have no problem with that at all. Also, during construction, I had talks with Colin about the possibility of hand mowing either the whole green or just the perimeter if the triplex was not going to cope. Colin, who was incredibly open minded (which has proven to be a big factor in the success of that project) had no problems with doing so if needed.
Hey Grant,
I visited Harewood last year. I'm not sure what green it was, but the kidney green with the slopes on it looked way too extreme. I'm guessing its the 5th green. Why did it have to be so severe? It had been cut by a triplex and there was some scalping. I have a photo somewhere at home. Did it really have to be like that? And why only one green on the course? Other than that there was some pretty awesome work. Sort of reminded me of the original Carrington greens.
Cheers
Dane (currently not enjoying 100mm of rain)
-
Hey Dane
It would be the 5th green you are thinking of.
The great thing about the Harewood redevelopment was everyone was working together and operating on the same wavelength. Right from the start, an overall goal or picture was formulated that was to influence all the decision making for the project. For example, grass selection was primarily based on creating not only a low input course but intended green contours and slopes. With the design calling for bold shapes care had to be taken that greens wont become too fast. Browntop was selected with the desired long term speed of approx 9 feet being the goal. With the input of all those involved the conclusion was reached that a solid mowing and rolling program would see these speeds achievable without creating a workload exceeding the clubs resources. With this target green speed, it enabled design to push (by NZ standards) some boundaries without the fear of speeds compromising playability.
As Don talked about, challenges like the 5th green are fine as long as allowances are made for its maintenance. By minimising the number of bunkers through the course using low input species, time saved in those areas is available to then reinvest into maintaining features that are more labour intensive. Certainly, you wouldnt want 18 greens like that one, but the others contain plenty of movement as well.
Hopefully Scott can chime in with a better account of the design philosophy, but essentially it is a green created to be somewhat unique and challenging but all sorts of fun at the same time. It is a hole best viewed as a golfer and not as a greenkeeper.
I havent seen it scalped yet, and I have seen it a number of times. If it does, it may be more pronounced on one direction. I feel that minor scalping or misses have fairly minimal impact on the golf ball though and are acceptable to a degree in the pursuit of interesting golf.
Cheers
Grant (11mm down here today. Pretty heavy for these parts)
Here is a photo of the 5th green:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj232/Leftynz/IMG_4955.jpg)
-
Grant,
That's a good photo of the 5th green. Thanks for posting it.
For those who don't know the hole, it is a short par 4 and the line of attack is from the left. This photo is taken from the right side of the green. I've only played the hole twice, and once the flag was in that central position. It was a lot of fun, and puts a premium on hitting your tee shot to the left side of the fairway so you can play into the pocket. As it turned out I was 5 yards to long and had to putt back down the hill to the hole. I could putt straight at the hole though. I had to putt sideways – into the side of the swale and let the contours funnel the ball down to the hole.
This green is at one end of the spectrum – the more extreme end – but I don't consider it an extreme green. We wanted the course to have a similar theme, but a range of putting tests. Some easier, some more testing, all fun. Having returned for the official course opening on Feb 25th , 2012, I think (and I like to think I can be reasonably objective) we gave the Club something different, something interesting, and something that will aid the development of their business going forward.
Hope you can get back and play it again guys.
scott
-
The great thing about the Harewood redevelopment was everyone was working together and operating on the same wavelength. Right from the start, an overall goal or picture was formulated that was to influence all the decision making for the project. For example, grass selection was primarily based on creating not only a low input course but intended green contours and slopes. With the design calling for bold shapes care had to be taken that greens wont become too fast. Browntop was selected with the desired long term speed of approx 9 feet being the goal. With the input of all those involved the conclusion was reached that a solid mowing and rolling program would see these speeds achievable without creating a workload exceeding the clubs resources. With this target green speed, it enabled design to push (by NZ standards) some boundaries without the fear of speeds compromising playability.
Grant:
That sounds like the set of calculations I went through when building High Pointe. But, most of those calculations went out the window when customers demanded bentgrass greens, and management agreed.
I hope it works out better for you! :-[
-
Hey Grant,
Browntop is a great choice and I'm sure if wanted it can be sped up easily over 9ft.
I'm on a browntop crusade at the moment. I currently looking at options of turning our pure american ryegrass fairways into browntop :o
The cost of maintaining the fertility and regular poa control is a drain on resources and we will run out of water if we have a dry summer.
There just isn't the money these days floating around in the golf industry. Our players are getting older. We may be better off at looking at low input grasses and low maintenance designs and leave it the big resorts have the Augusta look
Do we need 8 bunkers on every hole? Are we mowing and watering too much? can we get away with fescue wastelands?
-
Dane,
What course are you at? What do you do there?
scott
-
Hi Scott,
I'm Course Superintendent at North Shore Golf Club in Auckland. We have 27 holes with about 1400 members.
Really looking forward to seeing the finished project at Royal Wellington. From what I've seen in the photos it looks awesome!
I was down in Queenstown late last year on a turf study. We had a walk around at Millbrook with Greg over the new 9 holes. Pretty cool!
-
HI Dane,
Welcome to GCA.
I haven't played North Shore (and if I have, it must have been a long time ago because I can't recall it.) My brother lives up your way though, so maybe next time I'm over seeing him I'll stick my nose in. You'd be welcome to come and see Royal Wellington anytime too.
Are your heading to PBGC for the GCA event soon?
scott
-
Yeah call in for a game any time, preferable not winter ;D
I will have to make a visit when Royal Welly is finished. I also was to play PBGC as the improvements by Leo and crew look awesome. Wont be able to make the GCA event as Ive just been on a boys weekend to Kinloch and Wairakei. Hope to get back to Kidnappers this winter as I haven't been there for a while. I getting married in two weeks in Queenstown so should be able to find a course to play in the area ;D
Back to browntop :P
The PGA is at the Hills next week, I wonder what sort of green speeds they will be running.
-
Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.
I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.
For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)
Grant:
I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is. Am I "making concessions" in my work? Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?
Are we architects really too insistent? I suppose that sometimes we are. But there are two sides to that coin. It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do. I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are. The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.
I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though. We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.
Tom as a superintendent I agree bunker maintenance has gotten out of control. However, there are excellent ways to design and build new bunkers that look rugged yet hold up to daily raking, play and most importantly the elements. Unfortunately from our end of the business, most sup's don't have these bunkers.
I am interested in your comments on smaller greens. I guess first I'd like to know what you consider smaller. I believe that bigger greens in the overall scheme and long term, benefit a superintendent more than smaller greens. It would seem smaller is cheaper but it would depend on that definition of small. Anything under 4500sqft for bent/poa with more than 25,000 annual rounds is going to require intense maintenance to keep in nice shape. Larger greens allow you to disperse that traffic much easier and cost less to keep in top shape with high rounds.
Guess I'm just saying it's not as easy as saying smaller greens cost less. Amount of rounds, private vs public, type of turf..etc play a large part as well.
-
Tom as a superintendent I agree bunker maintenance has gotten out of control. However, there are excellent ways to design and build new bunkers that look rugged yet hold up to daily raking, play and most importantly the elements. Unfortunately from our end of the business, most sup's don't have these bunkers.
I am interested in your comments on smaller greens. I guess first I'd like to know what you consider smaller. I believe that bigger greens in the overall scheme and long term, benefit a superintendent more than smaller greens. It would seem smaller is cheaper but it would depend on that definition of small. Anything under 4500sqft for bent/poa with more than 25,000 annual rounds is going to require intense maintenance to keep in nice shape. Larger greens allow you to disperse that traffic much easier and cost less to keep in top shape with high rounds.
Guess I'm just saying it's not as easy as saying smaller greens cost less. Amount of rounds, private vs public, type of turf..etc play a large part as well.
Aaron:
Thanks for your thoughts. If you would care to elaborate, at what point are the greens big enough that bigger just costs more?
I understand that 4500 square feet is pretty small for a golf course with a lot of traffic, although, it's nice to build a small green on occasion. When I said our greens were getting too big, I was talking about greens that were getting over 8000 square feet. Surely, that's a bit excessive. Yet I don't want to just fall into a rut of building 6500 square foot greens because they are the "right" size.
-
Aaron:
Thanks for your thoughts. If you would care to elaborate, at what point are the greens big enough that bigger just costs more?
I understand that 4500 square feet is pretty small for a golf course with a lot of traffic, although, it's nice to build a small green on occasion. When I said our greens were getting too big, I was talking about greens that were getting over 8000 square feet. Surely, that's a bit excessive. Yet I don't want to just fall into a rut of building 6500 square foot greens because they are the "right" size.
Tom I agree you don't want to cookie cutter just to meet a size requirement of as you say 6500sqft greens. I would consider 8000 to be large but not too large to have a couple of that size per course. Looking at it from a turf point of view you want cupable space so if I had a small green of say 4000sqft I'd like 70% cupable space but if it's 6500 you could lower that cupable space percentage and 8000 you could go even lower.
Cost's would vary from site to site since you might grow champion bermuda on one and bent on another plus what part of the country are they located can have huge impacts on fungicides, water, etc or you take a place like Chicago Golf Club that has extremely large greens but since they have a lot of low maintained areas the overall course maintenance expense is not that high. The fun part of large greens is the changes you can make to the daily set up for golfers. A fun to course to play with some big greens but is not expensive to maintain is battle creek cc and the holes can vary greatly just by flagstick locations.
For sake of answering your original question, I think when you start exceeding 3 acres of greens the expense out weighs the benefits.
-
Hi Aaron,
I'm interested in your first post. What type of bunkers are you referring too that hold up well to daily maintenance, the weather etc. Can you post a photo, and/or describe them.
Scott
-
Aaron:
Thanks. The numbers you gave were pretty standard ones, put in that context. You probably wouldn't like Old Macdonald and its six acres of greens!
I have heard good things about the greens at Battle Creek before, but have never seen it. A shame, since it's only three hours from my house. Maybe I'll get down there this spring before I have to start traveling in earnest.
-
Hi Aaron,
I'm interested in your first post. What type of bunkers are you referring too that hold up well to daily maintenance, the weather etc. Can you post a photo, and/or describe them.
Scott
Scott,
I'm sure I can drum up some picutres soon but I don't have any on hand right now. However, I can give you a description.
First and most important key is have an architect who will move the surface water around the bunker instead of into them. A lot of the golden age courses especially used the bunker for drainage so that has to be removed. Then you need excellent drainage in the bunker in particular smile drains to catch the remaining water that might run into the bunker...I'd put these in even if your doing grass faced bunkers but they are a must if you are flashing sand.
Do not put pea stone in the bunker it will just eventually find it's way into sand and contaminate it. I think the use of a liner of some type is good. The new technology out is much better than 15 years ago so it does add to the intial cost but they work. There are options such as Matrix bunker or Sportcrete which you cannot punture with machine rakes but are significantly more upfront cost than say bunker wall a geotextile fabric. My preference is fabric for cost purposes and you lay it over the entire bunker floor and into the drain cutouts. Use drain tile that has a geotextile fabric over the pipe and you need to test your bunker sand with the fabric so you find a match with the two. The reason they need to match is your going to put the bunker sand right over top of the drain tile.
The edge is the next piece that's important. I like to take the fabric about 6 inches past where you want the edge of the bunker to be. Then use sand bags or you can use drain tile for your edge. Once the sod goes on these the key is only edging the bunker one or two times per year max. It may seem like it's time consuming but doing it by hand and only triming the grass is a key to maintaining that bunker edge. Any type of reciprocating unit that tears into your sod or liners will begin to deteriorate your edge and the bunker will not last nearly as long. The use of PGR's on those edges will slow the growth through the season so your grass edge can last much longer without a trim.
Hand raking will help make your bunkers last much longer as well. People will say that adds maintenance cost's but with a bunker like this at least that's really all your doing to the bunker. They all need to be raked but maybe not everyday and since you've eliminated washouts you could go every other day. Obviously, that part depends on the standards of your club or course.
This bunker does not have an edge like say an Augusta National bunker. This bunker is made to have a natural grass edge and look more rustic. The Augusta type bunker type can be made with less maintenance than 15 years ago but since you are keeping that laser like edge your always open to contamination and or hitting the liner. I'd use a matrix type or sportcrete system with that. There is an alternative called Klingstone that is another polymer based liner but I'm not nearly as trusting of that as product at this time. Bunker solutions is another liner product recent to market that literally makes use of astroturf as the liner with all the same principles as the geotextiles but it is extremely tough to puncture. You could edge that with a reciprocator and probably not puncture it. A well constructed bunker should last in excellent shape for 15 plus years with minimal maintenance other than adding sand.
This really doesn't apply to say something like Tom has done at pacific dunes with natural bunkers and the like....those I think you just take what you get and let mother nature do her thing and the player just deals with it. You could do the edges of greens or fairway bunkering on those areas where you deem the outline of the bunker must stay a certain shape but most of those are just like waste areas so you get what you get when you hit it in there.
I know it seems like a lot to put into a bunker and it is but what has really driven this are the white sands. If most clubs were ok with brown sand we sup's could eliminate a lot of the cost's associated with bunkers. This is one thing that Augusta has brought to the game I really don't like, white sand is a real headache.
Lots of new tech is coming into this part of the business to try to help hold down daily and yearly costs to bunkers but almost all require a major overhaul first to take advantage. In the end, golfers expectations have really gotten out of control on bunkers which is the real problem. The first thing I always hear is we just want all the bunkers to play exactly the same, that is what is driving cost's up. It's a hazard and to think you can have them all the same everyday just cost a ridiculous amount of money.
Scott hope that helps, I'll try to post a few pics in the next couple days.
-
Aaron:
Thanks. The numbers you gave were pretty standard ones, put in that context. You probably wouldn't like Old Macdonald and its six acres of greens!
I have heard good things about the greens at Battle Creek before, but have never seen it. A shame, since it's only three hours from my house. Maybe I'll get down there this spring before I have to start traveling in earnest.
Tom I personally love big greens and your correct I was just giving you standard type numbers. As a golfer and super I'd rather have bigger greens for both interest and moving traffic patterns. In my opinion, tee options and larger greens are where you can give the golfer a variety of options and interest especailly at club where your clients play the same course two or three days a week. I'd make up the cost of those 6 acres with less trees. The maintenance of trees far out weigh six acres of greens.