News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

A great point by Tom Doak
« on: March 10, 2002, 09:20:08 AM »
On the "Real Architect" topic Tom Doak responded to some remarks made by "Rand" about the need for extremely detailed architectural plans of probably almost every type, size, dimension and likely covering every possible square inch of the property and project maybe even including the widths of the lines on the parking lot car spaces!

"Rand" seems to think this is a necessary requirement to be able to be called a "real architect" instead of something less like a more lowly "designer". "Rand" even suggests that it probably is a bad thing that those that he's called "designers" like Doak and Coore & Crenshaw should be "widening the field" in the business of architecture and attempting to compete with people of true talent who are "real architects".

I'm not speculating about this because "Rand" told me this himself once in the course of discussing a project. His more than "implied" point to me was Coore & Crenshaw (who I was talking to and considering) were really not "architects" and that the consequences of using them would likely result in one kind of problem or another eventually.

But Doak's response seems to me to make a fundamental point about how some companies operate without voluminous plans and ultimately what that just might mean to the final product.

If a company needs to do a lot of sub-contracting and contracting things out like shaping etc, then maybe they do need voluminous and detailed plans to be able to communicate with those contractors and sub-contractors who they likely don't know very well or maybe don't know at all!

That would make sense to me, I guess. But the thing about a few of these companies that we seem to favor on here for their styles and products is it seems they have their own people when it comes to things like "shaping" and the detail work. Either that or the architects just do most of the work themselves as it appears that Doak and Hanse may have done at Stonewall. It doesn't take much communication and the need for voluminous and detailed plans if you do a lot of the work yourself or have guys you've been around for years like Doak seems to, Hanse certainly does and Coore and Crenshaw definitely do with their semi-famous "Boys" who have been with them for years!

If you don't have people like that then I can see you might need voluminous and detailed plans to communicate. Or if you've taken a project that has reams of requirments for detailed permitting plans, environmental and other massive obstacles requiring voluminous and detailed plans then maybe outfits like Fazio, Rees, Fream, Nicklaus, Hurzdan & Fry and some of the other large employee companies are the ones for you.

Coore said to me once on a particular site scouting mission that if the property was one that required massive amounts of plans for some bureaucratic need that they wouldn't be interested in doing the job since they don't like to produce voluminous plans because it really isn't something they do, they're not into that because they feel it pins them down too  much in the field where they would prefer to "interpret" on the ground as they go along!

So maybe "Rand" has a point there when it comes to certain types of projects and sites. Maybe that's the time you do need the type of company that produces soup to nuts plans. Certainly Fazio takes great pride in his ability to overcome successfully and creatively every type of obstacle. Any of us should definitely give him that as he appears to definitely be one of the best in the world at it. The same could be said for the others I mentioned, Nicklaus, Rees, Hurdzan & Fry, Fream etc!

But for the other types of projects that are more interpretive on the ground, it seems like the companies like C&C, Doak and Hanse do the best and most natural work and detail work becuase they do it inhouse and don't have the need for voluminous plans to communicate with people.

There seems to be a real correlation here and I think that Doak might have been making it in his post on the topic or "Real architects".

At the very least it shows that just because you don't work off of volumious and detailed plans that that means you don't have "talent", whatever you call yourself, or "Rand" thinks you should be called--"architect" or "designer".  

All this makes me think of something though. What about Friar's Head that Coore and Crenshaw created beautifully? It would seem the attitude and environment of New York would require a maize of voluminous plans but maybe not! Or maybe they did them somehow with Ken Bakst. And I'm not talking about that 666 or 333 or some other site plan residential number feasibility study that those eco-maniacs (Dan Kelly's word) said they didn't do when they did do them or said they needed to do them when they didn't need to do them. And that to me doesn't have a damn thing to do with golf course architecture anyway.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2002, 09:44:58 AM »
Tom,
I asked "Rand" a simple question on the other thread which went unanswered. I made the superlative statement that "you" (rhetorical you) 'can't argue with the product at Pac Dunes or Applebrook." Followed by the question, "Who are the people responsible for producing those courses, and what titles would you put on them?"

If Tom Doak is not responsible for producing Pac Dunes and Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw the same for Applebrook and those products alone,never mind the rest of their bodies of work, don't qualify them as golf architects, then I'll wrestle Tommy Naccarato naked on the first tee at any club that "rand" designates, and that would be over six hundred pounds of humanity, a true "heavyweight" contest!! Hell, I'll even risk getting thrown out of Charles River and volunteer that first tee, I know three hundred people that would pay to see that!

Ron Prichard sold antiques before he did restorations, so f...... what? He has done some great work, does a title matter?

It's what ends up on the ground baby, PERIOD.

Sorry for the rant, but the whole thing pisses me off.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Mingay

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2002, 09:59:05 AM »
I don't think it's a coincidence that those who stress the importance of being able to produce detailed grading plans have never done -- and do not do -- any feature shaping themselves.

Of course, if you (and your crew) don't do any shaping personally, detailed grading plans are a MUST.

Honestly, as a developer, would you rather have Rod Whitman on a bulldozer shaping his own greens? Or Whitman handing over a drawn plan to some 'dozer guy whose last job was grading the parking lot at the new shopping mall across town?! For me, it's a "no brainer".

Most people who participate on this site are fanatical about golf course architecture. That said, it's also no coincidence that the contmeporary architects who's work the majority of you admire do much of their own construction work -- particularly on greens and bunkers -- personally, every opportunity they get. Or, as is the case with Bill Coore, they travel from project to project with the same construction gang. (Note the difference between "construction gang" and "contractor".)

Working with Whitman on the construction of Blackhawk GC last summer, only once (perhaps twice) do I recall anyone referencing a drawn plan on-site. That's throughout six months of construction! I think the only drawing Rod produced detailed the basic routing. And a few green sites were moved slightly as construction progressed.

Rod and I and another guy did all of the feature shaping and grading. No contractor was involved after a few large cuts and fills were made at the very beginning of construction.  

Granted, Blackhawk is a unique project -- ideal in many ways.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2002, 10:07:09 AM »
I meant Hanse and Kittlemen for Applebrook, see rants never come out right. ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Mingay

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2002, 10:09:15 AM »
I should also add, Rod Whitman doesn't care what you call him... golf architect? golf course designer? Whatever. Maybe he's neither. All I know is, he's built a few excellent golf courses throughout the world over the past two decades. And he's also assisted Pete Dye and Bill Coore with a few others that receive high praise for a majority of golfers.  

As I progress in the business of designing and building golf courses, learning from the likes of Whitman, it becomes more and more apparent to me too that my "title" is of least importance. Call me whatever you'd like. Or argue over the fact that I shouldn't be doing what I'm doing. (As long as you're having fun!) It doesn't matter to me.  

Like many of my colleagues, including the multi-talened Rod Whitman (who has a philosophy degree from Sam Houston State Univ., by the way! Does that qualify him for a specific title?!) I'm just going to continue to try to build the best golf courses possible, every time I get a chance to do so.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2002, 10:18:31 AM »
Jeff:

Excellent!

Ed:

I've already scheduled you and TommyN for a no-holds barred naked wrassling match on Merion's back tee on Sunday June 9 at high noon!

Don't bother calling Merion, the phone lines will be busy, lunch tables on the porch are probably already sold out and standing room only from every conceivable vantage point will be at premium prices by tomorrow afternoon!

Don't think about a thing, I'm the promoter on this one--just think about what your preference is--mud, grease or oil. I'll contact TommyN on that and we can negotiate which it will be no later than March 30.

Start training as soon as possible--this will be East Coast against West coast, the Colonists against the wild and crazy Pioneers, the smart guys against the loonies, or Hollywood against Harvard, whatever seems most apropos!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2002, 12:48:36 PM »
Tom, this is a great post thanks! Hope many a potential developer is reading, great courses are built in the dirt, just look at maybe the two best tracks built in the modern era, Sand Hills and Pac Dunes. Further I suspect this point will be highlighted again this summer with the opening of Friar's Head and Rustic Canyon. Sure you can build a very good course with detailed plans carried out by a competent workers, but true greatness, don't think so.

There is a project in the planning stage up in NE CT, that looks like it will be done by a very good "archie" that I believe may have earned the job based on his detailed plans. But there seemed to have been a chance (still might?) that one of the best would have considered doing it, but he wouldn't go into anywhere near the detail of the other guy. In this case IMO the money guy just didn't understand.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2002, 01:06:03 PM »
I can't add much to the wise words already mentioned by Jeff Mingay and Ed.  I guess I'll have to go back and read some more of the "real architect" thread.  I'd have more time if the opening questions and statements of these threads by TomP didn't take 20 minutes to read!!! ;)

Dan Proctor told me that Rod is one of the most savvy golf design guys he knows of.  I think they will be hooking up to work together in coming months.  

All I can say (if it wasn't said somewhere else already) is Rand is  starting to sound like a RandakaBY >:(

I will concede that on projects that have traditional bidding processes for subcontracts for everything including earthmoving and grading and irrigation and grassing, like described above, and are on difficult or environmentally sensitive land where there is a high requirement for plans inorder to obtain permits, etc., 'they' have you by the short hairs in terms of employing the sort of architect that can produce the documents and drawings.   ONe major thing that such a process does is boost the costs astronomically while reducing the chance that proper communication between workmen contractors and the architect designer gets translated to original intent of how the design will look and play.  I'll take a design/build approach like C&C, Bunkerhill, Hanse, Whitman and Stranz and others produce everytime.  Like Coore suggests, I would avoid the type of land and situations that present a bureaucratic tangle from the get-go.  

I think I would rather have a detailed plan of the project AFTER it is built depicting the pertinent drainage and irrigation feature placements, etc, and new topo after it is done.  That can even be done to a certain adequate level by aerial photography at 1" = 100' or 1"=50' with features and key elevations on 2' drawn over the aerial; and greensites blown up further to 1=10' and 6" ele.

How many of these great new projects were organized with an owner that was on-site often, and design/builders there always, and the best stuff got done on-the-fly when these key principals and builders worked together as a unit?  How many high profile and high dollar courses are subjected to endles criticism and debate for lacking the details of craftsmanship that are results of the high document rigid documentation process of the so-called big architecture firms?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tom Doak

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2002, 09:38:37 PM »
I'd just like to point out that here in Lubbock [or for Bill Coore's courses at Talking Stick] we did do a very detailed, two-foot grading map for the entire site so the contractor could get the earth and major drainage to work.  Then, we've gone back over it with the shapers and jazzed it up.

NO ONE could have drawn what we're building in every detail, even if they had had the imagination to think it all up themselves, which I didn't.  But, none of these talented shapers could've done what they are now doing without that original map and the mass excavation giving them a well-drained canvas on which to work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RTrull

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2002, 08:35:08 AM »
This is an interesting point. I've been involved in many projects over the years and I can count on [less] than one hand how many owners of those projects don't care about the budget...and construction drawings and plans are what determines the budget. You've got to know how much earth you're going to move, how much and the size of drain pipe you're going to install, how many irrigation heads, acres of grass, sf of sod, greens and bunkers, etc. etc. The only way to determine this is by construction drawings. Of course, you allow some latitude, in the form of a contingency (usually 10-15%) to cover the cost of changes made in the field during construction.

In addition to this, almost no project can get the necessary permits and approvals to construct the course without submitting detailed construction drawings indicating buffer zones, protected areas, wetlands, off-site storm drainage locations, etc.

Generally, those specializing in golf construction acknowledge the fact that the plans are a "guideline" and there will be adjustments made in the field during the process. We have a saying in our business that the plans are "behind the seat of the truck" pretty quickly after mass grading is complete. But, some things you simply can't play with, without getting into a hailstorm of issues. If you've got a relatively flat site, you can't just lower the elevation of drain inlets and still make everything drain properly, unless you start adding ponds to take stormwater to, which can significantly elevate the budget, or change the strategy of the hole on which it's located. One of the most important things to watch for during a site visit in which the designer directs changes is the domino effect. The change he suggests may not appear at first glance to be that meaningful, but what else does that change impact?

A case in point occurred at HMB (I believe Pete G was present on this occasion), Art Hills wanted to move #16 closer to the cliff edge. This would appear to have very little impact on cost, but what Art failed to recognize immediately was a restriction the owner had to provide a minimum 60' buffer required by the CA Coastal Commission and, no drainage was permitted to run off the cliff. It all had to be captured and piped back to a collection point located within the property. In order to do that (even if the buffer zone wasn't required), we would have had to lower the elevation of the collection basin in order to drain the additional area he wanted to "pick up". Then we would have had to install an additional pump to discharge the lower collection basin. This seemingly insignificant change would have cost the owner an additional $150,000 (at least).  

My point is, you've got to start with plans today, because you can't just "do what you want". Designers do deserve credit for what they create. Largely, because they aren't just given a blank canvas to paint on. There are a world of restrictions they have to deal with when planning a course, civil engineering, permit restrictions and/or requirements, drainage, availability of resources, and most importantly, owner's budgets to name just a few.

Most designers I've worked with don't "draw" their courses themselves. They have draftsmen on staff to generate the drawings reflecting their vision of the course. Then the civil engineers make sure the drawings comply with whatever restrictions may be imposed by governing authorities (Army Corp permits, environmental disturbance permits, wetland permits, etc). The process is infinitely more complicated than most people think. Hats off to them for what they do!

Randy
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2002, 02:30:26 PM »
If an architect can produce a quality golf course without any plans at all, he/she should not be targeted for blame. At the end of the day, it is the product that counts! If what seems like a vague set of nearly un-distinguishable partially torn plans can be communicated effectively to those building a golf course, and the result satisfies the client, nobody loses. I do not think detailed plans are however, superfluous. It is a good idea to produce detailed as-built plans in order to help the maintenance staff fix irrigation lines etc., and to help create and capture a snap-shot of history at the golf course in question. This can pay off in the long run, when the membership seeks to restore their course to the splendour of its original design!   ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2002, 09:58:55 PM »
Ed:

I'm sitting here with Ron Prichard tonight, and he wants to
set the record straight.  He NEVER sold antiques, but he
has purchased a few.  :-[

He also looks forward to seeing you this spring.  ::)

And he's got an old car he wants to sell you! ??? :P :-[ :-X :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2002, 10:19:01 PM »
Paul Richards --

Would you ask Ron Prichard to get on here and tell us what's up at Minikahda?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2002, 12:32:03 AM »
Dan,

No I'm not Ron Prichard but I can fill you in some on Minikahda. They are undertaking a major restoration under Ron's direction starting in August and running through May of 2003. They are removing 17% of the trees, rebuilding bunkers and restoring many of the original Ross bunkers, probably reworking and expanding the greens to their original sizes too. I'm sure there is more I'm missing, and hopefully the REAL Ron Prichard will chime in, but from what I've seen of Mr. Prichard's work at Wilmington Municipal it will be time and $$$ well spent at this fine club.

All The Best,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Ed_Baker

Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2002, 02:40:41 PM »
Paul Richards and all,

In my "rant" I was trying to make a point using an absurd analogy and after re-reading it I made it sound as though
Ron Prichard actually did sell antiques, I sincerely apologize if I offended Ron or anyone else.

But the point is, that no matter what any of the architects we discuss on here did prior to designing golf courses is completely irrelevent. Their body of work and what they leave on the ground for the golfing populace to enjoy is the measure of their success or failure, regardless of credentials or labels!

Hell, if Pete Dye worked for the phone company, or Donald Ross shoed horses, but still left us with the bodies of work that they produced would that disqualify them as bonafide golf architects? Crump ran hotels for heavens sake, does that make any difference to what Pine Valley is and what it has meant to the game?

When you are out playing and enjoying a Jeff Brauer, or Todd Ekenrode, or Mike Young course, as opposed to a Ross,Tillinghast, or MacKenzie course does it make any difference what so ever what the guy called himself when he designed that course or weather it was his lifelong pursuit or not? Does it make any difference what degree he holds? Not if the golf course is good and people are enjoying it for what it was designed for. It's all about what they leave on the ground.

The people that produce these venues for us to play our game on are talented, label them as you will, but they do what the rest of us can only dream about.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A great point by Tom Doak
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2002, 03:25:21 PM »
Ed:

Don't sweat it.  As I said, Ron was sitting here with me
and thought your antique comment was funny and just
thought he'd give you a little tease back.

No harm, no foul. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back