How the greens were designed and built

Except for the 8th and 18th, the two mammoth greens, the greens rest on several feet of sand. These sand based greens have no drainage. As the soil engineer noted, why put pipes in the green when the water will run straight through them? It's a method of green construction I've used in the past with excellent results. At first Kai was skeptical, but after learning how many excellent modern courses were built this way, he accepted the common sense reasoning.

Once the pile of sand was in place, the general direction of the green was staked... sometimes not even this was done. From there, I took general concepts for the hole... preferred angle of play, strategic bunkers, length of hole... what came before and after, and started crafting the green with the D6NXL bulldozer. Some greens took an entire day to shape, until I was happy with the result, others took only a few hours.

Once the green was shaped, I dragged my foot around the green, searching for the outer form. Then, after we'd looked at it, we'd put in the stakes marking the perimeter.

This method is different from architects who provide plans and walk away for weeks. It's faster, and I can achieve results I'd never have dreamed of at the drawing table.

PETE DYE: ...I put together a B-4 or B-5 bulldozer, and that costs maybe $100. So, I go in there and... say look, you ought to do this, do that and say it takes him two days, so he spends $2,000. So if I spent $2,000 on every hole, that’d be $36,000 on a $6 million project. In the mean time, these guys that do drawings that are to the inch, they get so many stakes out there, it takes the bulldozer operator five times as long to get it done...

PETE DYE: So that doesn’t cost anything, I can change the greens, I can go in and change the greens five times for $5,000 on a $6 million project. On a bulldozer, if I go in there and say look, change the contour, takes them an hour, two hours, $200. If I’m responsible like that ... it all channel down and saves money.

Catch the full interview at:

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=782

Not only does it take "five times as long", but what guarantee is there that the builder will get it right when the architect leaves the site, not to be seen until the next distant "site-visit"? And what then? The investor gets an inferior product, construction drags on, or he pays more because the builder's built his green "according to plan" twice already!

Its faster and better to have the architect shape the greens... but most can't, and even if they could... most won't because they don't have the time. Time... the most valuable asset an architect can bring to his work.

It's also more cost effective to have the architect leading construction daily, and it's how you end up with the best golf courses.

By being on-site daily, leading construction the architect will be seeking to make the best of your land and budget... but you won't hear that from most in the industry because they don't work that way. They're into plans, stakes and the odd "site-visit". It's why most golf courses fall short of their potential. The visionaries simply don't spend enough time out in the field during the most permanent, critical and expensive design-phase... Construction.

Tony Ristola
agolfarchitect.com
+1(909) 581 0080