Step 2: The Various Modus Operandi of Golf Course Architects

Key Points

• Throughout the history of golf, there have been many approaches to designing and building golf courses.

• Today there are two broadly defined approaches – more detailed plans and specifications that are bid upon and built by a golf course builder -or- less detailed plans and specs that are executed by the architect and his or her team of shapers (with the help of specialized subcontractors).

• Regardless of methodology, the best finished product is achieved when the golf course architect takes the time to thoroughly understand the site and when the entire team stays flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities that arise once construction has begun.

Dr. Alister MacKenzie, a legendary architect of the “Golden Age”

There are many ways to create a good golf course and, from its humble origins more than a century ago, the profession of golf course architecture has seen its fair share of standard operating procedures. The origins of the profession (pre-1900) employed a necessarily light touch and could best be described as “18-stakes on a Sunday afternoon” (e.g. Tom Bendelow). During golf course architecture’s next distinct era - the “Golden Age” (between the turn of the 20th century and the late 1920’s) - practitioners often entrusted their hand-drawn sketches and ideas to reliable construction supervisors (e.g. Alister MacKenzie with associates such as Robert Hunter, Alex Russell, and Perry Maxwell). Fast forwarding to the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, large and very successful design firms had become established with their worldwide stable of shapers and design coordinators (e.g. Tom Fazio, Robert Trent Jones, Jr., Nicklaus Design, et al). Finally, the turn of the 21st century saw the ascendancy of the design-builders and their small teams of talented, nomadic architect-shapers who are very much in demand today (e.g. Renaissance Golf Design, Gil Hanse, Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw, et al) – plus everything in between.

All eras and design philosophies have produced great golf courses to go along with the not-so-great: golf courses that exceed the potential of their sites, alongside opportunities wasted. What are the keys to maximizing the potential of a golf course; commonalities that can apply to any era and any design style? What is the most cost efficient (and, therefore, economically sustainable) method of design and construction today? Is there any one answer that is always right?

Know the Land, Understand the Objective

To state the obvious: no two parcels of land are the same. Therefore, the first key to maximizing a golf course, whether it will be a new build or a renovation, is for the golf course architect to really get to know the land that he or she will be working with. A golf course architect will typically start by seeing topography from an aerial or ground survey but must also take the time to understand the finer details of the site – where are the best long views? What is the quality of the existing vegetation and what should be salvaged at all costs? What’s on the other side of that property boundary (and what’s likely to be there in the future)? What does the site offer in abundance (sand, rock, water, clay)? Are there any great natural features? Where does overland surface flow drain? Climate? What can be learned from the history of the site and the surrounding lands and people? Any other context?

Some sites will reveal themselves to the golf course architect immediately while others will require weeks, months, or even years of careful study. Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw famously spent more than two years traversing 8,000 acres near Mullen, Nebraska before eventually finding 136 (!) very good golf holes. They narrowed that down to their favorite 18-hole routing and built the Sand Hills Golf Club, one of the top-ranked golf courses in the world since its opening.

Even on a site that is seemingly mundane with few to no qualities of note (e.g. a capped landfill or otherwise degraded site), there is still something to be learned. Before going too far, the golf course architect and owner must honestly consider whether an unremarkable site will require an expensive and character-changing transformation just to create an "average" golf course, and whether or not a financially sustainable business model will be a possibility on such a site.

The bottom line is that getting the best golf course out of any given site isn’t possible without a thorough understanding of the land. It is imperative that the golf course architect devote as much time as is necessary to reach this understanding.

Plan Thoroughly, But Remain Flexible

Armed with an intimate understanding of the land, the golf course architect can now start digging into the creative part of the process. At the turn of the 20th century, that might have meant showing the local shepherds where to release the sheep and telling the keeper of the green where to cut the 18 (or however many) cups. Some famous early golf course architects prepared stick routings and rough conceptual green sketches (in plan and/or perspective view) along with a detailed set of instructions for the "greenkeepers" that they’d be leaving behind.

During the “Golden Age” of golf course architecture, many of the most highly regarded and enduring golf courses were built by hands-on designers who spent a significant amount of time on-site, personally supervising the construction (George Crump’s obsessive approach to building the Pine Valley Golf Club is one well-known example). Due to the constraints of travel and depending on how many commissions they had at any given time, some other architects devoted a disproportionate amount of time to one golf course while having the majority of their work built by trusted associates. Examples include Donald Ross, who lived and worked at the Pinehurst Resort and Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who spent his later years living at Pasatiempo.

A green detail by Donald Ross

Following the Great Depression and the Second World War, as economies recovered, travel became faster and safer, and the popularity of golf boomed, many design firms grew larger and took on more work. Many golf course architects in this era felt it was necessary to prepare ever more detailed plans and specifications so that their ideas wouldn’t be lost in translation since it would be their associates and contractors on the ground who would actually be building the golf courses, largely in their absence. Shielding themselves from liability in an increasingly litigious society was another reason for a golf course architect to prepare very detailed construction documentation. The downside of this was that golf course builders began to bid the jobs as if the plans were sacrosanct. Effectively this meant that, once construction began, any changes to the paper design based on what was discovered in the field were likely to become, at best, a negotiation and, at worst, an expensive change order.

Today, in an era when personalization and artisanal small-batch production has become more common and desirable, the pendulum has swung back toward less detailed plans that provide the “bones” of the design but allow the details of the golf course to be fleshed out in the field by the golf course designers and their shapers.

More Specific Versus Less Specific Design Documents

It is still most common for a golf course to be built by a golf course builder who is selected by a bid tender process. When this is the case, it is imperative that there be sufficiently detailed plans and specifications. The first reason for this is that, wherever there is ambiguity, the golf course builder is incentivized to overestimate the work and inflate his price to be sure that he doesn’t lose money. Secondly, without clear instructions, misunderstandings and misinterpretations can arise during construction that potentially lead to costly mistakes and delays. Without detailed plans, budgets, schedules, and specifications, financial responsibility for any errors or delays can potentially be attributed to the golf course architect. Finally, bonding companies will often not bond projects that are not supported by detailed plans and specifications; nor will lenders typically fund such work.

For the design-build model, however, the golf course architect and his or her team are responsible for the construction so a somewhat less detailed set of design documents is preferable to leave space for creativity and improvisation in the field. The golf course architect will most often prepare clearing, bulk earthwork, and storm drainage designs to be subcontracted to specialized contractors who are hired and employed directly by the client (by bid tender or contract). The golf course architect and his team will most often retain the responsibility for the rough and fine shaping of the golf features (tees, fairways, bunkers, greens) and will rely on the client to purchase materials as needed for these works (eliminating the middleman mark-up that is typically charged by a golf course builder). The golf course architect will be responsible for coordinating the various subcontractors and construction personnel and will report directly to the client’s site or construction representative, who will approve the progress and payments as work is completed.

This method of construction effectively moves coordination, budgeting, and scheduling responsibilities away from a golf course builder and onto the golf course architect. However, the success of a design-build model is reliant upon the shapers buying-in to the golf course architect’s design vision and being talented enough to execute it quickly and consistently. This is why the world’s top design-build firms consistently employ the same stable of design associate/shapers (who are typically treated as independent contractors) from one job to the next. Needless to say, golf course architects who practice this methodology are inclined to work on fewer jobs concurrently for fear of becoming spread too thin, not having enough talent to handle and supervise the work, and compromising quality.

It’s important to note that, no matter who coordinates or executes the construction, the best finished product will always have allowed for some flexibility and on-site discovery. Even exceedingly detailed plans and specifications cannot anticipate all of the issues and opportunities that will be encountered once construction has begun. That is why the golf course architect must be present (or appoint an empowered associate who can be on-site when he or she is not) and flexible enough to make changes to the design in the field (within the constraints of the client’s budget and schedule). If working with a golf course builder, the golf course architect must develop a relationship and level of trust that allows for this. This way, when opportunity or ambiguity inevitably arises, decisions can be made quickly and efficiently that take advantage of these opportunities without blowing the budget or the schedule and while remaining consistent with the overall ethos of the design.

The Relationship Between the Golf Course Architect and the Shapers

At face value, the shaping that happens after bulk earthwork is simply a further refinement in the realization of the golf course architect’s design. It is a process that often uses smaller machinery to achieve a closer-to-finished form. However, in reality, the rough and fine shaping phases (also known as feature shaping because that is when greens, tees, bunkers, and fairways take form) are when the personality of the golf course finally begins to shine through.

Cabot Links during construction

Therefore, one of the keys to maximizing the potential of the golf course is the relationship between the golf course architect and the shapers. If the golf course architect is not doing all of the shaping personally, then he/she will have to put a certain degree of faith in the shapers (regardless of whether they work directly for the golf course architect, the golf course builder, or are maintenance staff on loan) to understand and buy-into his/her vision for what the finished golf course will look like and how it will be played. A big part of the golf course architect’s job is to figure out how to communicate his or her vision so that every one of the machine operators is on the same page.

When the shapers work for the golf course builder and are not as familiar with the style and preferences of the golf course architect, the golf course architect may need to produce very detailed plans and provide regular supervision to ensure that his or her vision is achieved. When the shapers are employed by, and report directly to, the golf course architect (in the case of a design-build), the golf course architect may be more comfortable giving the shapers some leeway, taking comfort in knowing that they have a shared history and understanding of what they’re trying to achieve. In both cases, the best results are achieved when the architect is present on-site to keep everyone moving in the same direction.

Whether working for the golf course builder or the golf course architect, the very best shapers are artistic, independent, efficient, and have a thorough understanding of strategic theory learned by studying the world’s great golf courses. In an ideal situation, the golf course architect and the shaper can have an open and honest dialogue throughout the project, continually updating and refining the golf course architect’s preliminary ideas, while staying within the boundaries and consistent with the golf course architect’s overall vision (and budget). In addition, the shaper must be efficient enough to do this without delaying the progress or significantly affecting adjacent work by other contractors and sub-contractors, such as the installation of drainage and irrigation.

What’s the most cost-effective way? What will yield the best golf course?

Ultimately, the best way to design and build a golf course is dictated by the complexity of the site, the size of the budget, and what the owner is trying to achieve. However, it is always the golf course architect’s responsibility to understand the site, to clearly and consistently communicate his or her design vision to whoever is doing the work, and to be open and available to make changes as new information becomes available. Regardless of who is building the golf course or how it is being built, the design will only approach its full potential with the golf course architect’s full attention.

Thorough planning, availability, and flexibility will inevitably translate into greater harmony with nature, more collaboration with stakeholders, and opportunistic cost savings.

Contact Sustain Golf for more information!

The European Institute of Golf Course Architects (EIGCA), in partnership with the GEO Foundation, has developed a continuing professional development program for its members called Raising the Standard of Sustainable Golf Course Development, or RSSGCD. This is the industry’s only structured program in the world to specifically train golf course architects in sustainable golf course design, construction, and maintenance best practices. A Sustain Golf team member has attained Stage 3 of this rigorous program.

A Sustain Golf team member is also currently serving on the EIGCA’s Sustainability Committee and is a GEO Certified Accredited Sustainability Verifier.

We firmly believe that common sense sustainable design, construction, and maintenance practices are the keys to the long-term survival of the game of golf. We aspire to be on the leading edge of applying sustainability concepts to golf course design, construction, and maintenance.

We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about sustainable golf course design, maintenance, and construction. Visit www.SustainGolf.com or contact us at the following address for more information: Contact@SustainGolf.com.

Up Next:

Step 3: The Importance of a Consulting Agronomist

Sustain Golf is a collaborative group of like-minded qualified golf course architects. We are also qualified and experienced as civil engineers, vertical architects, and project managers. We have the breadth and diversity of experience and knowledge to offer a full suite of golf course design and construction services, from first concept to opening day on your new or remodeled golf course.

References:

Dr. Alister MacKenzie Photo Credit: Bettmann Corbis Archive

Cutten, Keith (Edited by Paul Daley), The Evolution of Golf Course Design. Victoria, Australia: Focus Print Group, 2018.

Hurdzan, Dr. Michael J. Golf Course Architecture: Design, Construction & Restoration. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press, 1996.

Peer Review:

Excerpts from an essay by Schiffer, Matthew & Cutten, Keith, (2019). Compare and Contrast: Design-Build vs Contractor Model of Golf Course Construction

Joe Hancock, Hancock Golf LLC

Dr. Keith Duff, former UK government wildlife agency Chief Scientist, current Golf Environment Consultant