Design & Build?

By Ken Moodie, EIGCA Senior Member

Even in these times of tighter finances, many Clubs are seeking to do course improvement work. This is often prompted by a need to update the positioning of hazards to maintain the challenge of older golf courses, and to upgrade the condition of the golfing features, but it is equally a matter of keeping ahead of the competition.

A recent article in an industry magazine touched on the benefits of using a recognised and skilled contractor for golf course projects. This is undoubtedly a wise move, but what about the role of the design consultant? Is there a need for design input for golf course improvement work?

Too often, when finances are restricted the first thing to be cut from the course improvement budget is the role of the design consultant. Why involve an architect when you have a good contractor on board, you may ask? In this article I will try to outline some of the benefits and also the pitfalls of not obtaining specialist design advice from an early stage, and also throughout the term of the project.

Too often have I, in my professional life as a golf course architect, come across examples where course “improvement” work has been carried out without the involvement of an experienced consultant. In most cases this has lead to lost opportunities and, often, alterations which are totally inappropriate and later need to be undone. Sometimes the alterations are driven by a desire to improve the condition of the playing surfaces, such as drainage installation, tee levelling, green or bunker reconstruction; while in others they are carried out with the intention of raising the challenge of the course by adding length, bunkers or other hazards. I have disaster stories for each, although I would rather not mention courses by name for the sake of discretion, especially if the Clubs in question have later employed my company to remedy the problems created. However I will give you a brief summary of some of the pitfalls I have witnessed.

Tee Reconstruction
Although most reputable golf course contractors have the ability to build tees which should be sound in construction terms, they will not normally be familiar with all of the design issues which could affect the size, alignment, tilt or positioning of the tee, or the way that the teeing area on a hole should be divided to suit the range of golfers to be accommodated. These various factors are dependant on the strategy of the hole and the layout of the course, and an overall course appraisal should ideally be made before finalising detailed design proposals.

Often where new tees have been added, or tees extended to lengthen the course, they end up in dangerous locations leading to golfer injury or problems with neighbouring residents. This can have very serious consequences and anyone connected with the project can be found liable for resulting injuries or damage caused which can lead to civil or even criminal prosecution.

Tee construction work is often done in-house, since it appears to a fairly straightforward operation, and this can lead to additional problems. I have seen tees which were rebuilt or extended to improve the overall teeing area that have settled dramatically to create virtually unplayable undulating platforms. This is often down to using unsuitable machinery during the construction process, such as JCB’s with tyres, rather than proper tracked excavators of sufficient size (13 tonnes normally) to properly consolidate the subsoil in layers. On tees that have been extended, it is often obvious where the old tee must have been since it often appears as a raised imprint in the new tee. This creates an uneven stance for the golfer and, in avoiding setting the tee markers in these areas, valuable tee space is wasted. It is always difficult to ensure that a new section of tee is compacted as much as the virgin ground and so it is best to remove the build-up used to create the old tee and rebuild it as a new entity in order to avoid differential settlement. The correct machinery should be used and the tee compacted in layers of around 20cms.

It is also imperative that the subsoil base of a tee reflects the final profile so that an even depth of rootzone can be spread. Often I have seen tees which have been levelled using the rootzone on a bumpy subsoil bed which can cause water to sit in the pockets, leading to future settlement problems. A smooth, and gently falling, sub-grade will also help to direct rainwater to the drains which are usually required, unless the site is naturally free-draining. It requires a skilled machine operator to achieve this.

Greens
I have witnessed all sorts of problem greens which have been rebuilt in-house, by inexperienced contractors, or even by quite reputable construction firms. Problems range from unplayable greens with large sections which are too steep to pin, to unattractive bland flat targets, and others which are not shaped correctly to suit the length and angle of the approach shot being played into them. I have seen greens which have been rebuilt following the contours of the old green when there were problems with the original design, and ones which have been changed significantly, to save removing as much subsoil for the construction profile, to leave unplayable upturned saucers.

On one course I visited, all of the greens had recently been rebuilt to USGA construction recommendations and I was being asked to develop proposals for larger and more interesting practice facilities. There was an opportunity to expand the area available for the practice facilities utilising spare space within the layout, but to take advantage of it some holes would need to be rerouted and a few greens moved. Building a new green in the right location does not cost much more than rebuilding a green in the wrong location, but if it has to be moved later a lot of money will be wasted. If the Club had involved an architect from the outset in this particular example, a great deal of expense could have been avoided.

There are many parameters in green design and construction to get right. It is rare that the existing greens are perfect in every respect and a very careful assessment is needed to determine the best way to improve them. In addition, if a green is simply to be rebuilt to its current contours (which maybe the right decision in some cases) it will generate a lot of spare soil which will need to be removed, equivalent to the construction materials being installed. An average green of 400m2 will generate at least 170m3 of spoil from excavations for the rootzone, gravel carpet and drainage installation. Consideration needs to be given to where this soil is to go. Rather than deposit it in rough areas, or create unwanted spoil heaps, the soil can be used to raise other greens which would benefit from elevation, to build new tees, or form mounds which can add strategic interest to the golf course. The golf course architect will normally provide contour plans and earthworks quantities for the construction work which will identify the soil and material quantities involved and allow advanced planning and accurate costing.

Bunkers

Bunkers are very important elements of the golf course to get right. They dictate the strategy of the holes, provide visual composition, and are a key component in terms of design style. A classic golf course can be completely spoiled by imposing the wrong type of bunker. For instance, grass-faced or revetted bunkers would be totally inappropriate on a classic Colt or Mackenzie layout where sand visibility is so important to the essential character of the design. A experienced golf course architect will be able to advise on the historic significance of the course and the best bunker style to adopt, while balancing maintenance and budget considerations.

Revetted bunkers, in most inland situations, generally look out of place and impose an immense additional maintenance burden in the long-term as the revetted turf degrades and needs to be replaced every few years. I have seen several courses where bunkers have been revetted and the revetment has been removed when the faces later collapsed to leave ugly scars as shown below.

By the same token, a bunker with a sand face will rarely suit a links location due to wind erosion, and revetting the face is often be the only realistic option. However, most links courses have large turf nurseries where they can prepare turf for revetting the bunkers on a 3-5 year rotation.

Strategic Appraisal
The best start point for any course improvement is to employ a golf course architect to conduct a full course appraisal addressing the areas of concern and providing proposals for improvement on a phased basis. Once agreed, this can be presented to the members and adopted as part of a Course Policy Document. As well as providing a source of expert and technical advice, employing an independent consultant takes the politics out of changes to the golf course and ensures continuity and quality control in the work carried out. It enables long-term planning and avoids the haphazard manner in which many courses evolve due to changes in the composition of the Club committees.

Choice of Architect
The correct choice of architect is crucial and it is worth spending some time researching suitable candidates in terms of their remodelling experience, knowledge of the original course architect (if designed by one of note) and success of past projects. The website of the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, www.eigca.org, is a good start point. It is best to visit one or two recent past projects to see the results first hand (ideally with the architect present for part of the time to explain the design changes) and to seek references from those involved on behalf of the Club.

Value for Money
It is evident that involving an Architect at the beginning of a project can be very valuable, but what about his input during the detailed design stages? There is a temptation to get some strategic advice and then drop the consultant during implementation to save money. Although the initial report will indicate where new golfing features are to be sited (normally via course planner style hole plans), a description of the design intent, and perhaps some sketches or photomontages showing the bunker style, etc., the success of the project will ultimately depend on its detailed implementation. The development of construction drawings by the architect adds another layer of refinement to the design process. The exact location of a bunker, how it gathers from the green approach or fairway, the shaping of greens to provide varied pin-positions, the precise sizing, elevation and tilt of tee – all aspects are critical to realising the original design vision. In addition, having detailed design plans will leave the contractor in no doubt of what is required of him. There will be no room for short cuts. Accurate quantities can be derived from the design drawings which will allow the work to be tendered to obtain a competitive price on a like for like basis.

Another prerequisite for success will be involving the Golf Course Architect during the construction period with visits to inspect the work to ensure that the design drawings are realised correctly and that the specification is adhered to.

Although the design fees may amount to 10-15% of the construction value for the full service, it should be money well spent considering the much higher quality of end product that can be created and the significantly reduced risk of things going wrong. Also, with the introduction of the CDM Regulations in the UK in 1994 (and similar legislation in other parts of Europe) Clubs doing work without a consultant risk falling foul of Health & Safety laws since a risk assessment is often required during the design phase.

Although some construction companies profess to offer design and build services, there are none that I am aware of in Europe that has the expertise to do both properly. The European Institute of Golf Course Architects prohibits its members from acting in this way since it realises that it creates a conflict of interests where the architect is compromised by his need to obtain a profit from the construction work, and this can lead to corners being cut. The independence of the golf course architect is vital if he is to work in the best interests of his client.

When considering Design and Build, don’t make the mistake of assuming that they are a single process, or that one company can do both successfully. Each requires expert and specialist input but the design objectives must dictate the construction, not the other way round.

This article was originally published in Golf Management Europe.