Does Money and Technology Hurt Golf Architecture?

[Bill_Coggins]

Ron, et al..

I think the reference to ASGCA was in constructing a caricature of the antithesis of a desirable designer.  I don't believe that is was intended to be a broad stroke condemnation of all ASGCA members.  Regardless of individual reality, the ASGCA is a convenient standin for institutionalized homogeneity.

Part of Tim's original question is the issue of GCA's using the newest technology instead of the right technology in constructing a course. (sometimes the newest is the right one)  

One example that I would suggest is the for designers that like drawings (or are required) let the software draw your contours for you - please.  I know you think you can do it, but I have seen soooooo many mistakes by soooooo many firms that it is clear that drawing MOST of the contours by hand works, but drawing ALL the contours is an error.  

This is an inverse example, where trying to do things the "old fashion way" to meet modern standards fails.  But it is an issue of using the right technology for its matching work.  Is this hyper-accurate drawing needed to build the course properly - I seriously doubt it.  So now we are back to: who cares if the drawing is a little wrong?  And perhaps we have eliminated a technology that is not really needed for course construction...  (Albeit more than a little useful for permitting)

[TEPaul]

Very interesting thread here--very interesting! It's always good to get a number of those actually in the profession to comment, explain, and yes, probably educate on the various areas of bringing a golf course, any golf course, to completion.

Personally, in this whole business of golf architecture I've concentrated in these last five years or so on things more in the "conceptual" side of golf archtiecture. I even think I've gotten quite good at visualizing what good holes and courses might look like and play like and identifying what is good or bad or otherwise about holes and courses that are built.

But what it takes to actually build them (the construction end) I'm not knowledgeable. I probably have very little idea about what I DON'T KNOW about drainage and other construction methods. I don't know much about agronomy either. And I sure don't know much about what many architects face in their struggle with various regulatory restrictions and problems and I don't even know anything about the structure, concerns, models, whatever of an architect's own business.  

And since that's the way I am, and since I'm extremely interested in building a golf course, I think I might be quite representative of a part of the whole question of this thread and topic that really hasn't been mentioned at all!

And that would be the perspective of the owner, operator, client, customer or whatever else one wants to call the person (or persons) who picks up the telephone in the first place and calls a golf course architect and gets the whole dream or project started on its sometimes long and cumbersome road to completion. So since I don't know much about those certain things I'm going to depend on my architect to tell me honestly what's possible and doable to complete my "concept" and dream the way I want it for about what I want to spend to do it! It's entirely up to me to find and identify the architect that can and will do that and one that will be honest with me about what's possible and doable to get exactly what I want and what isn't possible etc, etc! And it's also entirely up to me to identify those architects who won't do those things honestly and accurately!

There's been a lot of very good discussion on this thread so far about what the ASGCA does or doesn't do and how they should do more or less and what the realities are today with permitting, unrealistic pain in the ass environmental advocacy, local supervisors or any other group or entity that seems to have the right to legally check off on a project.

Maybe the ASGCA should reanalyze the way they approach such things and maybe they shouldn't, I really don't know. What I do know is those are questions that are very much in the realm of what an owner, client, customer....etc, should concern himself with and for advice on that he should very much depend on the architect he calls and selects. He should also understand early on that some architects approach this subject and these problems and restrictions etc differently! And furthermore, and I think this may be the most important thing I've learned, he should understand how this is going to affect his "concept" of a golf course, his "dream" about all the things he is hoping to acheive. What I'm talking about here is basically the realm of the "possible" and the "acheivable"! A client, customer etc has got to understand that and the sooner the better!

I almost did a project here in eastern Pennslyvania and we certainly got far enough down the road for me to see what that road was all about. I didn't want any old golf course, I wanted a particular kind of golf course whose "concept", look, feel, routing, design, playability was very well defined. And I believe I also found the architect who could have done all that, only if it were possible to do it without enormous compromise of one kind or another. On this site we'd gone far enough down the road to understand what necessary compromise would've been and it would've been acceptable and doable to acheive our "concept" and dream. My architect told me what was possible and what wasn't on a number of sites. And if we had to pass on a particular site I might have been enamored with that he told me I couldn't get what I was looking for for whatever reason, ie; permitting concerns or even that he wouldn't do it because of these concerns, then I certainly wasn't about to call another architect who would likely tell me there weren't such problems or that he could do it anyway and overcome them.

Also what I'm saying is the architect I selected would have said and done what he did whether he was a member of the ASGCA or not. Actually, I found out he did belong to the ASGCA but that fact had about as much meaning to me as the ten second conversation the architect and I had about it.

If the site and area didn't allow us to do what we wanted to do we would have gone somewhere else to do it--or the project might never have been done. And frankly, if it wasn't, the township, the regulators and the people they ultimately work for, the people who live in and around that area would have been the losers. Eventually they will come to realize that because ultimately the other options turn out to be much less attractive to them.

Bottom line, I'm saying don't heap all the blame on the ASGCA or even the architects. The customer, client etc, etc, should share in it since he's the one who has the dream and should have a "concept" for it. And he should realize what it takes to do it or not.

Does money and technology hurt golf architecture? Not really. In my opinion,  people who think that exessive money and technology is necessary to create something that is unbelievably unattractive and unnecessary to good golf architecture affects golf architecture to some degree, I guess, but again, that's just my opinion and that's just my own particular taste. And I'm the first to recognize that they might think otherwise and like it and enjoy something that I don't! That's fine with me because, again, I believe golf is a great big game and there's room in it for everybody!

This question about money and technology and what it can do and how it effects architecture is sort of like the age-old political question for a politician of does he lead or does he follow.

I think it's a question for any architect but it's also very much a question for any client, customer. I don't know what the answer is either for each of them--maybe a little of both--lead and follow. The technology may be the architect but the money is always the client's and not only do people get what they pay for but most of the time they get what they want! And that's the client, the person who has the idea, the dream the concept and who calls up the architect who he thinks can do it for him!

So if we have criticisms about golf courses and their architecture that's who I would tend to blame for it--the client, certainly more than the architect and certainly more than the ASGCA.

[BarnyF]

Ron Kern,

As an architect you are fortunate that your work stands as a testiment to your philosophies and talent.  I have enjoyed your work at Evansville C.C. and am impressed with Purgatory.

The only thing created by idiots and critics is emotion...a valuable commodity but fleeting.  The bashing of ASGCA is directly related to Tom Doak not being a member which as you well know has nothing to do with his talent as an architect and everything to do with the musings of a young "bastard".

How this group and specifically an individual that genuflects at the tabernacle in the sand hills of nebraska could ever "bash" a group that includes Bill Coore is beyond me.  Feel privilaged you are a part of something that is important enough to hate...the weak hate the strong...the non-believers hate the believers...the critic hates the talent.

[T_MacWood]

John aka BarneyF
Thanks for racheting up the discussion with an emotional response. I'm still trying to figure out where you fit into your own post.

Focusing on the ASGCA ignores the original question, which, as far as can tell, does not involve membership in an originzation. I have no idea who belongs or doesn't belong to the ASGCA -- and really could care less.

Another interesting distinction between the past and current situation -- is the lack of criticism. In the past there were far more critics. And defining a critic in a negative light is a modern phenomenon, no doubt a product of the our touchy feely society -- we sure don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Todays golf-architects are very sensative to criticism, becasue they really haven't been subjected to it.

A critic is someone who expresses reasoned opinion, who analyses, evaluates and most importantly appreciates. In the early decades of the 20th century criticism was common place and the result bore the fruits of that criticism.

[aclayman]

Looking on the bright side... In comparing this art to others, be grateful the volune of crap courses is alot lower than the volume of Thomas Kincaid paintings or shit novels written by pedantic prisses.

[Ron Kern]

Indiana is one of the least restrictive states, from what I understand in talking with folks who have worked in other states - IL, MO, OK and AK seem to be about the same as IN in regulatory pressure.  Indiana got worse as Evan Bayh's administration concocted the Indiana Dept of Environmental Management - the name says it all - a government agency that is going to manage the environment - right!  MA was absolutely ridiculous when it came to wetlands -on a project in Bellingham, a natural gas pipeline easement that was poorly graded when the pipe was replaced and ponded water in several places was actually classified as a wetland!  Governemnt attitudes do get in the way and I'm sure politics and political contributions can play a role in a project's approval process.  IDEM is ignoring the recent US Supreme Court's ruling on wetland regulation - they have basically said a developer will have to take them to court to change their illegal policy - arrogance.  I never was in favor of the USGA, GCSAA and ASGCA stance of trying to prove to the environmentalists that the game of was not a detriment to the environment - radicals will never let the facts get in the way of their emotional stance - but the leaders of the ASGCA felt that this was the best approach and I respected their decision.  Bill Love has made great efforts on our behalf (and spends a bunch of his own time) and has opened several doors in the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to take a better look at our projects and work with us - butthe government workers must do it within the framework of the political bureaucrats.  I really doubt that the Architects will be forming a PAC anytime soon.  Most of us do not have the resources to make great changes in DC.  A resulting positive effect of this effort was also to inform the interested public about the positive environmental effects of the golf course.

There is no ASGCA methodology - period.  If there is, I never got the manual, memo or marching orders.

Technology ruining golf architecture?  I think some architects have the budget to rely on dirt moving to force a design onto a site rather than utilize the topography to dicate routing and strategy.  I also believe that when golf became a commodity rather than a way of life the, "artform" suffered and continues to suffer.  Building golf courses as a sales tool is going to result in watered down exercises in landscape architecture - developers want a not - to - hard, easily maintainable landscape that will serve the comon denominator of the prospective clients.  This theory can also apply to the developer that wants to build a golf course that will have a reasonable pace of play and maintenance budget.  They want to wear out the cash register.  This is when the architect needs to attempt to educate the developer that to compete in the marketplace he needs to construct something that will exceed the marketplace's expectations.  The architect's job should be to design a course that challenges golfer in the spirit of the game, but somehow doesn't frustrate them to the point of not wanting to come back.  In Indiana the courses that are poorly designed do not compete well in the marketplace.  Golfers will tend to gravitate toward well designed, decently priced golf courses, even if they may not know why.  Many different types of courses must be built to accomodate the game; not all can have severely penalizing deep fairway bunkers, small sloping greens that will relate best to a particular angle of approach and a shaped shot, etc.

That's enough...

[TEPaul]

Very good post Tom MacW, it puts things in a nice perspective.

And also very good posts by Jeff Brauer, NeilM and Ron Kern et al. It's always good to hear from those in the profession for some of the realitiies of the business, whether some of the others who aren't in it agree or not. Threads like this one sometimes remind me of a discussion between dreamers and realists--those who are the practicioners and those who hope for other and better things. Both points of view are needed and I even think that both sides probably appreciate the other, although they don't always say so!

I think that this site is known for its particular preferences in golf course architecture, but I think that those who advocate those preferences as something that should predominate, dominate or even sweep the world of architecture should be careful. At the very least they should be a bit more realistic!

There is every kind of thing out there now and there probably always will be. That may not be such a bad thing. I believe even a guy like Coore appreciates and sees the benefits in the vast differences in golf architecture! You may need to have his kind and style, our kind, but it can easily co-exist with other kinds--and in a way that might even make both kinds or all kinds more meaningful!

Frankly, I think having both kinds or many different kinds is actually very natural in America. Why? Because I think that's just the way America is--and always has been.

Face it, we Americans probably live in the most "can do" society and culture the world has ever known. We are probably less fearful of change than any society or culture ever has been. But in a way we've always paid a bit of a price for our inclination for change and our "can do-ness". We are also a society and culture that has the ability and capacity to question ourselves, to often feel a sense of cultural or societal "guilt", if you will!

But neither our "can do-ness" nor our collective ability to feel "guilt" never seems to overcome us or predominate. We live with both in almost a context of "positive schizophrenia"--and we always have! This, to me, is indicated and probably easily understood in our original feelings about "manifest destiny". Our "can do-ness" allowed us to go out into the wilderness-- that great original and incredibly beautiful "unexplored beyond"--and conquer and maybe deface it so we could live in it without fear. But at the same time we always felt the guilt of defacing it's untampered with natural beauty and majesty!

If neither end of the pyschological spectrum predominated (and it never has) all this was the perfect prescription for the "positive Schizophenia" which has always been a large part of the American ethos!

How does this relate to golf architecture? It does since we've always had the capacity to feel different currents and live with them (the duality of manifest destiny). We've also always had the capacity to look forward and go forward and look back (and often longingly) simultaneously!

I think that the renaissance architecture we speak about and hope for on here is happening now and probably more than we realize. Many of the old classic courses are being restored properly (and many more would have been if Fazio would stick to what he says he likes and is good at--new construction!!!). Many new courses have been built recently in the style and atmosphere of some of the great old gems of yesteryear!

I think the ARCHITECTURAL validity and integrity of some of the "Golden Age" courses is becoming increasingly respected for what it is and always has been but the motivation of people like Ken Bakst, Roger Hansen, Goodwin and Drake, Keiser and many others like them should be understood in a larger context. It's not just the architecture they want (although they do), it's the dream of all that went with it--that's what they want to offer. It's the architecture and the entire package of yesteryear--the whole atmosphere of the way it once was!!

This then is being inspired much more by the clients (all those like the above mentioned) than it is by the architects! Those clients are just finding and identifying those architects to do what they want--and thank God those architects are out there and can do it so well. In all this I'm certainly not forgetting about the desire of the Doaks, Hanses, C&Cs and the others to do this kind of work anyway. They have been there wanting to do this kind of work, there's no doubt, it's just that these kinds of clients have finally delivered to them "their time" and maybe even their "renaissance era"!

That's the two way stretch of Americans, its golf and its architecture too. Much more than even five years ago people are "looking back" and wanting things that totally fulfill what those pasttimes make us feel. But at the same time there are plenty of others who are "looking ahead" to the opposite end of America's spectrum and wanting things that we've never had before--maybe grander, glitzier and more extragant things and the courses and the architecture that fulfill that. We should just let them have it and not even complain about it. And they will always find the architects to do what they want them to do. So what?

It's just the two way stretch of America--America's "postive schizophenia"! We will always look forward and look back simultaneously--and there's nothing wrong with that. Even if someone thinks there is something wrong with that, there's not a damn thing they can ever do about it anyway--that's the way we are and it will probably always be reflected in the spectrum and diversity of our golf course architecture!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Thanks for pointing out that my original question had nothing to do with belonging in any organization such as ASGCA.

Ron Kern/Jeff Brauer:

Thanks for jumping into the discussion.  The more industry folks participate the better as far as I'm concerned.

[TEPaul]

BarnyF:

When you say; 'the nonbelievers hate the believers', I was just wondering if you include among the "nonbelievers" Osama Bin Laden and all his worldwide fellow traveling terrorists?  

At this point it seems his primary concern is that a bunch of nonbelieving infidels (us) are traipsing around on what he considers his holy ground and that is a good enough reason to start a religious world war of terrorism to prevent. His rationale seems to be one that would advocate returning to some long past dark age when possibly no American existed! Since he's probably not a total dummy and realizes that we aren't going to stop doing that because of the world's reliance on oil, do you think maybe there is some other archaic sop we might throw his way to calm him down? What do you think about a return to the stymie? Might that be dark age enough for him?

You can answer me off line at tpaul25737@aol.com since just the mention of the stymie is not architecture for Ran and he will probably delete my question and your answer.

[BarnyF]

Mr. Paul,

I am a devout Catholic believing in the Applestolic church, Virgin Mother and Holy Trinity.  That being said I also believe that God has had many sons besides the christian Jesus. Mohammad would be just one of these sons that I speak.  A Trinity of subsets so to speak..Father, Sons and Holy Ghosts.  I give God enough credit to believe that he speaks to all people and not just european type christians. So I don't see Osama Bin Laden as a non-believer in any respect but someone whose methods are misguided as has been the case of so many religious jealots of the past.  I often wonder if some foriegn country was able to mine the rock, that St. Peter built his church at the Vactican on, to power their magic carpets what my reaction would be as I saw my holy land desicrated.  Would I lead a noble effort to stop the mining or would I fight an evil war beyond the rules established by the other societies norms.  It is a difficult question...I pray that my own faith is strong enough to do the right thing.

[TEPaul]

Barny:

It is indeed a difficult question and I too pray that my faith is strong enough to not only do but also think the right thing.

I'm not a Catholic so I might not totally believe in the Applestolic Church, but I do believe in virgins, although I've never been too sure about the Holy Trinity (Is that believing or even thinking about three things at once?), but I am an American and I do believe in little red apples!

I do believe in a Brotherhood of Man, and for that to survive and prosper we all have to not be annihilated by terrorism in a  worldwide religious war. For that type of survival to occur I believe in that early American army general's brilliant strategy on winning of "gettin' thar furstest with the mostest!" And for that I'm depending on the good sense of George, Colin, Donald and the Boys.

I would also remind Osama that, as you said, maybe everything does come from one God who monitors all religions and possibly he (Osama) has been getting the wrong message.

I would also gently explain to him that actually it was all us western infidels who set up the whole infrastructure and made him and his countrymen so rich in the first place. But if he has a problem with that maybe he should join forces with us and persuade all those countrymen of his to give that aethistic oil back to us!

It's proabably just incidental and small potatoes in the broad scheme of things but I'd tell Osama he could give me all his money if he felt bad about being rich like infidels such as us and I would promise him I would go build great golf courses all over the world with his gift--except for his country and anywhere near those places where infidels shouldn't be traipsing.

I think this might work, and who knows, he might even become a hero in Islam, maybe even in the infidel invested West. Unfortunately he's going to have to become a martyr too since he's already done too much to survive much longer. But he and his fellow travelers don't seem to mind dying at all for a really good cause and there can't be a much better cause than really good golf architecture all of the world--or almost all over the world!

[RJ_Daley]

Tim, I would like to make clear that my original response to your original question also had nothing to do or say about the ASGCA.  It was simply an observation you called for to give an opinon about technology and money hurting architecture.   In that context, the closest I got to an ecclesiastical subject was my analogy of craftsmanship in the building of cathedrals of yesteryear VS todays technology driven methods of stone masonry and construction leading to a uniformity of look and cut of the stone and design of the buildings.  I don't know how this turned into an inquisition of whose belief and non-belief signifies the anti-christ and all that.

[TEPaul]

RJ:

You don't know how this thread turned into an inquisition of whose religious beliefs or non-beliefs signifies....?

Come on, it's obvious--BarnyF and me read the topic! That's how things like that always happen.

[RJ D]

This reminds me of when I was in college working as a bartender in a joint where many egghead professors and university hangers-on came to drink beer and talk smart.  Someone would ask a simple question like "do you think it will be a nice day tomorrow?" and in no time at all the rush by these "intellectuals" to give a pity answer would evolve into an argument about the good and evils of collectivism VS individualism or some such esoteric conversation, yada yada.  My immigrant grand father would explain that it was a natural thing for those highly educated and sophisticated people to embark into the world of the irrelavant and whacky and that is why common folks didn't do that.  Cause a simple fool couldn't think up something so convoluted...

Where are you guys getting this religious fundamentalist stuff out of a call to discuss GCA design ideals?  

[TEPaul]

Where are youse guys getting this religious fundamentalist stuff out of a call to discuss GCA design ideas?

Well, BarnyF is getting it out of mysterious prose, convoluted logic and nonsequitors. I'm getting it out of a world class ability to create irrelevant analogiies and so forth. Sorry, lengthy irrelevant analogies and so forth.

How can you miss the brilliance in all this and how dare you question it?

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I'm getting so good at the mysteries and cross-currents of Golfclubatlas that I have recently figured out the ultimate mystery and that's how you can get Pat Mucci to agree with you!

I'm not telling anyone about the incredibly labyrintine and clever way that you can get him to agree with you--I will only tell you how you know that he has agreed with you--and that's when he no longer responds!

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Somehow we often seem to stray quite far from the question or topic that started the thread.

I thought your initial comments were well within the appropriate scope.

As for the ASGCA, I don't know anything about who belongs or the purpose of the organization.  I followed up on Tom MacWood's comment just to be clear that my comments initiating the thread were not directed at anyone in particular.

That aside, I do believe that money and technology have played a role diverting attention away from the "craftsmanship" part of golf architecture.  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but the kind of work we saw by Mike DeVries at Kingsley doesn't seem very prevalent in modern architecture.  And what a shame.

[Lou_Duran]

Tim:

I would not be so quick to discount the availability of great golf sites near major population centers and the negative effect of burdensome environmental and zoning regulations.  If money and building equipment were such corrupting influences, there should still be plenty of great courses being built because there are ample numbers of undercapitalized "wannabe" golf developers as well as capable architects looking for work.

As someone else suggested earlier, the classic courses which we hold in such high regard on this site have had the advantage of time in which to correct mistakes, mature, and acquire history.  I suspect that some of the contemporary courses will follow a similar cycle and will too someday be so revered.  

That there are so many courses being built for so many different reasons, it should not be surprising that the results will also be so varied.  There are only a few CPs and PVs in this world, and I don't think that it is fair to use these as standards by which we judge every new offering.  The fact that such gems as Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are being created should indicate that "craftsmanship" is still alive and well.  Having met a number of architects who are currently active, I am not at all concerned about the state of affairs in gca today.  From my standpoint, I can't recall a period of time when the player (or consumer) has had a wider choice of courses to play.  Outside of this website, most golfers would consider themselves lucky to be relegated to play only Fazio and Niclaus courses for the rest of their lives.

[Ed_Baker]

Oh My God,Lou you may have just actually defined limbo and purgatory !  

[A humble contributor]

TIMEOUT!

Jesus was a christian?

[A befuddled contributor]

Hmmm!? Jesus was a Jew but it does seem sort of unfair that you could start a big worldwide religion and you can't even be part of it, doesn't it?

[Daniel Webster]

Applestolic?

So, that's your blood pressure when your stoned on Boones Farm?

[BarnyF]

Daniel,

You brought out that ole Catholic Angel of Guilt...Apostolic which is related to the teachings of the 12 Apostles is the correct spelling.

I spent my youth saying a prayer that said I believe in the Apostolic Church and I never new what it was or even how to say it...I bet 90% of Catholic children say Applestolic but who ever said Mass can't be fun.

BTW...Jesus died a Jew and came back a Christian

[TEPaul]

BarnyF:

I'll take your Applestolic Church any day--it's nothing more than the American version--Motherhood and apple pie and all that!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barney,
I guess you are going to have to change religions. I'm a Catholic also.

(You know, to keep up with your anti-Tommy thing.)

Go Notre Dame!