[T_MacWood]

RJ
Wow. I now understand, FLW would have been incapable of designing a playable golf course because he designed several flat roofs that developed leaks (you know the 10th ANGC didn't drain either - oh well) the Erdman experimental prefab home was developed for pigmies (thank goodness golf-architects never design a weak hole), Fallingwater was a bad idea (Have you ever seen the NGLA in winter -- very unhealthy, shame on CB), his kitchens were not up to par(I agree emenities are extremely important) and he hated golf because it was bourgouise sport(I've never seen that from FLW, but I'll take your word for it). Tremendous logic and supportive documentation. I thought maybe I found a flaw in your logic, but that damn Erdman prefab home is impossible to explain away.

You've got me sold -- who cares about golf courses, hell the hack couldn't even build a decent home! But of course my logic is flawed because I'm quoting the intellectual RJ, and as we all know anyone can use a quote of an intellectual to extoll one's own ideals or set of virtues. Damn it!

What do you think the chances Picasso could've ever designed a golf course?

[RobertWalker]

Picasso would have been a better gca than FLW. GC Design is sculpture more than it is architecture.

[aclayman]

Being a cubist... I'd say 1 in 6

[Ward_Peyronnin]

Gents,

Moving past all the ideology, I am a building contractor who has viewed FLW designs based on their constructability and maintainability and his huge ego( the fatal flaw of many architects) is evident in his disregard for the legacy his designs left for those who had to minister to them. Is what we admire of those gca's recognized on this site consistent with that kind of arrogant imposition of artistic license regardless of the consequences?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom Mac., you must be having a particularly bad day  

[T_MacWood]

RJ
I had wonderful day, I finally understood what FLW was all about thanks to the clarity of your arguement - thank you.

The interesting thing about this hypothetical, and ones like it, is how illustrates where everyone is coming from with golf-architecure. The reasons I'm drawn to a FLW or a MacKenzie or a Thompson are many of the same reasons that you are skeptical. And conversely the reasons you admire a Bendelow or RB Harris are many of the same reason's why I'm uniterested.

Ward
You clearly know more about engineering, contructablity and maintainablity than I do, which FLW designs were ill concieved? Would you consider Yale and Lido mistakes for the same reasons? Is a huge ego a fatal flaw among great golf-architects or a common characteristic?

Robert
I understand why you are big fan of modern GC design, the ability to take the land and mold it like a piece of clay. I'm more fond of the golf-architects who work in concert with the land, respecting nature not overpowering her, they more a kin to architects, particulary of the A&C movement.

I wonder if Gertrude Jekyll been able to design a golf course? Charles Latham?

[ForkaB]

It intrigues me that only Dick Daley has actually had the cojones to answer John's implied question (and, BTW Dick, I'd love to play that 13 hole 2100 yard course that leaks!).

As great as FLW may or may not have been, forcing him to design a golf course would probably have been cruel and unusual punishment.  If he had wanted to do so, he would have done so, and this site would have been changed--changed utterly--as we all tried to find ways to justify or even hit his 1000 square foot greens while we slouched towards the 19th hole to be reborn.....

[RobertWalker]

Tom MacWood,

You say that I am a FAN of modern golf course design.

Where have I ever said anything of the kind?

When?

In your confrontational Jack Stack way, you have made assumptions about my tastes. ASSUMPTIONS!
You know what happens when you assume.

Golf Course Design is about shaping the land. Some impose their shapes more than others, but all designers impose.

Regarding Wright's Ego, or Architects' egos, the issue is that when anyone thinks that he does not need to listen to others, then he takes huge risks.

When I worked for Philip Johnson, he led contractors, and engineers to think that he knew nothing about keeping the water out, or about acoustics, or about expansion. He would announce his intentions, proclaim his cconfidence in the engineers, and keep his eyes open. After 40 and 50 years, his buildings  have stood great tests of time. He has a huge ego, but he knows that others have great egos as well.

As for flat roofs, they leak.

Two stories about Johnson and his Glass House:
He liked to tell people that his was a 3 bucket house. When it rained, he needed "only 3 buckets".
The other is when Wright visited the Glass House in the 50's, he looked at Johnson and said "Am I inside, or am I outside? Do I take my hat off, or do I leave it on Philip?
Johnson said "Do whatever the F@#$ you want Frank!"

[RJ_Daley]

       Thank you Robert for those priceless anectodes and one of the heartiest laughs in a long time!

And Tom, I gotta go with this "assumptions" theme and tendency observed to be yours to attribute my comments as "contempt" or "intellectual" (psuedo-intellectual in the best case scenario of a definition of that term in my case) about FLW.  Of course, my attempt to use sarcasm as humor by definition is contemptuous.  (I only know that cause I looked it up in order to spell it right).  Truly, when it comes to an intellectual discussion of FLW and his work and the meaning of it; I am in a gun fight carrying only a knife. But, I have a right to form an opinion of what I have seen of FLW works, and respond to the original question tossed up for discussion here about what I believe FLW would have done had he been a GCA or at least designed a golf course based on purely anecdotal observations of what kind of fellow he was like in personality coupled with his style as I can try to interpret it from my narrow perspective.  

[Lurking in New Canaan]

FLW:  "Why don't you have any proper seating for me, Phillip!?

PJ:  "Frankie, didn't your Mamma tell you that people in glass houses shouldn't stow thrones?"

[Ward_Peyronnin]

I have not revisited flw in years but fallingwater and a university campus in fla( can't rember name) where they were going broke trying to maintain his campus are two.
I believe persona such as his try to impose an idealstic construct of their own creation regardless of the eventual consequences( as Mr Walker aptly says  designers need to "listen" to a lot of factors).

My recollection of Tillinghast & Mackenzie books recalls extensive treatment of construction techniqhues(how to blast & remove rock and replace as drainage under bunkers and the importance of proper construction techniques and use of materials as a palliative to maintanance costs) that I don't believe flw would have concerned himself with and that many of todays eye candy architects disregard as well. Please don't mistake my coments as criticism of a course like Yale becuase there is room for boldness just not callousness. I wish I could be more elaborative but I must rise tomorrow to referee a Mid am qualifier and I don't want to beat his to death anyway.

Regards
Ward

[RJ_Daley]

 http://captimes.com/opinion/editorial/5339.php

As FLWs understudy and protoge, this apple didn't fall too far from the tree.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()