Just look at that post of Ken Bakst! Is that not the best thing in all of this? What does it show us? Here's what it shows me.
1. The value of constructive criticism
2. The value of openmindedness
3. The value of collaboration.
4. Willingness to understand that change can be benefical, it can actually create improvement. And that change need never be for change's sake alone. Just like during original construction creativity, collaboration should reign and it should be put through a logical and sensible filter at all times--apply basic principles when you think architecturally!
These kinds of things and these kinds of attitudes are great for architecture. The more thinking that goes into something, anything, the better it may be. It shouldn't scare anyone but we all should be realistic about who does it and how it's all filtered through.
Do any of you think George Crump, had he lived instead of dying prematurely before his course was quite finished, would have stopped working on it, improving it, perfecting it? No way, and his own quote is left with us to prove that bigtime. Did Macdonald stop at NGLA or Ross at Pinehurst #2 or Fownes at Oakmont or Wilson at Merion?
Good Stuff KenB and also a good answer to some purists who for some reason feel that once a great course opens for play its architecture should be frozen in time!
It also puts the lie to Pat Mucci's bizarre tenet that if any architect takes the King's shilling (the owner) he should do the King's bidding only. Doesn't that sort of smack of an owner who thinks he knows more about architecture than the architect--like a Coore and Crenshaw, for instance? If that tenet had any real truth to it why would that owner, that King hire an architect in the first place? Why not just do everything himself?
For any of you out there interested in this fascinating process of what it really takes, how it really comes about in producing a great golf course such as Friar's Head, perhaps someday you will be lucky enough to hear from Ken Bakst what he knew way back when, knows now, what he went through, what he learned and how he feels about the whole thing now.
Did he ever feel disappointment that some of his own thoughts and ideas were not executed? Definitely. Perhaps that's the most fascinating thing of all of it. Did he keep an open mind? Did he listen and learn? Definitely. Did he contribute to the vision, large and small, the architecture, the large scope and the minute stuff and get some of the things he wanted in the architecture? Of course. Did he give up some of the things he thought he wanted because he had respect for his architects? Does he think it worked out for the best that way? Just let him tell you. I sure hope he does. And in the meantime just read his posts.
Let's all keep open minds like that, keep collaborating even if it's disagreeing half the time. It's better that way in the end, as a course like Friar's Head shows now and apparently will continue to.
Great stuff and excellent post Ken Bakst!