Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[TEPaul]

TommyN said:

"From Bandon Dunes, it is just about 55-65 minutes tops, and only because you have to reduce your speed through some of the little towns and villages along the way."

Tommy:

You really don't have to do that. At least I never have and that's why I've always called little towns like that "30 second towns". I've always been able to blow through towns like that at a minimum of 85 mph and that way it'd probably take me no more than 30 minutes to get from Bandon to Sandpines.

That's the way I used to do it in the real old days on the old roads to Florida before I-95 and I only got stopped (or I should say caught) a few times by a few local sheriffs. I don't think I killed anyone either with the exception of a few red-neck dogs wandering around on the road. Of course I didn't want to kill them but Fireball Roberts told me when I was really young that when faced with a dog in your path at high speed just hold the wheel steady, close your eyes, and don't pay much attention to the bump. Otherwise he said; "You'd be liable to keeel ya own ass!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I indicated when I first posted that I hadn't seen Sandpines.
You also know that I've maintained since day one, that if you haven't seen, or better yet, played a golf course, you're unqualified to evaluate it, so obviously, I'm UNQUALIFIED to evaluate Sandpines.

But, I'm glad you thought about it and decided to answer the questions I posed.

In one of your answers you referenced Ken Bakst and Mike Keiser as superior developers, and I would have to agree.
You may recall that, since day one, I have maintained that the developer can be, or is, THE KEY to the final golf course product.

Ask yourself, if Ken and Mike wanted you to build a golf course and Donald Trump wanted you to build a golf course just how different the final products would be.  That was why I asked who the owner/developer was, to try to ascertain the objectives behind the design of Sandpines.

The question, "Why did he hire Rees" is important in that the developer may have wanted a particular style that he liked.
That style may have been Rees's style, hence he hired him.
Thus, that golf course may have turned out exactly as the developer had intended.

You may object to this style being forced into a setting that you feel was more receptive to a more natural style, much the same way that some object to Trump's Palm Beach course being forced into the natural flat lands of south Florida.

But, perhaps both architects adhered to the mandate of the developer that hired them, and IF that's the case at Sandpines, you shouldn't fault Rees, you should fault the developer.

I know that others might say that Rees should have turned down the job, but that's not a realistic response, that a man in business should turn down a profitable venture because SOME object to the STYLE of the golf course being designed.

Some objected to the work Tom Doak did at Atlantic City, a William Flynn golf course.  But, had the developer had his way, the course would have been totally altered.  
The developers original intent was to do what Wynn had done in Las Vegas.  Tom Doak did a good job in preserving some of the Flynn work, while at the same time designing some pretty good golf holes, that the owner/developer accepted, which was not an easy task, especially if you knew the developer.

It is not unusual that an individual sees or plays a golf course that they like, and then tries to retain the services of the architect that designed that course, to design one, in a similar image for them.

You've explained, and I understand what you would have liked to have seen on that property, but that may not have been the intent of the owner/developer, and my point is that before anyone starts pointing fingers and condemning Rees's work, the should obtain all of the facts with respect to the development, design and building of Sandpines.

I may even agree with you, but, before the trial begins, we should get all of the pertinent facts, don't you agree ?

[herrstein]

It almost caused me to give up cigars.

[Dan Kelly]

It almost caused me to give up cigars.

In other words: This article almost had some redeeming social value!

Just teasing. You can smoke your cigars all you want, and you'll get no grief  from me -- so long as you don't leave your big ashes (or your big butts) on the putting greens.

Thank you very much.

[Paul Turner]

When you look at the similarities between The Oxforshire and Sand Pines-which are so far apart geographically and geologically-I believe the style of both courses has more to do with the architect than the developer.  I also believe that an architect with Rees Jones's financial and "brand name" clout, would have plenty of leeway in the design style and philosophy, if he so chose.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

So, as a developer, if you hired Rees Jones because you wanted a course that looked a certain way, you wouldn't be disappointed if he designed something just the opposite of what you wanted ?

And, you would pay him his fee and not claim that he produced something other than what you had agreed that he would design ?

I think you're either being naive or not looking at a developer's retention of an architect in a realistic manner.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Apparently you don't think an architect has anything to say about what kind of developer he works for or what that developer asks for. Have you ever wondered why Coore and Crenshaw sometimes take so long to sign on the dotted line?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Andy I have been caught. I thought for sure you would avoid a rees thread and all that pat does to defend him to the death. Yes I would like an 11 win season as a poor year. No I would not want mac but we have discussed that. lol Sadly the hat shall soon be on my head in shame.  Sandpines is as poor use or good golf land as i have ever seen. Rees or no Rees.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

Do you honestly reckon that the developer asks specifically for mounding and containment, of that style?  I don't think developers are nearly as specific, they just want a "Top 100" course and an architect of Rees's standing would have plenty of leeway, he just chooses to stick to a particular style.  

The course shows Rees's style, not the developer's.  

The Oxfordshire is a very different project (planned as a high profile tournament venue) from Sandpines, in a very different country and yet we have courses that are so similar to look at.  Atlantic has plenty in common with Oxfordshire too.

You're being naive if you believe this style of course has more to do with the developer than architect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Who chooses the architect ?

Do you think a developer chooses an architect whose work he has never seen ?

Naive ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm sure what I'm about to say will really increase the longevity of this thread.

Pat, Now I'm not saying that this is fact, but I have heard from a VERY reliable source, who has been courted by Rees himself, that the developer has very little, if any, input in the design of any Rees Jones project. Just like Coore & Crenshaw, Rees does have his principles too, and they seem to be more of a control-thing so that it doesn't get out of hand. I don't blame him one bit for wanting that control, and I don't think there is an architect in the world that wouldn't admire this principle either.

That is why Rees should be held soley responsible for Sandpines. I have said this before, I think he should go back there and fix it--free of charge.

Now that is something I could really respect.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.  

I don't want to debate the merits of Rees Jones' architecture because I have seen very little of his original work and only two of his renovations (both of which I liked, for the most part.)  I do, however, take issue with the argument you set forth above.  I recall that you have taken this position in the past.  I did not understand it then and I don't now.

You acknowledge that the developer may have chosen Rees because the developer liked Rees' style (. . . the developer may have wanted a particular style that he liked. That style may have been Rees's style, hence he hired him.).

But then you give Rees a complete pass when it comes time to critique the course.  (. . . perhaps both architects adhered to the mandate of the developer that hired them, and IF that's the case at Sandpines, you shouldn't fault Rees, you should fault the developer.)

This doesn't make sense to me.  Whether we fault Rees or the developer, isn't it still Rees' style that is in question?

[TEPaul]

"This doesn't make sense to me.  Whether we fault Rees or the developer, isn't it still Rees' style that is in question?"

A question by DMoriarty that pretty much makes an undeniable conclusion, unless Patrick is going to tell us next that Rees's style is actually the developer's style. You've taken your logic on this subject way too far down the wrong road, Pat--it really doesn't make any sense. You're starting to make it sound as if any architect is a pawn or even a slave to any developer and none of us are going to buy that!

This idea of yours that if, "You take the King's shilling you do the king's bidding", is not really cutting it--it's just not realistic. Don't you know about the architects out there who just aren't going to take the shilling of various types of "Kings"? If you don't by now you should--because that's one of the primary reasons many of us admire some of those architects. Some of them actually have architectural principles that doesn't completely revolve around the "King's shilling".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Hypothetically if you wan't to blaim the developer for hiring a crap architect...that's your perogative. But the architecture is still crap and isn't that what this site is about?

[J_Olsen (Guest)]

Look isn't there a simple question here? If we didn't know to whom these statements from the article were attributed, wouldn't we applaud them? So, the real issue is, does Rees actually do what he says he does, or, if not, does he think he does it anyway?

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

Well from reading "Miracle on Breeze Hill" it's pretty clear that Lowell Schulman hired Rees without ever seeing his work.  He was simply impressed with the high profile press reports of Rees's restoration of The Country Club for the US Open and also his modest attitude to that work.

Atlantic is clearly a course where the developer had zero input on the course, Schulman is explicit about this.  And what do we get?  A course that that many of the same highly stylised features that are found at Oxfordshire and Sandpines.  

So lets see.  We have all these variables: developers, site... and two constants: a style and the architect.

Blinkered?

[RJ_Daley]

Ask yourself, if Ken and Mike wanted you to build a golf course and Donald Trump wanted you to build a golf course just how different the final products would be.  That was why I asked who the owner/developer was, to try to ascertain the objectives behind the design of Sandpines.

The question, "Why did he hire Rees" is important in that the developer may have wanted a particular style that he liked.
That style may have been Rees's style, hence he hired him.
Thus, that golf course may have turned out exactly as the developer had intended.

You may object to this style being forced into a setting that you feel was more receptive to a more natural style, much the same way that some object to Trump's Palm Beach course being forced into the natural flat lands of south Florida.

Pat, what you said above indicates to me that while you get it; (Rees's 'style' married to the developers lack of respect, vision and ethic for a rare and naturally beautiful property), you still seem to think that such hubris deserves a champion to defend such arrogance.  

This all brings to mind the "mentality" of people who think they can create the... "perfect"... anything over the majesty of nature.  I think arrogant and hubristic people attract each other.  The Trumps and Jones's of the world, all feed out of the same caviar dish and swill the same dom Perignom.  They usually have more money than they know what to do with, and then get some god-like mentality that they can screw with nature and anything else the want to create their vision of, and their signiture trademark style of ..."perfect", and then sell it to all the wannabees who worship at the alter of their signature style perfection.  When I think of pin head developers and architects who think they can create the ...."perfect"... golf course, I hear that knawing and disgusting infomercial by Peter Kessler how he continues to repeat the chant about the ..."perfect"... club.  Why it's just..."perfect".  

You have to respect and admire those devolopers who have the means, like Bakst, Keiser, Youngscap, and soon Ramsey who have the integrity, vision and ethics to hire like minded architects who will not impose hubristic signature/stylized design over something that is rare and beautiful in nature.  Their approach is to marry the desire for a venue of recreational pursuit to the beauty of what nature has provided.  That is what makes all the difference in the world.  

I don't condemn Wynn or Trump completely, for taking a piece of zero aesthetic and low interest property and having a Fazio or Rees bomb the hell out of it to whip up their stylized versions of ..."perfect", if you like that sort of thing.  In those instances, they can talk all about the shot values and flow that they created through their clever, stylized design through the use of bulldozers, etc.  I think it is a grand waste of money and resources, and shear perpetuation of the "life behind the gates" mentality, but hey... it is their money.  

But, these rare sites of high natural beauty like the sand pines area as described, where the mentality is to come in and impose the ..."perfect" golf design by ripping it all apart and destroying the natural face of the land inorder to superimpose your template style, is disgusting in my very humble opinion.  

[Michael Dugger]

Pat Mucci.....where are you?  I'm sure you must have a response to Mr. Daley's fine post?

Mr. Daley....Bravo, I couldn't have put it any better myself.

IMHO, it gets frustrating to battle over what I perceive to be a fundamental ideological difference here.  Always is.  

Mr. Mucci, please pick up a copy of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead the next time you visit a bookstore.  Your notion that we should not hold Rees responsible for Sand Pines based on the demands and wishes of the developer is...irresponsible at best.  I'm not going to go on and on here, Mr. Daley already said what I was about to, but consider the following.

One day Rees Jones is going to have passed on just like Dr. Mac and A.W. did years and years ago.  Golf courses last.....in theory....forever.  Sure they change, evolve and are "improved".  Then, of course, someone comes along and "Restores" them.  But when push comes to shove, golf course architects make a lasting impression on our good planet.  

Let's say you, Mr. Mucci, are Rees Jones.  While in your deathbed are you going to be able to look back over your "body of work" and feel proud about what you did?  

Ideaological differences.....I'll say it again.  I want golf course architects who are ARTISTS.  
Howards...not Peters (from Fountainhead, for those of you familiar with the book)

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you think that Ben Crenshaw is wealthy enough that if he never took another design assignment that it wouldn't alter his living standards ?

How many architects have the luxury of independent wealth ?
Wealth totally unrelated to their architectural pursuits.

If we all had $ 50,000,000 do you think we might be more selective with respect to the clients we cultivate ?

I know you love C & C, but let's be realistic, they can financially afford to turn away clients that others can't, and your example is a very, very poor one.

In the business world, and in life, when you take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding.  
If you don't, you'll find yourself amongst the unemployed.
If you're independently wealthy, that's not a burden, but if you have to feed your family, and meet a payroll,
those obligations are significant enough to influence your decisions.

Tommy Naccarato,

I've never seen Sandpines, so I can't comment on its merit or demerits.

It sounds like you object to the style rather than the strategy of the holes.

If I had obsolute control over the project, perhaps I would agree with you with respect to the style of course that you would have prefered to have seen built on the site.  But, done is done, the course exists in its present form, thus the question is:  Is the course strategically sound ?  
And, How is its playability ?

DMoriarty,

I would ask you the same question,
Is it the style or strategy that is being objected to ?  

If it's the style, and the strategy is sound, then it's just someone's personal preference with respect to style.  

If it's the routing and the strategy, that's a far more serious
and valid criticism, but one would need to make their case on a hole by hole basis, and not couch their disapproval in terms of off-play mounding.

It goes back to the distinction of form versus substance.

Tom MacWood,

Are you saying that Atlantic is crap ?

I'll go on record as saying that Atlantic is a good golf course.
That the architecture is strategic and sound.

How was Ocean Forest received ?
How was Old Kinderhook received ?

Have you ever played any of the above courses ?
If not, how do you qualify them as crap ?

Paul Turner,

Lowell Schulman wasn't a neophyte to golf and golf course design and construction.  He was seasoned to say the least, having been actively involved in the creation of a golf club and course in Westchester a few years earlier, not to mention his construction experience gained in his business.

Typical of Lowell, he is low key, on his accomplishments, his backround and his involvement.
All to often he gives credit strictly to others rather then to himself, when he deserves a fair share.

Your contention that Lowell had ZERO imput is incorrect.

You and others are guilty of the same mistake, equating style with strategy or substance.

You may recall that I asked Tommy about the play of the holes and got a fairly positive response, so what's the beef ?
The style ?  The off-play mounds ?

RJ Daley,

So you would decide and dictate what an owner of a piece of property is going to do with it.  You would decide who the architect retained is.  And, you will decide what type of golf courses are designed and built on each piece of property and, you'll decide what type of golf courses people want to play.
And you accuse others of arrogance.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your preference is style is labeled as having no discerning tastes, or committing a crime upon the land.

I would imagine, under your rules, that NGLA would never have been designed and built in its original form.

If, instead of trees, containment mounds had been inserted between the holes at Pine Valley, would the strategic value of any hole be diminished ?  How about their playability ?

CBM, SR and CB all manufactured golf courses and they are deemed ordained deities on this site, Rees' STYLE doesn't find favor and he is villified WITHOUT one iota of consideration for the strategy and playability of the holes he designs.  

Why haven't you addressed the issues of strategy and playability of the holes pictured and mentioned ?

Aren't those the more critical issues ?

MDugger,

The answer to your question lies in the final, death bed scene from "The Last Hurrah"
 
Why does a developer pick a specific architect ?

a.  because he doesn't like his work
b.  because he does like his work
c.  because the bank likes his work
d.  because the golfers targeted to play the course like his
    work
e.  because his design fee is cheap
f.  because he wants his project to be unsuccessful

Do you think developers choose architects randomly by drawing their names out of a hat ?

Everybody, including you, have focused on off-play mounds and chosen to abandon the critical issues of strategy and playability of each of the holes pictured or mentioned.

Why is that ?

I've never played Sandpines so I'm unqualified to evaluate it.
But, I have played Atlantic and would be happy discuss its strategy and playability with you or anyone else.
  
You, and others can wail at the off-play mounds or you can discuss the relative strategic merits and playability of the holes, the choice is yours.

[Rick Shefchik]

Seems to me that choice has been made. Many here don't like the style (look) of the typical Rees Jones course. Tommy N. thinks something much more aesthetically pleasing could have been done on that site -- something that made the soul sing just to behold it, rather than something that made the soul shrug in indifference, or gag in disgust. And apparently many, after looking at the photos, agree with him.

I'm not all that turned off by the photos, actually, but then it is my misfortune to play a lot of mediocre golf courses. I'd rather do that than not play.

But let's not be disingenuous here: Of course this thread is about style rather than strategy, and of course Rees Jones is going to bear the brunt of the criticism. When a city lays out good money to commission a sculpture for a public park, and the public doesn't like the sculpture, naturally they're going to be perturbed with the city for wasting the money. But mostly they're going to say the sculpture stinks.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I didn't mention any architect or course specifically - no need to jump off the deep end.

I simply said that hypothetically, if you want to blaim the developer for hiring a crap architect...that's your perogative. But the architecture is still crap and isn't this site is about identifying and analysing good architecture?  In other words GCA is about outstanding architecture, no one is interested in crap architecture or coming up with excuses for crap architecture - crap is crap.

Perhaps we should develop a new website.....Mandates-R-Us? Where we can breakdown the finer points of ill advised hires, self serving mandates, confused decision makers, gullable memberships and the entire interworkings of country club life, and the titilating power struggles that insue. I know I'd tune in.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

Lowell Schullman explicitly states that he refused to offer his "amateur" opinion to Rees.  Do you believe he had much input?

Do you believe he researched and studied Rees's work before hiring him?  From reading the book, it doesn't look that way at all.

You can't divorce strategy from style, they are connected.  Certainly not when that style flattens all the natural/idiosyncratic contours of the property, and builds all those wing mounds. Fairway bunkers nearly entirely on the wings too.  

Where are the interesting stances at Atlantic?   You have to wait until you're about 100 yards short of the 18th green before encountering some interesting man-made contour (possibly a small amount at the start of the 3rd fairway).  

So "the beef" is that these course do not take advantage of the natural terrain.  Rather, a style is imposed and so we have different courses which are similar in both style and strategy.  It's boring!

(Rees writes tha Atlantic is a "links style" golf course.  But it's as if he's equated no trees=links style.  Also, he claims the course was designed with the ground game in mind, I couldn't see it and I doubt many use the ground game when playing there.)

PS

Do you like the style shown in photos posted?

[Michael Moore]

B.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, clowns mouths and windmills are strategic.  You are such a bottom line kind of guy that as long as it plays strategically, you don't seem to mind what is done to the land, of a particularly beautiful site.  Pat, you always put words in others mouths and take the tact that if you throw enough manure, something will stick.

 So you would decide and dictate what an owner of a piece of property is going to do with it.  You would decide who the architect retained is.  And, you will decide what type of golf courses are designed and built on each piece of property and, you'll decide what type of golf courses people want to play. And you accuse others of arrogance.

Pat, I am not doing anything of the sort, as you ascribe to me above.  I'm not dictating to anyone what they must do with their golf properties, which archie they must use, etc.  What I am saying, is that I perceive a common arrogance in certain types of hubristic developers to pound their trademark personal signature onto sites that are beautiful in their natural state with little respect or consideration for the beauty of subtle and harmonious relationship with nature that is before them.  They command the mountains to soften, the streams to change courses, the waters to rise up and crestfall into the multilevel tranquility "perfect" pools, and the gargoyles to piss into the Italian marble koy filled ponds. They wouldn't think of the majesty of a simple and understated golf course laid gently across land that barely detracts from the natural state, or even harmonizes with it.  If it doesn't scream their name, and their style, because it cost a lot of money, it isn't worth a darn, IMHO.  As I stated, not what you said I stated; I don't condemn the Wynns and Trumps using the Fazio and Jones types completely.  If they want to create their own personal monuments to extravagant theme parks for the glitterati and call it golf, I couldn't care less if they do it on low value or low aesthetic unremarkable land.  That sort of architecture suits these guys to a tee who think more is better.  Massive projects highlight their particular talent.  But, when they take a beautiful site, and bomb the hell out of it and create artificial crap in place of what was beautiful and promising, and poop all over the sense of tradition and aesthetic that has been artistically documented in the lore of great observers of the game and its courses for more than a century, just to stamp a guady signature on it, then I don't like it.  And, I guess I am arrogant enough to say I don't like that, but not arrogant enough to tell you what to like.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dick- You must've hit a nerve. Pat's vilification of you is completly unwarranted. He must not have 'gotten it' or supports the wasting of resources for reasons of nothing but hubris.
I think I see Keiser in a new light, knowing how little he wasted at Pacific Dunes.