Tom MacWood said:
"Golf courses are man-made, so in that repect they are not natural, however their main components are the earth and grass, so in that respect they are natural, that is if they are built on a site where earth and grass are naturally occuring....that's one of the problems with a desert golf course."
Tom MacW:
It sure is.
"Since a golf course is made by man, what you strive for is a golf course that melds and blends as best as possible with its natural circumstances....with the knowledge the historical model for golf is the links and a sandy site. Some do it better than others."
The knowledge the historical model for golf is the links and a sandy site???"
Come on man, what does that really have to do with how well good man-made golf architecture the "lines" of which blends into its particular site ("circumstances, as you say) looks and plays today? Have you ever seen a natural sand dune in the Canadian Rockies? Have you even seen naturally occuring sand there?
It's just great that golf and perhaps even golf architecture started in the linksland of Scotland but it also immigated out of the linksland and to vastly different sites and circumstances beginning over 150 years ago. Isn't it about time golf architecture attempts to do its own thing in sites around the world using materials that are natural to particular and various circumstances? More particularly isn't it about time it stops using materials that are wholly unnatural to various sites, particularly if it ever really does want to push the envelop of appearing as natural and naturally occuring as possible?
Golf course architecture certainly doesn't have all that many sylistic and artistic restraints compared to the architecture of other sports but if it's to be really free architecturally it's about time golf architects learn or just admit that it really isn't necessary to haul sand into every site they go to if there is no naturally occuring sand with hundreds of miles of that site.
It's not as if sites all over the world don't offer interesting alternatives and interesting materials to take the place of sand bunkering as a feature so as to make golf courses look more natural to what you call their 'natural circumstances'.
I guess the question is where are the architects who have the imagination and the guts to break free of that one odd vestige of linksland golf---the sand bunker--- that's not exactly necessary to golf or architecture but has totally hung on through these last 150 years when golf left the linksland?
I've literally never heard any architect explain why sand bunkering on sites that have no sand is necessary other than the fact that everyone seems to think it's necessary.
There are certainly enough alternatives and they should be tried in the future, and most certainly if architects really are interested in going more "site natural" in the things they do and with the things they use.
Who's ever seen a natural sand blowout or sand dune in the Canadian Rockies? Who's even seen naturally occuring sand there?