News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jari Rasinkangas

The most artificial GCA?
« on: January 23, 2006, 02:16:32 PM »
In new issue of Golf Course Architecture magazine there was an article about a course in Dunkirk, France, designed by French GCA Robert Berthet.  The first holes were built in 1980's and now it is a 27 hole course.  The course is located on a former rubbish dump.

The first 18 holes look like a normal golf course but the new nine is one of the weirdest ones I have seen.  Berthet got the idea for the new nine by studying the works of French military engineer of the seventeenth century who built forts at that time.  Berthet made an analogy between the state of mind of golfers and of military men saying, “Golfers are attacking greens, defended by bunkers, from which they explode.  Their utmost target is a green where a flag reminds us the banners of old fortified castles.”  He decided then to take the military idea further by designing a course with greens protected by bastions and fairways running along escarpments.

When asked about the man made artificial forms of bastions and rectangle shaped bunkers Berhet says “We must be brave enough to say ‘It is not natural’.  When we do GCA we should be proud of our ability to create an interesting landscape where it previously didn’t exist.  Besides, so much GCA shows a lack of imagination – thinking in these ways at least ensures originality.”

IMO you don’t need much imagination to copy some military fortress architecture and merge it with some tees, fairways and greens.  Why build this kind of freak?  ???





The photo gallery of the course is here: http://www.golf-dk.com/index.php?adr=galerie

Jari

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2006, 02:55:02 PM »
I have to agree with the idea that architect Berthet has been brave here.  But, he has not been original in the actual design since Marshall Vauban is the inspriation behind the ramparts and fortified positions designs.  It looks to me like this sort of design is definitely oriented to defend or protect from a siege, not the camoflauge design that is attributed to MacKenzie's military work.  Concealment and deception via blending into natural surrounds or confusing natural looking edges, as has been talked about in the other thread, is more golf oriented, IMHO.  

But, that said, I would like to have a go at this unusual design.  If the FW and green contours are diverse and placed well, I don't see why it wouldn't be a great round of golf with apparent strategy.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6750/
« Last Edit: January 23, 2006, 02:56:45 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Troy Alderson

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2006, 02:57:21 PM »
Jari,

Your post has opened myself to a thought.  The golf courses that we tend to frown upon and that do not look natural, typically have not the time and effort put into the construction phase and/or are done by armchair GC Architects.  This golf course in France, though strange in appearance, appears well planned and detailed in the construction.  The golf course actually does not offend me.

I aggree with Brian that maintenance will subdue the sharp edges.  But I disaggree with you in that it did not take much imagination.  The GCA did not copy forts, but used the ideas behind forts to protect the flag.

Though it does not offend me, I would not build a golf course with this type of design.

Troy

Mike_Cirba

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2006, 02:57:51 PM »
Calling Bob Cupp...Calling Bob Cupp..

I'd really like to see more ground level photos of this place.  There's frankly something that I find charming and strangely appealing in the unapologetic directness of the approach.  

Perhaps it's a point I've been trying to make here for some time now without much success, which is, golf courses are primarily modeled after fields of battle and at first glance, Berthet's homage is certainly an interesting imitative approach.  

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2006, 03:20:28 PM »
It looks like a South Carolina low-country lovechild of Palmetto Hall (Cupp) meets Moorland (@Legends - PB Dye, especially that 2nd pic).   :o

TEPaul

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2006, 03:50:41 PM »
That sure is the most artificial looking golf course I've ever seen and as weird as it is, you know what, I'm glad it's there. I subscribe to the theory that the spectrum of types and styled of golf architecture should be very wide. I think the look of that golf course by Berthet just widened the spectrum, and by a lot!  ;)

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2006, 04:37:50 PM »
This is really cool.

Typical French attitude (which I defend as a Quebec kid...) Go to the limit of your idea, no half-commitment.

Got to like this.

Voytek Wilczak

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2006, 05:04:07 PM »
Very, uh, Cubist.

Tres cool.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2006, 05:31:23 PM »
I like it.

It raises a number of good questions. For example, it flushes the "naturalism conceit" out of the closet. Berthet's course is, in fact, no less natural than virtually any other course. All have been built, all have been manufactured, it's just that this course was built without the veneer of appearing to be natural.

It flushes out another issue - that the primary mission of a golf course is to provide for interesting golf. Assuming, arguendo, that it provides for interesting golf, it is an object lesson that a successful golf course can appear (i) ugly, (ii) unnatural and (iii) goofy, but still be succesful because of the quality of the golf it calls forth.

But Berthet's course is only Exhbit B for that proposition. Another course beat it to the same punch centuries ago. TOC is Exhibit A.

Berthet's course raises lots of interesting issues. I wish there were more architects willing to take similar risks.

Bob
« Last Edit: January 24, 2006, 08:10:03 AM by BCrosby »

Jay Flemma

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2006, 05:55:57 PM »
...interesting...bit garish for my taste.

Somebody saw a punchbowl there?  I was looking, but couldn't find it...can someone show me?

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2006, 06:05:09 PM »
How many of you play a golf course from an aerial view......
this is no different than a Seth Raynor....
And I have played Palmetto Hall, if you had never seen it from the air you really would not envision it.  Good golf course.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2006, 06:31:43 PM »
Not cubist but baroque formalism. Vauban is the model, good call there. Very formalistic, very much like Raynor, who was a civil engineer, not a military engineer and certainly not a golfer.

I'll bet a dozen golf course architects built airfields in WWII. Chief among them was Dick Wilson. So did Walter Irving Johnson. Their work in the 1950s showed it. I'd much prefer the chessboard fortification model.

John Goodman

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2006, 06:34:49 PM »
How are those ramparts really any different from the containment mounding that gets so regularly booed on here?  

This course may be suffering from hipatitis. . .

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2006, 06:37:01 PM »
Some guys just run out of (or get) new ideas faster than others.

Lester

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2006, 06:47:21 PM »
....half baked, not fully formed....its a wonder they were able to get this funded......silly stuff really.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2006, 06:48:09 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

wsmorrison

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2006, 06:52:39 PM »
I think this course was inspired by the naval camouflage concepts by Wilkinson.  My eye is confused by the edges, textures and colors so that it seems completely natural to me.  This is brilliant architecture and is clearly a derivative of the works of MacKenzie and Wilkinson.  A real WilKenzie if I ever saw one  ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2006, 07:04:21 PM »
Jari,

Forget what those other bozos, especially TEPaul had to say, the critical question isn't how it looks in aerials, it's:
HOW DOES IT PLAY ?

Dave Bourgeois

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2006, 07:06:53 PM »
Definitely different.  I would love to see some ground level views with how the course plays.

I'm another one that greatly enjoyed my round at the Cupp course at Palmetto Hall.  It was kind of strange at first but I found the holes very enjoyable with good flow.  

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2006, 07:15:41 PM »
Wayne, I can't agree with your above.  Mackenzie is the antithesis of Vaudan.  Below are a few comments from the War Department from 1917, most of it taken from Major Mackenzie's Boer War observations:

If you can only make them think that the top of the parados is the top of the parapet you will have done something, and if you construct your trenches in wavy line, both vertically and horizontally irregular, instead of in straight lines, the artillery will not be able to get the range with the same amount of accuracy, and this will help to lessen your casualties.

The question of practicability of concealing trenches is, of course, a legitimate subject of debate. Maj. MacKenzie, Royal Engineers, states that --

In the case of deliberate intrenchment, whatever the class of country may be, it is always possible to hide trenches from the air, and from the ground it can be done to such an extent that the enemy might almost fall into them without seeing them, and in most kinds of soil they can be constructed without much greater expenditure of time, labor, or material than is necessary in making existing trenches. In most soils ten minutes extra labor is sufficient for the purpose. It is almost entirely a question of thought and experience and not of labor. (doesn't this sound something like the time, labor, material considerations for construction of a golf course?)

It is of the utmost importance to avoid straight lines and angles, but there should not be a lack of method in trench construction.

An unusual combination is needed, the combination of untidiness and irregularity of the exterior of the trench with the most scrupulous exactness and neatness of the interior.

The parapet of the trench should absolutely harmonize with the appearance of its surroundings and every raised portion of the trench should be indistinguishable from a natural contour. This is of as much or even more importance than the assimilation of color to the foreground.

Of course every raised portion of the trench should similate the color of the foreground. In grassland the sods should be replaced; in cultivated land crops should be replaced; in ploughed land the top soil, which is invariably a different color from the subsoil, should be scraped to the rear and replaced on the parapet after digging is completed.

t is a very simple matter to do this in ploughed land. Shovel the first 6 inches of soil to the rear, then throw up the parapet in an irregular, uneven manner, and when the digging is completed shovel the 6 inches of soil that has been placed to the rear over the parapet.


Trenches, ramparts, bunkers and lips;  what's the difference?

 ::) ;D
« Last Edit: January 23, 2006, 07:16:04 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2006, 08:02:26 PM »
I bid three spades.

Jari Rasinkangas

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2006, 04:57:08 AM »
Troy,

Yes, the course is planned and detailed in the construction but for me it looks just like a bigger version of minigolf.  

The ideas behind forts are not used here to protect the flag when looking at the photos.  They are used only for framing the course.

This picture shows a view on the ground.  Nothing reminds me a fortress here.  All I see is an "oil reservoir" on top of the hill and an odd looking brick wall in the middle.



Why build these stylised forms if you only can see them in aerial views?  When looking at the pictures the structures are hardly used at all to make the play interesting.  They are just framing the course.

Jari

Jari Rasinkangas

Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2006, 05:08:58 AM »
This text is copied from Golf Digest 1999:

In the wine country of Burgundy, in the shadow of a magnificent chateau, there is a golf course built in the shape of a woman. This is a very French thing to do.

Every ripple, every bend, duplicates the textures of the architect's lover. The architect is Robert Berthet. The lover is Nicole Jobert. One green at Golfs du Chateau de La Salle is her left palm precisely, every detectable crease and discernible bump. Another is the bottom of her foot tucked up over an ankle with five bunkers for toes. Here, the rough is a Roman tunic tossed over her right shoulder. There, shrubs provide her a ruffled skirt. Multiple tees are the buttons to an opened-back dress. "I am a Frenchman," Berthet says.

Near the woman-leg 15th hole (where long and longer patches of grass delineate a stocking top and a garter), in an indelicate, unplayable little marsh, the artist has planted aromatic sprays of lavender. "The purpose of rough," Berthet says, "is to make the golfer hesitate. Then you have only a few minutes to find your ball. It is seldom enough time."

Robert can be believed when he says, "Golf is still a very confidential game in France: a million and a half tennis players and only 280,000 golfers. Golf is not in the culture. It is not in the soul."  

"French people think it's not a sport," says Patrick de la Chesnais, who commissioned the 640,000-square-meter sculpture of Nicole. De la Chesnais is a nobleman, a count or something. He plays polo. Nearly all of the Frenchmen in golf are aristocrats. Practically by definition, they are rich. Most have names like Patrick de la Chesnais or Jean Van de Velde.

Having golf courses built in the shape of a woman and a fortress.  What else can we expect from a Frenchman?

Jari

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2006, 09:47:02 AM »
very Desmond Muirheadish to me ???
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2006, 10:28:35 AM »
Jari: The ideas behind forts are not used here to protect the flag when looking at the photos.  They are used only for framing the course.

Should we say the same about Fazio's waterfalls....

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The most artificial GCA?
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2006, 11:30:06 AM »
I read this article on golf in France.  It does seem very Desmondesque, from what Tommy has told me of the grand old man.

http://www.tlgolf.com/destinations/0006provence.html

somehow, I can see Redanman doing a tour du golf similar to that described in the article as well. ;) ;D 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back