[TEPaul]

The subject of architectural planning and trees is a subject sure to get the blood pressure rising on this website among some contributors (can't wait for the reaction of redanman!)!

But there's no denying that some of the best of even the Golden Age architects spoke about, wrote about and planned the use of trees in one way or another in their architecture occasionally!

We have seen during our research on Flynn (and very much in some of his original plans and drawings) the use of trees in his designs in various ways. It should be pointed out that he didn't do this everywhere but he did to one extent or another on sites and projects he felt they'd be useful for a number of reasons.

On his C.C. of Cleveland "iterations" he demarked on the topo drawings literally hundreds of trees to "stay" and inside their drawn circles what kind of trees they were!

We have much evidence of Tillinghast writing about the use of trees in architecture. The chapter in "The Course Beautiful" where he talks about the use of trees in the creation of doglegs, the interesting use of "cut-outs" in tree lines on holes instead of making straight tree-lines. The discussion about the single tree on a hole at Baltusrol and certainly his mention of  the famous single tree at Winged Foot!

We see clearly Crump's thoughts on trees at PVGC from the "remembrances" of his two closest friends!

But we saw one of the most unique and unusual planned uses of trees spoken about just before the construction of Shinnecock from Flynn and even the great European architect C.H. Alison!

Both the club's president and Flynn had budgeted almost 1/6 of the construction budget for "landscaping"!

Flynn had developed through blueprint "iterations" the final architectural plans for Shinnecock and for some reason those plans were given to Alison to review!

Alison remarked about Flynn's concerns on the holes in the "flat" part of the routing and how to enhance them and also how to intermingle the flat land and the topographical areas with holes on both nines. Alison remarked on one of Flynn's routing "iterations" as the best avaible way to do that (the way the course now is)!

But Alison also remarked on the clever idea on the plan to use "clumps" of trees (not "tree lines") to break up the holes somewhat on the open flat land!

But here's the really amazing planned use that Alison remarked on! The architectural plan of Flynn had called for the planting of LOW growing trees in the LOW part of the course and HIGHER growing trees in the HIGHER part of the course! Alison talked about this as enhancing the overall "look" or "situation" of the site in this way by making the site "appear" to be more undulating than it actually was!! (total elevation change is only 82 ft--high near #10-#12, low near #6).

What a brilliant idea! And that's the way it was planned!

Over the decades the courses became overgrown with trees (not the ones originally planned) and the club has now virtually cut back to the way it was and was planned, uncovering in the process some big beautiful trees that they really hadn't even noticed in decades!

Some of those old guys had some brilliant ideas with the use of trees in architecture! Some on here will probably disagree with them on that but they can't deny it!

[redanman]

Who me?

Preserving such specemin trees as the Inniscrone tree or the tree on the third hole at Belfair West are very nice things to do.  Both are window dressing basically and are out of play.  One can say "Man, that's a helluva tree!"

The problem with trees is that they are too dynamic and their impact when use on strategy is progressive.  Case example-Harbour Town, a cute bit of innovative but repetitive architecture sadly morphed over time into a bloody nightmare.

I stand by the basic tenet that trees should not determine the strategic nature of a shot if at all possible.  (Height, trajectory, shape, etc)  Ground contours alone in well thought out architecture can do it with more subtlely and efficiency. (Using trees in wooded areas to develop corridors of doglegs, for example, is appropriate if necessary, but must not penalize reasonable misses-and not the only example, certainly.  Golf courses aren't all built on "ideal" landforms)

Landscape architecture is different from strategic architectural use of trees.  Pretty 'em up all you want as long as they don't require field goals to be kicked (See Sahalee and Prairie Dunes, also RHCC, Golden CO and many others.)

Landscape Architectural and Strategical uses.....One can actually be encouraged?  One is to be abhored?  I have my opinion which is a generality, not a rigid finality and since I currently have no completed projects nor plans on the talbe, my opinion has little impact on the future of golf course architecture.

(Please note that the time output of this post is equal to 10 or more of Mr. Paul's.)

To paraphrase the eloquent Mr. Johnnie Cochran, "When in doubt, you must take it out!"

[brad_miller]

BV, the JC line is great!

[Craig_Rokke]

I like an occasional tree that makes you think and execute.
I think the one at #6 Inniscrone is a somewhat important feature of the hole. While probably a more psychological
hazard than anything, it makes a second shot to the green tougher for anyone who's pushed his drive to the right.

Any thoughts on the tree that fronts that great greensite @
The Ocean Course #3?

[TEPaul]

At Shinnecock, for instance, it appears that the planting and use of trees for particular reasons was a major consideration to the architect but I can't see that a single tree was ever intended for strategic reasons and still is not on that golf course!

[Steve Lang]

I have no real bias or prejudice against trees on golf courses other than those 150 yd flanking marker types...

I don't really understand the premise of your tenets Redanman.  Trees are too dynamic?  I'll agree with that statement on time scales of decades, but since the game is going to be played on and over land (as well as water and rough) why wouldn't golf course architecture have to consider addressing all means of testing golfer's control of shot height, trajectory, and shape?  To do otherwise seems bankrupt at worse, boring at best.

Didn't Johnnie also say, IF the tree don't fit, ya got to trim it?

[TEPaul]

Steve Lang:

Thanks for asking what the hell that statement about trees being too dynamic meant!

Personally, I didn't want to touch that one!

[Tom Doak]

It would shock most people to hear that on the two courses we've built this year -- Texas Tech and Stonewall -- we are currently in the process of planting more than 2,500 trees.  The majority of them are to block bad views off-site; most of the rest are to break up the course into a series of different-sized spaces, as opposed to one big open one.

On the other hand, we will only plant a handful of trees in New Zealand, because the vistas are all good ones.

[Steve Lang]

TD,
Having been in the Texas Tech area, those trees will be most welcome for visual contrast.  I hope you've put lightening rods on them!

[TEPaul]

TomD:

That does not surprise me one bit! I think that sounds like a good and logical thing to do architecturally always depending on the site and the circumstances of the golf course being conceived and constructed.

And I do recall you felt you had to persuade Mr Keiser from removing more trees at PD! And I recall you mentioned the use of trees on another project.

I wrote this thread to show that architects of the Golden Age planned the use of trees in their golf courses in all kinds of varying ways.

As we get to know more about William Flynn that's becoming far more obvious.

It seems an assumption on here sometimes the use of trees in Golden Age architecture was somehow taboo.

I don't see that was so at all!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Very interesting ideas. There is often an attempt to dismiss those older guys as not being very sophisticated - especially by some modern architects - this would seem to contradict that idea.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The most interesting thing about this general subject, at least to me, is the evolution in thinking of the American architects of the Golden Age in the use of trees in various aspects (depending wholly, it would seem, on a particular site).

It's pretty clear that some of the original early architects (most notably Ross) were linksman and were originally not used to trees on golf courses and initially didn't use them or plan for them!

The point was made early on in the Golden Age, certainly by Flynn (and in writing), that the style of the treeless sites of the early Links style courses (no trees) was becoming 'passe' as the American architect was generally working on "inland" type golf courses that could and did utilize trees (and had them before construction).

Flynn even joked about this (in his writing) saying that the reason the Scots never used trees (and didn't like them) was because they never had any in the first place but if they had they were far too cheap to cut them down!!

Initially the original linksman (and probably their early architects) did not even recognize "inland" golf as a particularly legitimate form of golf or golf design! In a real way works like Willie Parks Sunningdale (old) (inland) began to change that perception though!

And slowly trees began to become part of golf and its architecture (and architectural planning) simply because they were natural to many of the inland sites! (Flynn also mentioned many of the interesting reasons how and why trees could be used in golf archtieture). Certainly so did Tillinghast!

Shinnecock's "landscaping" plan was obviously a very different and very interesting adaptation of that evolution though.

Flynn and certainly Alison's "review report" specifically mentioned no "treelining of holes" only "clumps" and this obviously to create a visual effect in a general sense than to be used in things like the strategy of the golf holes! Both of them definitely recognized Shinnecock's site as more "links" style than "inland" style though. In this way Shinnecock may be looked at as somewhat of an American planned "combination style" (basically links style with a little inland tree flair)!

I suppose one could say that the landscaping plan at Shinnecock to create the illusion of more undulation and interest to the look of the land and overall site (particularly the flatland on the west side of the course) may have been a precursor (in effect) to the modern age attempts to create more interest in the land by manipulating the land itelf with machinery!

Flynn was using the undulating "lines" of the eventual treetops for effect, not the ground itself !

Later in the Modern age the bulldozer could more easily create the same undulating effect by manipulating far more the land itself!

The later problem (modern age) in aesthetics to me, involve the fact that Flynn was using trees in a more natural way (considering he was planting them on natural grades) where the modern age architect both manipulates the land (artifically) and ALSO plants trees on those artifically created contour "lines" or behind and to the sides of them.

In too many cases then the modern age architect ends up with things like artifically shaped sides of entire holes and particularly green-ends that are clearly artifically shaped with trees behind that artifical shaping (from the golfer's eye perspective)!

In these cases far too often a golfer sees the artifical contouring and then directly behind it treelines that are in some cases cut in half by the artifical contouring!

There is very little in golf architecture that looks worse than that to me--bases of treelines cut off or cut in half by artifical land shaping!

You rarely if ever see that kind of thing in the early architecture because they rarely if ever shaped the mid-bodies of the land of golf holes the way they do today. And to a greater extent they seemed to use more natural green sites by identifying more intereting natural slope and contour areas to put them on! Modern architects can just so easily create that anywhere--and often it really shows!

[redanman]

Steve Lang:

Thanks for asking what the hell that statement about trees being too dynamic meant!

Personally, I didn't want to touch that one!

Too forceful in their changing impact on shot requirements, yes, you guys did get the over time aspect.  I guess I didn't give simple enough examples.  

Since dynamic is generally thought to relate to motion, this is known as a shaded definition use by linguists (No pun intended).  But I may be over your heads (Oh these puns are intended, I am sorry!)  I'll leaves now.

[TEPaul]

redaman;

Clearly that's what you meant (my remark was more of a tweak than indicating 'dynamic" was lost on us). It's of course a very good point you make!

Most good architects are aware of the "dynamic" danger of relying solely on a tree or trees as the central strategy for a golf hole instead of the land.

If you do that with a tree you could show up one morning and your entire hole's strategy may be lying flat on the ground!!

[ChipOat]

Trees are fine so long as they only impact ball flight from non-fairway places and/or >150 yards from a tee box.

In fact, well placed trees of that description can be critical to a hole's strategic integrity.

Example #1:  The 3 big trees between #'s 2 & 5 at Merion make it difficult to recover from a big hook off #2 (usually caused by aiming away from the OB on the right) as they block the recovery back to #2 fairway.  That hole will lose a great deal of difficulty when those trees die (especially the one closest to the green) and something dramatic will have to be done on the ground unless the decision is made to import another 150 foot standing Oak.

Example #2: The big old trees on the right side of Rockaway Hunting Club's 2nd hole make a blocked tee ball "instant bail out" and further enhances the strategic value of the hole as the ideal placement for the tee shot is the right edge of the fairway.

I would call these 2 examples (of many) of Essential Trees (proper noun) as opposed to my oft-expressed disdain for Stupid Trees which I always hope will die.

As a practical matter regarding decorative trees, when close to tee boxes they retard proper air circulation and natural light - both of which usually means poor turf.  The 10th and 12th tee boxes at Merion suffered this fate for years until a new, blunt-talking superintendent asked the question, "Do you want grass or do you want foliage?  You can't have both".

[TEPaul]

Chip:

I'd sure agree with you except what you say about trees that block shots from a 'fairway area'. I think I'd want to qualify that!

(Let me preface my disagreement with you on this point by explaining that I'm not 'agitated' or attempting to 'blatantly condemn' you as DarrenK said I was doing with him when I said I disagreed with something he said on another thread).

Anyway, if it were not possible to block shots by trees for balls that may land in certain fairway areas, I believe most of the central effect of the "dogleg" concept would be lost in golf!

The idea of a dogleg (using trees as the primary concept feature) require a golfer to play his tee shot (for instance) far enough to get by the trees or far enough out to the side of them to do the same.

In these cases and instances the trees and the positioning of them are the central feature element of the hole's strategic concept, not necessarily the fairway lines!

We had a golfer at GMGC during our restoration plan creation  say that and make that point. He said all too often he would hit his tee shot on a particular dogleg right in the fairway but short and right and be blocked by the trees.

We told him there was a ton of fairway out to the left (although playing longer into the green from there) and he could take that direction to avoid being blocked out on his approach by the trees or alternatively try to hit a tee shot farther down the fairway along the right side and past the trees (dogleg) to avoid them and have a shorter shot to the green.

We told him that the fairway lines were not the central architectural feature on the hole dictating the problems and solutions of the strategy of the hole but that the treeline creating the dogleg was and that he simply should recognize the strategic concept of the hole as such and play it accordingly.

We told him there were a number of reliable options and that he would be better served just to recognize what they were and what they weren't!

I like this concept of combining fairway area with a doglegged treeline where a golfer might be in the fairway and still blocked out simply because it presents the golfer with a bit more of a sophisticated strategic concept, all the ramifications of which he should begin to recognize for himself. In this sense using fairway in areas that may still be blocked be a treeline is really only an architect's way of playing chess with any golfer and if that fakes him out--so much the better!

Respectfully yours,

TEPaul

[mike_malone]

 Rolling Green provides an interesting example of Flynn and trees in architecture.This is  because there was a large stand of trees that required carving out of  several holes and his original drawings show trees that did not exist and by the mid 30's were planted.
 Obviously,he saw strategic use of trees.The inside corner of 3 doglegs--#15,#17and#18---are the original trees.In two instances trees are on one side of fairway and water is on the other---7 and 15.
  Par 3's---14 and 16 are completely cut out of trees.It seems that the trees here were intended to be out of play.
  
 The designs show trees to be planted.There was massive plantings by the next aireal--1935.I can find only one strategic use---#12 dogleg is created by planting.


There is no written evidence that Flynn was involved in the plantings after the course was built.But,the trees  are in many of the places he noted on the design and follow to the letter what he wrote about trees.(out of play,frame holes,provide shade)
 So at this Flynn course,he used trees that were there for strategy and used plantings to achieve other goals.
 I wonder whether he could have even built the course without using strategy for the original trees.He would have had to cut down many more.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

As we've discussed before, I don't go for "bunkers in the sky" from fairways.  Even on doglegs - it's one of thus blonde/brunette things.

If there are portions of a fairway that have tree problems, make it rough.  If that makes the landing area too small, cut down the trees.  If that makes the hole strategically less interesting, re-angle the green and re-design the green complex.  If that's not possible, then the hole is in a bad place.

I just don't like it.  There are no FACTS on which to hang one's hat either way on this.  It's a clear, unadulterated case of BIAS - no doubt about it.

Need good food, wine, booze and a couple of hours to really do this conversation justice, though.  Your turn to arrange same - I've done it twice, now.

[BV]

Chip

Let me know the W's and we'll outnumber him 2:1.  I have a little free time lately.


a tree is a terrible thing to save

[Bob_Huntley]

Trees to beautify the perimeter of a course from urban or desert blight is one thing, to be used for strategic purposes is an abomination.

[Lou Duran]

While I tend to fall in Redanman's camp on the issue of trees, I do think that they have an important place in golf architecture.  If you have a site without much topography (change) and the wind is not a major factor, trees are one of the few hazards that look "natural" and offer some defense to the course.  While I prefer them on the periphery, an occasional well located specimen tree or small group near the line of play can create a lot of strategy.

I do not know anyone who believes that the "old guys" were a bunch of dullards.  Quite the opposite, since it was more difficult to do major earthworks back then, and transplanting large trees was not a normal option, these architects had to be more judicious in their routings by using as many of the natural hazards available on the site.  By necessity, they probably had to be more thoughtful, if not creative, in incorporating what nature had provided to the design of challenging course.  

[RJ_Daley]

Just some background info. to read...
http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/gcm_fr.html
The article called "Shadowland" discusses the issue of trees from the superintendent's prospective...

[TEPaul]

Chip:

I'm aware how you feel about trees and the strategic use of them as an "architectural" feature (to create strategy). I realize how redanman feels about them too.

That's fine with me, your opinions I've noted long ago and I would happily see a course be that way.

But my personal feeling is golf architecture can have both. I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of trees being used as a strategic feature everywhere and I'm not wedded to them not being used that way everywhere.

My purpose in starting this particular topic is to show evidence of how William Flynn felt about trees and golf architecture. And possibly to show how other golden age architects felt about them too--particularly Tillinghast!

I believe those two felt somewhat like I probably do that potentially anything might go given particular circumstances, sites, whatever.

To date Wayne and I have not seen Flynn use trees in his designs (the blueprints and hole drawings) for strategy in the context of forcing golf shots UNLESS those trees happened to be there before he got there. And like on the CC of Cleveland blueprint he probably took down many trees but left the best to be used for a variety of reasons. He actually demarked probably a hundred of them on the blueprint (to stay).

We have seen him advocate (and design in for planting and future planting) trees on sites for other reasons (not hole strategy) as indicated on the Shinneccock plan.

There's nothing at all wrong, in my opinion, with anyone disgreeing with Flynn's thinking on this! I just wanted to make the site fully aware of how he felt about trees since it seems to me that there has been an overriding opinion that most if not all of the great golden age architects were opposed to the use of trees in golf architecture.

That was clearly not the case! And that's about all I wanted to point out! But after making that point, of course the ways he used trees and the reason why makes for an interesting discussion.

[Jim_Kennedy]

redanman,
A tree can be no more a hazard than a bunker. If we accept the 1/2 stroke penalty from the sand why not the 1/2 stroke penalty from a tree? They occur more naturally than sand on many inland sites, cost less to maintain and add beauty and oxygen.
There are times when I have looked at a bunker positioned on the inside turn of a tree lined dogleg hole and thought it was  redundant, much like a tree growing out of a bunker.  
When used sensibly around greens(not too close) they can add options. A player might have to make a decision to run under, fly over or wrap a shot around instead of just flying a shot in, sans tree. In that sense they require more thought than ever a bunker will cause.  

 

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom Doak, et. al.

Is there anything inherently "better" about using trees rather than mounds to hide unsightly views on a golf course?  Why not just keep the views, ugly as they might be, to express how the golf force fits with (or gives counterpoint to) the natural land form?  Sure, the client might not like it, but what is the GCA profession, art or business?  Bernini's original plan for the entrance to St. Peter's square in Rome had it routed through the worst slums of the time, which then abruptly opened up into his magnificent piazza.  Mussolini, that evil remodeller, tore down the slums and destroyed much of Bernini's vision.

Tom Paul

If I remember correctly DJR "framed" many of his teeboxes at GMGC with two sycamores that were probably tiny little saplings when he was there, but now dominate those areas, and limit the vistas over the course.  Are they "stupid" trees or "strategic" trees or even "historically/architecturally significant because they were once touched by the hand of Donald Ross (or his agent)" trees?  What, if anything, can or should be done about them?

Sincerely

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()