Our great movement in Golf Course Architecture

[Jay Flemma]

Tom Doak recently have sounded a clarion call to arms regarding the economics of building a golf course.  I think much of his thought bears merit and we should strive to that goal.

I also think you guys here at GCA and other like minded people have done a great service regarding teachng people about great DESIGNS.  I wrote this last night on my website in a fit of overcaffeination and undersleeepenation, but I think it's true.  Whadda you think?

"We are starting to see a peak in golf course design; an epic peak. It’s the kind of dramatic change for the better that we may not see again for an age but which changes much that happens afterward for the better.

Bandon Dunes, Tobacco Road and Black Mesa are not merely golf courses. They are part of a larger phenomenon; a movement away from over-marketing and worthless, meaningless superlatives and self-aggrandizing billionaire developers. Playing these courses at the turn of the millennium, when they were young and raw and undiscovered was a singular experience. It was an experience which unified, galvanized and energized everyone who was there as a witness. It meant something. No explanation, no flowery prose, no physical memento can match the feeling of knowing that you were there at that time in that place and joined by others just as unified, galvanized and energized by the course as you were. It was as though our energy and love of the game had struck sparks and roared into flame time and again.

More than that, there was a fantastic universal sense among Golfers (true Golfers - capitalized, in italics – not merely people who play golf) that the philosophy underlying these designs had begun to spread.

We were winning. After decades in the dark, the tide had turned. There is now a sense of inevitable victory over the outdated and addled forces that have compartmentalized, monetized and homogenized our noble, egalitarian game. With men like Engh, Silva, Doak, Spann and Strantz and many others, (forgive me if I left your name out) we are riding the crest of a beautiful wave.

Now, with just a few dollars and a few days, you can head west or south or whatever direction and with the right kind of eyes, you too can see the crest of that wave – see the high water mark that has been set.

Happily, I do not doubt that many new courses will be built in the coming years that will require further exploration and analysis. In the meantime, it gives me great pleasure to think that generations of golfers will have a fuller knowledge of Tobacco Road, Bandon, The Rawls Course and Black Mesa to match their exposure to the greatness of TPC Sawgrass, World Woods and Bandon Dunes. Some of these courses you know well, but many may be obscure. You may have never even have heard of the existence of some. But each one is magnificent deserve full exploration and should be shared with as many people as possible.

Full many a flower may be born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air, but not if I have anything to say about it. That's why I am a golf writer."

[A_Clay_Man]

Proving the prophetic nature of the term "One of golf's most beloved figures".

Nice sentiments Jay. It's always nice to step back and get a look at the big picture. Now, get some sleep.

[Eckstein]

Engh?? The Rawls course??

You must be looking at different movement than I am.

[A_Clay_Man]

Anonimity has it's privledge....

Or would Herr Eckstien like to elaborate on what he dis-liked in Lubbock?

Engh may not be the ideal for purists, but he is adding to the landscapes which might not otherwise have golf built on them.

Is diversity a good or bad thing?

[Gary Daughters]

Jay,

I think you and Tom are getting close to the nut of the thing.  In fact, Tom's observations on economics were the exact echo of a chat I had several months ago with another architect.  His take, as Tom's, is that the model that has predominated since the 80's/90's has run its course and is no longer viable. (For that, maybe we can say "thank goodness.")

What I've been hoping to see on this site is more discussion on where the "industry" as a whole goes from here.. and most importantly (this cannot be separated or emphasized enough).. what that direction will mean for golf architecture.  Or flip that around.. the possibilities that a new, more viable golf architecture would open up for the industry, and thus the future of golf.

Bandon, Black Mesa, etc are wonderful things and they may be pulling "us" in the right direction.  But it seems obvious to me that they are anomolies for at leat two reasons:

1) They are geography specific.  Those sites don't exist where most of us actually live.  Thus, while they have the potential to exert influence, they cannot serve everyone as models.

2) This is actually a corollary of #1, but the Bandons and Mesas are out of the reach for the vast majority of golfers both geographically and economically.  Again, they're great things, but they are not the "answer."

I tried a previous post soliciting ideas on "what comes next?"  Didn't get too many takers.  Perhaps the question is too general, as it needs to broken down into so many factors.

I'd like to say more, but I'm at "work."

If anyone's interested I'll toss down some more thoughts later.

Gary

[Bill_McBride]

There is a huge difference between the Bandon model and the Black Mesa model.

Bandon - high green fees, upscale on site housing and amenities.

Black Mesa - low green fee, no on site housing, spartan but nice amenities.

How to compare other than terrific golf courses?  Not in economic terms certainly.  Please discuss (blue books not required).  

[Gary Daughters]

Bill,

Thanks for the correction on Black Mesa.  Living in Georgia I tend to think of anything in New Mexico as "remote."  

I didn't intend to verge into a comparison of Bandon and Black Mesa.  I took what Jay put out there and went with it.

But as long as we're here.. what those two courses do have in common is that they are wonderful natural stages for golf. Right? (I haven't played either so PLEASE don't flame me Pat Mucci... PLEEEEESE!!).

Maybe it's just me, but I have this notion that the future of golf architecture might be brighter, more vibrant.. not to mention more economically viable.. if aspects of the miminalist experience might be absorbed/translated into tracts less dramatic than the afforementioned.  PLUS other stuff that maybe hasn't yet even been imagined.

Hate to keep wimping out.. but I'm STILL at work.

Anyway, Bill.. does that make any more sense to you?  To me this is the big question.  Sometimes we get near it, and perhaps it's been tackled directly and I missed it.

I point everyone to the "review" of Ran's "Carthage Club."

[Eric Franzen]

I point everyone to the "review" of Ran's "Carthage Club."

Thanks for that, Gary.

A lovable concept.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

A lot of guys doing a lot of different things is not a "movement".  It's simply an interesting time in the business, being driven by an unusual number of clients who want to do something unique instead of just building a project which succeeds financially.

Without interested clients, we architects would be nothing more than a bunch of guys with crazy ideas.

I would like to believe that over the long term, certain styles will prove themselves more resilient, but you can't say for certainty today which those would be ... there is no way you could look at the architecture of the sixties and seventies and predict the coming of Tom Fazio.  Still, putting Jim Engh, Brian Silva and myself on the same line of type is silly, because each of us is doing really different stuff than the other two.  You're allowed to like all of it because it's different, that does not a "movement" make.

[Jay Flemma]

Tom...its not silly putting you all in the same line...you all share one thing in common.

You have all taken us out of the "runway" and penal model of architecture.

You all use great green types like redans, punchbowls etc.

You all employ Behr/Mackenzie'c concept of the Line of Charm.

You all try to expand our understanding of architecture and thereby help us read a golf course and score better.

You all are showing us things we either have never seen before or have not seen executed well in many decades.

Doak, Engh, Silva, Strantz = Steelers, Cowboys, Niners, Patriots.

High quality.  Reasonable prices.  Fascinating designs.  An education in GCA as well as a round of golf.

As for Rawls course...sure it's not minimalist - but it's an excellent example in the problem solving of building a great golf course.

As for Bandon and Black Mesa being different ECONIMICALLY - yes.  But both are among the very best designs in the country.

Or would you prefer a few more decades of runway tees, cloverleaf bunkers and water on both sides?

Where do we go from here?  Easy.  I quote mackenzie.

"We must fight for the future of great golf course deisgn as though British hagemony were at stake."

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:  Robert Trent Jones' work was an education in golf course architecture, too ... just not your favorite lesson.  It's like you are grouping pineapple, lobster and tofu as great foods.  You may like them all, and they may all have some texture and some flavor, but they are fundamentally different from one another, and that is the GOOD thing about them.

I don't want to see another decade of runway tees and cloverleaf bunkers and water on both sides.  But I don't want to see a decade of everybody building 125 rough-edged bunkers and square tees and six tees per hole, either.

You are reading lines of charm into work that doesn't have any just because you like the work and you want to explain it with a vague, one-size-fits-all concept.

[Gary Daughters]

Tom,

The variety you mention is essential.  No one wants the same thing over and over.  

But as far as a "movement," well why not?  I'll go ahead and answer that by saying that no respectable artist (I'm using that term in the broadest possible context) is a joiner.  That is one reason you are artists.  Obviously, you're projecting individual expression.

But.. what I hope we are talking about here is a discernbile departure from the ways that courses and course developments have been conceived over the past few decades.  And not just an exception here and there.  If this might be considered a "movement," well, it might gain increasing momentum.  No?  Especially if the economics are right.

Again, no artist wants to be constricted by tenets, but here are some things I would like to see, and this is with full ignorance of the economics of which you are so much better informed than most of the rest of us.

This is not an exhaustive list.. just things that hit me off the current top of my head.  

Cost.. this is a cornerstone. $40 dollars/round.

No housing.

Simple clubhouse.  Think St. Enodoc.  (I've only see the pictures).

An affordable maintaince regime.  If the grass is brown, the grass is brown.

Corollary:  different strains of grasses that promote variety of color.. even playability.

"Unfairness."  Read: spontaneity

Strategy dictated by bunkers that require a minimum of maintainance.  Let fluffy stuff grow up around them to mitigate the need for constant sculpting.  And to add flair.  "Perfection".. gone!

Bunker sand mined locally, as they do in Scotland.  (If possible.. maybe I'm displaying more ignorance)

Wide fairways, slow-growing, hearty grass that does not need
constant watering/attention.  See interviews with Scott Anderson.  

Color, color, color.. as produced by the sun as it changes the hues of wild growth unimpeded as much as possible by tree cover.

Bumps in the terrain, whether natural or man-made.

Give me a while longer and I could come up with more.  I realize these ideas are largely devoid of golf strategy issues (that's for you experts) but I'm proposing a small smidgen of aesthetic elements that would make me very happy, and that depart from much that I see.

So yes, I'm for a movement.  And for utmost variety within it.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone else?

[Bill_McBride]

Gary, I wasn't disputing the similarity in many ways of Pacific Dunes and Black Mesa, in terms of viewing and playing two terrific modern courses with classic antecendents, just the economic models.  And that is what the Doak thread was, I thought, economics of golf in the future.

There are obviously two models demonstrated here.  Black Mesa is low cost, high quality.  Pacific Dunes and the other Bandon courses, high cost, high quality.  

Actually, Black Mesa and Apache Stronghold are more comparable in both respects.  Black Mesa is fortunate to have a much better team and budget for maintenance and the results are apparent.

I think the model that may NOT work in the future is the high cost, high fee course, CCFAD model, that can't attract enough business to handle the high maintenance and overall costs.  If we are in for higher interest costs and a flattening of high end homebuilding, it may be difficult to sell enough high price houses to carry all the costs in that model.

[Jay Flemma]

Tom...4 at Black Rock, 6 at Waverly, 18 at Pradera, 15 at Fossil, plenty of places at Rawls and Black Mesa...I see lines of charm pretty well and happily there are alot.

Please dont confuse my finding lines of charm mutually exclusive from my finding variety as well.  Of course we need variety.  The unifying theme is as I described before.

This was just a broad brush review designed to hearten and energize people to embrace learning about GCA.  The piece I wrote is more for meophytes than experts, but I wanted some expert feedback as well.

I agree with you too...we MUST make building courses less expensive and create courses that have higher margins in order to survive.

[Gary Daughters]

Bill,

I think we're talking apple and oranges here, and perhaps that's my fault.  I perused the original thread and it struck something dear to my heart.  Namely, a new generation of affordalbe golf courses that combine some, not all, of the natural and neighborly elements of, say, the classic (perhaps more practically.. the "non classic") Scottish venues and the vibrant elements of the current American minimalism.  Courses that pay homage to each variation, but also introduce something new and exciting (what, I don't know), while being constructed on land that will undoubtedly lack the attributes of the afforementioned.

And again, affordable for the masses.  Places where you might meet a new pal, share a beer on the front steps and agree to meet again because the experience was so enjoyable.

Forgive me, I'm a dreamer.  But I don't think it's beyond the realm.

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps it is the great movment, because it is the movement without a movement. There are several designers that are doing it their way, instead of the Jones family way. C&C do it one way. Kelly Blake Moran does it another way. Jim Engh a third, Pete Dye has been doing it his way for quite a while, etc.

[Jay Flemma]

There ya go Garland and Gary!  Thats exactly what I was trying to say.  But we are NOT just dreamers.  With every eord we type, every word of mouth recommendation we make, with every lecture we give, every friend we make, we are bringing back the egalitarian spirit that's been lost.

[Bill_McBride]

The problem with "egalitarian" is that it isn't being practiced much today!  Rustic Canyon, Black Mesa, Wild Horse, a few others.  Most of the great new courses are priced in the relative stratosphere because of existing economic models.  The Bandon courses are not inexpensive!  Friars Head, Stone Eagle, most of the great new courses are high end, either private or CCFAD.

Maybe trends will push the golf developers, for private and/or public, toward the affordable.  But that's not been the successful model to date.  It would be admirable to see more low end, great courses built, but there's not been much of an economic incentive.

[Tim Liddy]

Jay,

This thread parallels a recent article in the NY times about the University of Virginia and its struggle to build new architecture and still be sensitive to its great heritage of Jeffersonian architecture.

I sense you would label the Modern Era of golf course architecture staring with Robert Trent Jones and the development of proposing an almost a global solution to everything regardless of the site.

Paraphrased from the article:
Now, in this Post Modernism era, architects are expected be both guardians of tradition and incubators of originality. You expect them to exalt individual genius but not offend the ordinary herd. You expect them to stand for both the old and the new. You expect them to be bravely independent yet obedient to our demands. And somehow, amid all these countervailing currents, you expect them to remain financially stable.  

Again more from the article:
“The college campus that I myself know best — Harvard's — is in some ways the opposite of Virginia's. Unlike the Lawn, its ancient Yard has developed through the years by a process of slow accretion: a stalwart Georgian relic here, a bit of Romanesque Revival there, a modernist folly by Le Corbusier sidling up along one edge. When I was an undergraduate there, I loved the sense of living amid a museum of three centuries of American architecture. Some buildings were closer to my heart than others, but I never thought of the new as detracting from the old. All, it seemed, were part of a continuing intellectual project; their variety was proof of its vitality.”

Variety in golf course architecture is proof of its vitality. I read this as Dye, Fazio, etc.

Post modernism in golf course architecture is letting the site do the talking, making the golf course fit its site and surroundings, not dominate it. The fear in this era of Post Modernism is the worry of the “enormous photocopier” effect. Just as one cannot just put Jeffersonian columns on the front of a building, it is much more than frilly bunkers. It’s the fundamentals of strategic design that are important to emphasize: playability, options, width and fun.  “It starts with the Old Course laddie”

[Tim Pitner]

Tom...4 at Black Rock, 6 at Waverly, 18 at Pradera, 15 at Fossil, plenty of places at Rawls and Black Mesa...I see lines of charm pretty well and happily there are alot.

Jay,

Shouldn't lines of charm be apparent to all?  If not, then it seems like they wouldn't be particularly charming.  So, I wonder what you mean when you say that you see lines of charm well.

[Gary Daughters]

"The problem with "egalitarian" is that it isn't being practiced much today!"  ...

Most of the great new courses are priced in the relative stratosphere because of existing economic models." -- Bill

Bill,

Part A of your comment is what some of us are lamenting.  And we are hoping for something new that will serve to advance the game and to contribute to what all of us seem to hope, in our own ways, is a nascent revival of golf architecture.

As for part B, the more I read and listen the more I'm led to believe that those existing economic models are broken.  I think that is what Tom Doak is saying.  I believe Bob Cupp may say so in his interview.  Others are saying it, too.

So maybe a new model is in order (maybe NO model is in order!).  I think that's what some of us dreamers (me in particular) are spouting off about.  What's next?  What's good for the game?  What is it we WANT?

I may lose some folks here, but anyone remember how the
minimalism of the Sex Pistols saved rock 'n roll from the "overproduced" and artistically bankrupt excesses of the 70's?

Basically just one band.

I'm just sayin'

 

             

[Bill_McBride]

What we'd REALLY like is wonderful golf at bargain basement prices -- which may be required for golf to grow as a mass entertainment medium -- but there is little incentive to provide it today.

Real estate developers want signature courses at outrageous cost to sell high end real estate.

Private clubs in remote locations want great designs by name designers to attractive enough spenders to make money.

CCFAD non real estate?  There's a tough model!

Equity private clubs in today's oversold private club market?  There's another tough model.

The Rustic Canyon model is maybe the one that works best, but municipalities are tough to get to part with even that kind of money today.

So there's nothing that's a slam dunk.

[Eric Franzen]

I may lose some folks here, but anyone remember how the
minimalism of the Sex Pistols saved rock 'n roll from the "overproduced" and artistically bankrupt excesses of the 70's?            

Sex Pistols was also one of the most commercially and most packaged products in the music history. A concept totally masterminded by the evil and clever genius Malcom Maclaren.

I had him over in Stockholm for a seminar seven or eight years ago. He was of course a very charming and bright guy. A couple of days after he left he sent me a fax where he wanted me to recruit a swedish model for a new musical project called snow white. That is Malcolm and the Sex Pistols in a nut shell.

[Tim Pitner]

I may lose some folks here, but anyone remember how the
minimalism of the Sex Pistols saved rock 'n roll from the "overproduced" and artistically bankrupt excesses of the 70's?            

Sex Pistols was also one of the most commercially and most packaged products in the music history. A concept totally masterminded by the evil and clever genius Malcom Maclaren.

I had him over in Stockholm for a seminar seven or eight years ago. He was of course a very charming and bright guy. A couple of days after he left he sent me a fax where he wanted me to recruit a swedish model for a new musical project called snow white. That is Malcolm and the Sex Pistols in a nut shell.

Yes, but you can't say their music wasn't minimalist.  I'm no musician, but they played, what, two chords?

[Eric Franzen]

I may lose some folks here, but anyone remember how the
minimalism of the Sex Pistols saved rock 'n roll from the "overproduced" and artistically bankrupt excesses of the 70's?            

Sex Pistols was also one of the most commercially and most packaged products in the music history. A concept totally masterminded by the evil and clever genius Malcom Maclaren.

I had him over in Stockholm for a seminar seven or eight years ago. He was of course a very charming and bright guy. A couple of days after he left he sent me a fax where he wanted me to recruit a swedish model for a new musical project called snow white. That is Malcolm and the Sex Pistols in a nut shell.

Yes, but you can't say their music wasn't minimalist.  I'm no musician, but they played, what, two chords?

Check out Brian Eno's "Music for airports" if you want minimalism. Sex Pistols was just an unpolished and raunchy rock band - with some good tunes.

But as Gary wrote, Pistols, and bands like the Ramones, certainly changed the musical climate back in the late 70's.