land vs. architecture

[Phil McDade]

Here is a recent quote from the estimable Shivas:

Tom, perhaps a golf course can be great despite mediocre architecture or, conversely, OK despite great architecture?  

When you think about it, the actual architecure is just lipstick and fancy clothes.

The REAL nature of the golf course is the land that it's on.  You can put the greatest architecture on a piece of crap land, and the Wall Street types only have one name for it -- lipstick on a pig.  

On the other hand, a really, really hot woman in jeans and a t-shirt and no makeup (ie, not dressed up; no architectural artistry) is still hot.

My question:

Is this really the case? Is great architecture mainly defined by its site? Or can great architecture -- and a great course -- be had in spite of the land?

My own thoughts: WF (the one that held the US Open) often described as a great piece of architecture on a (relatively) mundane site. Lawsonia is on a good piece of land, but a course (I'd argue) made great by its manufactured features. Is Pebble great, or just the 9 ocean holes (pretty good land), and is that enough to make the whole thing great? Is Whistling Straits, a totally manufactured site save for bordering on a big lake, great architecture/a great course? Pinehurst #2 seems like a pretty mundane piece of land; what makes it regarded as so good archicturally? Is NGLA -- the be-all-and-end-all of GCA-loved architecture -- a great course primarily because of its land, or CBM?

(Conflict disclosure -- I've only played one of the aforementioned courses, and walked another. My impressions of the others are from TV, books, GCA, et al...)

[Phil McDade]

Shivas:

You may not have said "great architecture is defined by the land." But you came pretty darn close. ("The real nature of a golf course is the land that it's on.")

I raise the issue because, for whatever reason, Medinah doesn't seem to excite the GCA cognescenti the way WF does. Yet Medinah (again, just based on my own sense from photos, books, reviews, blah blah...) seems to sit on at least as good a piece of land as WF, if not better (rolling terrain, the element of water, to cite two.) And for every course highly thought of that's probably regarded as "natural" (Sand Hills and Ballyneal being two prime modern examples), there are a host of others where mediocre-to-good-to-great pieces of land were greatly enhanced by manufactured architectural features -- Lawsonia being one I'm real familiar with, but others: Yale, NGLA, Oakmont, Crystal Downs, and probably a dozen Flynn courses that Mr. Morrison could cite.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shivas,

I have to disagree with whatever it was you said.  This conversation sounds like you could put any old green out on a great site, but if the gca put mundane, or even worse, unplayable greens on a great site, it couldn't be great architecture.

Even if only slight, the gca must modify the land for its intended use - enjoyable or perhaps difficult golf. If he does that wrong, its not a great course.

[Philippe Binette]

Great land helps but...

If you do OK architecture on a great piece of land, it would be a good golf course that will feel disappointing since you know that the opportunity was there to be really special. So you'll create a 6 ont the Doak scale

If you do great architecture on a bad site (great architecture also implies that you had a good planification of how the landscape will evolve), you can create a 6 or a 7 but considering that it was a terrible site, it would be pretty good.

A 8, 9 or 10 on the scale can only be accomplished with great architecture and a good to great site.

If somebody walks Muirfield or Merion (which are good but definitely not great sites (great would be on the Barnbougle Dunes caliber)) and tell me that architecture is only 20% of the reason why it's a 10 on the scale... well...

[Tags:]

Tags: