What is included in Architecture?

[Sean_A]

I recall a thread where Mucci and Huckleberry went back and forth about the setting for a course.  Huckster thought there was some added value to a great setting, Mucci didn't.  I have noticed a few of the hippie types on here going on about how bunker shapes or green runoffs mimic distance mountains or clouds and implying that this was intentional by the designer.  If so, does this placing of a course and its details in relation to a distant feature count as architecture or is it a case of another pretty face?  

Just as I am inclined to give an archie credit for not doing something or utilizing natural features as architecture I also can buy using distant features as framing or whatever as architecture - even if only for aesthetic purposes.  Afterall, isn't aesthetics at least a partial driving force for the overbunkering seen today?  I don't think one could argue successfully that placing four bunkers where on will do as not architecture.  I think it is generally bad architecture, but architecture none the less.  

Ciao

Sean

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

If you don't take advantage of everything a site has to offer -- contours, vegetation, and views -- you are not an architect.  You're a moron.

Likewise, some golfers may choose not to give the architect any credit for the aesthetic pleasures of a golf course.  And what would that make them?

[TEPaul]

To me actual architecture is what's on the site and under the control of an architect but if an architect doesn't at least attempt to use the aura, the contours, the general atmosphere and the best sight-lines of what's visible off site, even if it's as far as the eye can see---if it's attractive---he isn't using his craft to the fullest. Obviously the most important aspect is what a golfer sees and feels when he steps on a tee. If an architect has the opportunity to use something like the Mountains of Mourne backdropping a hole he better work to use it and use it to its fullest.

[Ryan Farrow]

How about everything?Even if the course stays the same shape as when the architect found it he is responsible for deciding to leave it alone.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

All I mean is the architect can only use a backdrop off the property, he can't change it as he can things within his control on-site.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I don't know who exactly is scoring each architect's performance on each project, other than the great architect in the sky.

But, if you insist on scoring, then I think you have to take credit away for eyesores, etc.  No, it's not my fault if there is a power line running across the site, but just like an oceanfront, I have the power to determine how it's presented on the golf course.  Certainly, some things are almost impossible to overcome, just like a Pacific Ocean view is difficult to screw up ... but you've got to take the bad with the good, or not take them at all.

There are other things which the architect might say he had no control over -- decisions he wants to pass off to the client, the shapers, the contractor, the engineers, town regulations, the Tour pro co-designer, ad nauseum -- but if he's not giving them all some credit, too, then pay no attention.

[Dan Moore]

Is the steeple of the Slieve Donard Hotel an integral part of the course?  It certainly makes a few holes better at least to the soul.  

[Jordan Wall]

Sean:

If you don't take advantage of everything a site has to offer -- contours, vegetation, and views -- you are not an architect.  You're a moron.

What if an architect goes one step farther?
What if he makes the terrain?
Makes humps?
Builds contours?

Better put, what would you call Arthur Hills?

[Tom Huckaby]

If an unquestionably top-flight authority on golf course architecture says that if one doesn't take advantage of everything a site has to offer -- contours, vegetation, and views -- then one is a moron;

that would logically indicate that if one doesn't value everything a site has to offer - contours, vegetation, and VIEWS[/b] -- then one would also be a moron, correct?

Patrick Mucci doesn't value views on a golf course.

You make the next logical step.

 

TH

ps - GO GEORGIA TECH!

[Jordan Wall]

Huck,

It confuses me why somebody would not fully value a great site.

I mean, we all know the real reason people like Pebble Beach is for architecture that ranks all the way up wth PV..
Man, forget that thing they call the ocean
 

[Marty Bonnar]

If you fail to be moved, when you've played your way out and walked across to the 8th tee and have your first look back over the several hundred acres of those links to the majesty of the crennelated skyline of that auld grey place, then you clearly have not an architectural corpuscle in your body...

FBD.

...and then I got to thinking-

Is it the Setting or the Hole?

Are the great golf holes products of their play value, their placing in the landscape, either, neither or both?

Take the adjacent CPC 15 and 16 and TOC 17 and 18.

For me:
CPC 15: Setting
CPC 16: Hole
TOC 17: Hole
TOC 18: Setting.

Boy, this architecture stuff is EASY!

[Mark_Fine]

If you look back through old threads you will see that this topic has been debated hot and heavy for a long time.  Opinions fluctuate but many seem to think if it is "off the site" and/or out of the architect's control, it is not part of the architecture.  I remember one example which questioned if they put a Burger King in place of Ben's Porch at Sand Hills, would it impact the architecture?  Another was, if the Pacific Ocean along Pebble Beach or along Cypress Point was replaced with a corn field, would it impact the architecture?  I am staying out of this debate as there is no black and white answer, just opinion.

[wsmorrison]

"...we all know the real reason people like Pebble Beach is for architecture that ranks all the way up wth PV."

Jordan,

Who are these people that think the architecture of Pebble Beach ranks up there with Pine Valley?  Have you been to Pebble Beach?  How about Pine Valley?  Even if you are correct, and I do not think so at all, you could not get full credit for this statement since you do not support it.  In my mind, the views of the Pacific Ocean help a great deal to elevate Pebble Beach to a higher place than its architecture alone to most golfers.  Sure the ocean and bluffs and wind are an integral part of some of the holes, but not enough holes to make it as great as people think because of the remaining holes.  There are a number of good but not great holes at Pebble Beach (1,2,4,(I haven't seen JN's 5th),11,12,13,15 and even 17).  Care to mention any good but not great holes at Pine Valley?  I could discuss some of the PB holes as mediocre and feel confident that they are.  There isn't anything close to a mediocre hole at Pine Valley.  Sure some trees need to come down in and around some lost bunker complexes.  But the architecture shines in a way Pebble Beach never has on the whole--certainly not since Grant and Neville's work was compromised in any case.

[Jordan Wall]

"...we all know the real reason people like Pebble Beach is for architecture that ranks all the way up wth PV."

Jordan,

Who are these people that think the architecture of Pebble Beach ranks up there with Pine Valley?  Have you been to Pebble Beach?  How about Pine Valley?  Even if you are correct, and I do not think so at all, you could not get full credit for this statement since you do not support it.  In my mind, the views of the Pacific Ocean help a great deal to elevate Pebble Beach to a higher place than its architecture alone to most golfers.  Sure the ocean and bluffs and wind are an integral part of some of the holes, but not enough holes to make it as great as people think because of the remaining holes.  There are a number of good but not great holes at Pebble Beach (1,2,4,(I haven't seen JN's 5th),11,12,13,15 and even 17).  Care to mention any good but not great holes at Pine Valley?  I could discuss some of the PB holes as mediocre and feel confident that they are.  There isn't anything close to a mediocre hole at Pine Valley.  Sure some trees need to come down in and around some lost bunker complexes.  But the architecture shines in a way Pebble Beach never has on the whole--certainly not since Grant and Neville's work was compromised in any case.

Wayne,

I was being sarcastic.
I was saying forget the ocean...
A joke is all it was
 

[wsmorrison]

Jordan,

Sorry, about that.

[Jordan Wall]

It's ok Wayne.
I love hearing you talk about courses though, you are very intelligent and smart.
 

I have learned not to talk about courses I have not played, at least in a context of how good/bad they are.

[Bill_McBride]

To me actual architecture is what's on the site and under the control of an architect but if an architect doesn't at least attempt to use the aura, the contours, the general atmosphere and the best sight-lines of what's visible off site, even if it's as far as the eye can see---if it's attractive---he isn't using his craft to the fullest. Obviously the most important aspect is what a golfer sees and feels when he steps on a tee. If an architect has the opportunity to use something like the Mountains of Mourne backdropping a hole he better work to use it and use it to its fullest.

I've only played one Stanley Thompson - Capilano - but have seen plenty of photos of Banff and Jasper Park.  I was very impressed with how Thompson aligned golf holes with amazing views, whether it's Vancouver harbor on the first few downhill holes at Capilano, or the mountain peaks that are dead center on other holes at Capilano (#15 and #17) and at a number of holes at Banff and Jasper Park.  This obviously requires real talent!   Great golf holes, great use of the natural setting.