Waterfalls in the Desert

[redanman]

Build it.  A BIG F-in one.

kinda camp,really

[George Pazin]

Mike -

If Tom D is as strong minded as I suspect he is, he already made his decision before he started the thread and he's simply preparing us for the inevitable.

[Bill_McBride]

"Waterfalls" and attractive, natural looking ponds are not necessarily one and the same.  A pro who can create a "natural" blow out bunker at Pacific Dunes can certainly create a natural water storage feature which doesn't look like the waterfalls we apparently all detest.

Tom, loved the green surrounds at Valley Club last week, as well as the restored bunkers.  There must be an acre more of froghair than eighteen months ago when I last played there.  Beautiful look and much better playing than the rough up against small froghair of the past.

[Mike_Cirba]

George;

You may be right.  I hope it's lovely, strategic, practical, minimalist, cost-effective, naturalistic, captivating, integral to the design and does Donald Ross and Alister Mackenzie proud.  

Long odds, I know.

[Jerry Kluger]

I'm a bit confused here when we say that the owners want a waterfalls and other features which are questionable for the surroundings as this leads me to the question of what is natural to the desert?  Somehow the green grass is not natural and as Tom Fazio proved at Shadow Creek whatever you want to build in the desert we can do it and it can be well received.  I think Mike Strantz pointed out that at Royal New Kent he needed to move the water supply and he could have put it in a pipe or the waterfalls and to me it was the 18th hole which was out of character and not the waterfalls. In any event desert golf is a very unique situation and most anything you put there will be out of character when compared to the natural terrain.  I admire Tom's concern but the addition of a waterfalls to a desert course is not of great concern; bringing in oak and maple trees would be of more concern to me.  

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

Based on Tom Doak's description it sounds like:

a) the waterfall idea was not Tom's
b) the pros and cons were thoroughly discussed
c) the owner exercised his right to insist on the waterfall
d) Tom decided to make the best of the situation and build the best course possible

Your use of the word "guilt" suggests Tom is somehow at fault.

Can you describe exactly how Tom or any other architect should have handle the matter? In other words, once all the discussion was over and the owner held his ground, what should Tom have done?

[Neal_Meagher]

Ed,

No, the waterfall you refer to at Maderas was the pile-of-rocks variety, though a fairly artistically done pile-of rocks waterfall.

Believe me, there are far better ways to do that type of work.  Sometimes the use of natural rocks works if the environment you are working in naturally features laterally fractured rocks or even eroded and rounded rocks.  In the case of Maderas, there are some horizontal (lateral) rocks lying about naturally so that approach did somewhat work there.

What I was suggesting to Tom was that if the naturally occuring environment where his course is located features vertical and/or sheared rock formations, you simply cannot get that by the old pile-of-rocks method.  

Thus, the approach I suggested, while quite expensive, is the best bet in achieving a natural look that would fool anybody.  Believe me, this guy is that good.

Now, if I can get a chance to work with him someday; not necessarily for waterfalls, but where native rock formations would really amplify the needs of the strategy of the course.

Said in another way: it sometimes takes a hell of a lot of effort to make most things appear perfectly "natural" (sorry for use of the quotes JakaB).  Therefore, this very expensive method of using reinforced concrete with many and varied jogs and such is sometimes needed to make for that desired "natural" look.  If one simply does this half-way it is, as an Armenian scribe once told me, neither fish nor foul.  It doesn't truly suck, but it doesn't really sing either.

Do it all the way or don't even try it.

[Bye]

Come on, the voice of minimalism, Mr. Renissance Design building waterfalls? Kind of goes against the grain, doesn't it?

If this was Fazio or Rees asking, what would your responses be? Yeah sure, it's just Rees and Tom selling out for the $$$ again!!!

What's next, Ted Robinson doing minimalism??

[Tom Doak]

Bye,

I'm betting I can do a waterfall better than Nicklaus and Rees can do minimalism.

Everyone else,

I had to go back and re-read my initial post just to make sure, and if you'll do the same, you'll see I never asked whether you thought I should do the water features on this course or not.

What I asked was whether you would pre-judge the course harshly simply because there was a water feature, even if the course was otherwise excellent.  (And since the course isn't built yet and you know nothing else about it, PRE-JUDGING is exactly what it would be.)

So I have my answer -- half of you are extremely closed-minded to the idea, no matter what the actual golf course is like.  Maybe I'll get a pass, since you seem to have given Gil a pass for Applebrook's, but at least a couple of you will tell me I've "sold out."

Mike C.:  I think it would be unprofessional to quit the job over something like this.  Besides, it is going to be a great course if we do it right, waterfalls or not.

[Bye]

Tom,
I don't disagree! But, can you build a waterfall better then Jack or Rees?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I wouldn't "pre-judge" it, but strain to imagine how it would help the golf course architecture, or your reputation as someone who recognizes that kind of extraneous, "velvet Elvis" stuff for what it is.  Instead, those type of "features" are mostly used to hide shortcomings, or otherwise distract in some kind of "ooo aahh" presentation.

As for the waterfall at Applebrook, I don't recall any free passes being given here.  It's something that is superflous, gawdy, and incongruous on an otherwise fine course, and I think Gil would agree.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
As I said in my initial post, "I can't tell you what I think until I see it".  Pre-judging a course as you say, is never a good idea!  The rest of my comments were only offers of advice!

George,
Good point, but please understand what I am saying.  My posts in the past have alluded to that fact that architects are often asked to do things that they themselves might otherwise condone.  You can't assume (as some of us seem to do with certain designers) that the architect supported a goofy waterfall or a superfluous bunker,…  But at the end of the day, it’s the architect's name that goes on the design.  

I remember getting a call from Jim Engh about among other things, the waterfall on the 18th at Sanctuary.  That was the owner's idea, not his.  But he did build it and it looks really tacky and as a result, it leaves a sour taste in your mouth as the finishing hole.  It was nice to know it was not Jim's idea (thank goodness), but Jim's name is on the design so he has to live with it.

In the case of Tom Doak, I am not bashing him.  We all know he despises "jewelry" (such as man made waterfalls), scattered around a golf course.  But it is still his golf course and if the waterfall he is forced to build turns out great, good for him.  If it doesn't, then as I said before, he has to suffer with the result.  As I said in my first post, I can't state a position until I see it!  

I remember some of those stupid back tees that the owner forced Gil Hanse to put in at Inniscrone.  Gil didn't support them, but he did build them.  So what are you supposed to do when reviewing the course, simply say they don't exist and not let them impact your opinion of the design?  Sorry, you can't do that.  But those tees didn't lessen my opinion of Gil at all.  They just reinforced my belief that there are many factors outside the control of the architect and that when I see something stupid or questionable, to remind myself that it might not have been the architect's fault.    

Tim,
As I said above, we all know Tom would not build a senseless feature unless pushed to the limit.  As he takes on more "high profile" jobs, he may have to do more of that (just like some of the other guys).  He'd do what he thinks it right and we'll judge what is there after it's built!

Mark

[Peter Galea]

After re-reading your initial post, I would say that "we" (the Royal we), would look more favorably to waterfalls in the desert than in the sand hills. Will it be a "Niagra Falls" (slowly I turn) or a babbling brook, cascading through the wash?

[George Pazin]

Mark -

If I understand your last paragraph correctly, I think you're basically saying you have to judge the final product in the ground, not the architect's wishes, and I can't really disagree with that, particularly in a rating sense, though I'm more a fan of discussion than rating. I was joking with the Doak bashing comment - everyone else throws around Fazio bashing at the drop of a hat, so I thought it'd be funny to see someone say Doak bashing.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Thank you for your last post.  I suspect that you are about to settle an argument that Shooter and Gib have ganged up on me on for two years.  I have always argued that a waterfall can be incorporated into a golf course and do nothing but add to the quality of the finished product.  My gut instinct is that you are about to prove me right.

Of course, if Rees releases a press release that says “My next project is a true minimalist course on bluffs overlooking xxx sea to keep true to my commitment to use the existing land as the prevailing features in my courses,” then I am going to take the combination of your waterfall and Rees’s minimalism as the next sign of the apocalypse and move to Montana.
 

[Harmony]

So, is that going to ruin the course in your eyes?  

Whose eyes are more important Tom?  The web site junkies reading this, the owner, or you?  You are the artist.  Draw what you think will be a beautiful hole/s, and take whatever the client has offered.  If you were a house painter and the client wanted purple, you'd give it to him.  You're not.  You are the man who ultimately has to live with your work.  If they want contrived elements, let someone else do it.

[brad_miller]

Tom, maybe you should visit The Donalds $7mm recreation of Niagra Falls in Westchester, from memory I think it pumps 5000 gallons a minute.

Good luck, I'am sure your Palm Desert WF will set the a new standard that even many on this site will be OK with.

[michael miller]

This is a question that contains the answer. "Will you prejudge a desgn if you know it has negative features? Yes. Absolutely, yes. The best that can be said is: It would have been a great course except for........ It's like: Your daughter is a lovely girl except for that hairy nevus in the middle of her forehead."
   This is really a political question, not an aesthetic one. "Should I do a course when I know it cannot be my best work due to constraints placed on me my the client? Obviously, it depends on the personal values of the architect as to what degree he is willing to compromise.  And in this case, compromise is required. Insofar that we all know "water features" are not natural to the desert, the course will also not be natural in it's setting.  Since "naturalness" is a requirement of architectural greatness, any such course cannot be great by definition.  Thusly, it is not a matter of prejudgment, but one of definition.

[brad_miller]

is that mgm? if so, will you paint it

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Doak,

Given that you have said you plan to blow the doors off of the rest of the competition in the Coachella Valley, how do you plan to do so?  Everyone here praises Apache Stronghold, what can you do at the Palm Desert site that you couldn't at Apache.  Aside from the waterfall, can we expect a similar design?  Lastly, as far as desert courses go what do you think of the course in Mesquite, NV, Wolf Creek... Wolf Run.  Something like that.  

[mgm]

Brad - On this board, mgm and Michael Miller are the same guy.  Don't ask me why.  I've painted worse -  Tom Fazio's,  Big Canyon in Palm Desert, ouch! Painting a golf hole, thankfully, is a different question, due to the fact that what is of issue is the quality of the painting, as opposed to the quality of the subject matter.  Nonetheless,  subject matter is very important and can hurt what otherwise would be a better painting.  A painting of the rugged beauty inherent in, say, Cypress Point or Pine Valley, handled equally well as some lesser design, will, in fact be superior.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where are:

Sandy Barrens Jr &/er Tommy Naccarato when you need them?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy is still trying to figure out how he justifies giving The Quarry a 4 even though he felt some of the holes resembled those at Apache Stronghold and also why Galloway just can't possibly be any good  

[Tony Ristola]

Tom:  I recall an article in a European magazine not too many moons ago where you stated waterfalls are "Out" and other details, like craftmanship constructing bunkers were in!  That was short lived.  

Interesting dilemna...joining the Falling Waters Society.  The water falls will be popular with the masses who enjoy and grade courses on such features and the Japanese Garden maintenance aspect of the game.  If the course is going to be exceptional with or without the water falls, why the need for something so obviously contrived?  Waterfalls in the desert...seems to me this will detract from the course, regardless of whether they are better done than the others in the Falling Waters Society.  Then again...I'd go once (if they let me on the premises) and judge from there.
  
If the course is demanding impressive initiation fees, how many of these members will play year round...in 100+ degree heat?

Is it unprofessional to turn down a job because the Owner insists on such features?  Not if you firmly believe it is contrary to your beliefs, a detriment to the course, your name and a dumbing down of the game.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Ain't GOLFCLUBATLAS great? You ask a simple question and you get 3 pages and 75 answers to date! If ever you're looking for architectural opinions, you'll never find a shortage of them here!

If you build that waterfall though it appears you'll have a lot of "splaining" to do to some of these "closed minded" architectural analysts, but at least they got into their answers and opinions bigtime.

Here's my personal recommendation. Go ahead and build the waterfall but before you do ask that owner with a completely straight face if he really thinks he has any taste whatsoever for even suggesting such a thing.