[Jeff_Brauer]

Last week I attended the ASGCA mid year education session, where Ron Whitten gave a talk and handout on "Chicago School" gca's Bendelow, Langford, and Harris. Having a chance to read the xeroxes of their writings, I was struck by two or three things:

In the 40's both Harris and Langford wrote of "streamlined" design.  Given the time frame, and knowing that industrial designers like Raymond Loewy were shrouding steam locos to make passenger trains look more like new airliners, and were also active in other areas of industrial design, and that cars were going to newer designs, etc. At the same time, the Chicago school, with architects like Wright were coming up with very modern, simple compared to highly ornamented traditional designs.

I was struck how they must have been influenced by other design areas and possibly the Chicago school of architecture.

Harris also wrote:

"For a good many years, much of golf architecture in this country has suffered from a "finality complex".  That complex was that the zenith of gca had been reached in Scotland and everything we did had to be an imitation of their courses......I think its high time we stopped imitating the old traditions in golf design and build courses that will satisfy our player demand, our pocketbooks, our maintenance machinery and our peculiar American climatic and topographical conditions."

From his other writings, its clear that this is his justification for his later maintenance friendly designs.  

But Langford writes similarly:

"It doesn't follow that because a yawning sand pit is a naturally pleasing and effective hazard on seaside links that the same feature will be as pleasing in appearance in the fertile prairies of northern Illinois.  As the natural features in this locality consist of rolling ground, ridges, brooks, small ponds and abandoned clay and gravel pits, so should our Chicago hazards endeavor to be, as far as possible, imitations of these familiar and omnipresent features.

Such a result can only be achieved by a careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside and hazards that conform to and are imitations of their surroundings."

Some have speculated that his deep hazards are knockoffs of Raynor.  To me, this suggests that his gentle hazards are reflections of the countryside, and his steep ones are attempts to mimick small quarries found in those days all over the midwest.

Some other Langord stuff:

He had formulas for nearly everything, from ideal routings to width of green openings, to calculating uphill and downhill shots. He mentions fair and scientific golf often in just the few writings he has in my handout.  As an aside, gca William Mitchell worked for him.  Coincidentally, I had discussions recently with a real old timer who had worked with Mitchell and told me that "Mitchell had a formula for everything, listing about the same things Whitten listed for Langford!

His treastise on Architecture in the Chicago District was written in 1915, the year he opened his firm (at age 28) and lists him as "Glen Oak CC" and uses his parents home address!

I draw a few conclusions from these writings:

Gca's of the WWII era were very interested in "modernization" and designing something completely new, rather than a knockoff.  It appears that they felt as strongly about getting away from the traditions of gca then as some feel about returning to it now.  Its funny how cyclical things are.

These ideas were probably following trends in other design areas AND being influenced by gas rationing, rising labor prices, etc. after WWII.  (Of course, both Harris and Langford owned their own courses, so they were cognizant of costs.

Sorry for the ramble, but I thought some might be interested.

[JC Jones]

But Langford writes similarly:

"It doesn't follow that because a yawning sand pit is a naturally pleasing and effective hazard on seaside links that the same feature will be as pleasing in appearance in the fertile prairies of northern Illinois.  As the natural features in this locality consist of rolling ground, ridges, brooks, small ponds and abandoned clay and gravel pits, so should our Chicago hazards endeavor to be, as far as possible, imitations of these familiar and omnipresent features.

Such a result can only be achieved by a careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside and hazards that conform to and are imitations of their surroundings."

I'm guessing this narrative was not contemplated in the designing of the Chicago area great, WS...

Pithy comments aside, I agree, make the course from what the land gives you, not what you want the land to be.  Its amazing how you can find minimalism even among "modern" thinkers like Langford...

[TEPaul]

"I draw a few conclusions from these writings:
Gca's of the WWII era were very interested in "modernization" and designing something completely new, rather than a knockoff.  It appears that they felt as strongly about getting away from the traditions of gca then as some feel about returning to it now.  Its funny how cyclical things are."

JeffB:

It sure is funny how cyclical things can be and are, particularly over here.

I'm so glad you posted a thread like this one that not only shows that but a few other REALLY important things too.

We, on here, too often seem to fixate on our present prejudices and preferences and in doing so we seem too often and too easily to assign them to other eras that we admire (or not).

I think this gives us a really distorted view of history and what really was going on back then at any particular time.

It also tends to make us blame people for doing things back then which aren't in tune with the way we think today.

In doing this we can't seem to understand that back then they may not have even thought of what we feel today (what may certainly have been unknown to them back then simply because it lay in a future they would never know).

"Modernization" was and still is one of the true hallmarks of American culture in almost all ways, certainly compared to other countries and cultures that were and still are far more tradition-bound then we are or ever were.

In America "change" is basically our middle name. We glorify in it---we're proud of it subliminally and otherwise.

I will never forget one of perhaps the most popular "pitch slogans" there ever was. It was GE's and it was "Progress is our most important product".

Interestingly the pitchman intimitally connected to that slogan was its GE spokesman, actor Ronald Regan who a few decades later would become our president.

Fourtunately or unfortunately it is just not the way it was, is or perhaps ever will be in other places and cultures who are so much more into their cultural traditions than us.

The word and concept of "modernization" in architecture in America had two distinct occurences, in my opinion. Once around a decade or less after the turn of the century and into the teens and '20s and again after WW2 and into the 50s.

Both were probably somewhat unrelated to one another other than the fact they were examples of how fast America and its tastes can cycle.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Did Ron talk about George O'Neil or Jack Croke?

With all due respects to Ron, any conversation about the Chicago School is incomplete without talking about them.

But boy what I would have done to heard Ron's views on Langford.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Well (and briefly!) said!  I agree with all your points, and in fact, you made them for me, when I was just sort of throwing stuff out there.  

I will add that our American tendency towards modernization probably also fuels the "Einstein-ian" "equal and opposite reaction" of nostalgia, which seems to dominate this board, and led to Joanie Mitchell singing "Pave paradise and put in a parking lot."

I have a friend who works overseas often.  His view is that American culture is dominated by convenience, which I think works its way over to golf design subtley.

I sometimes think those who push so hard for restorations, and return to GA golf design forget the sum total of history and how we got to where we are.  I think short memories are a common theme in human nature.  Politicians count on it!

I still hum the "We bring good things to life" that I heard in the GE Pavillion at Disney World in Orlando about ten years ago.  While the "Progress" slogan may be more important - its not as hummable!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Did Ron talk about George O'Neil or Jack Croke?

With all due respects to Ron, any conversation about the Chicago School is incomplete without talking about them.

But boy what I would have done to heard Ron's views on Langford.

Tommy,

He apologized in advance for the time limitations that prevented speaking of all the gca's in depth.  Frankly, while admitting that probably more gca's worked out of Chicago than any other areas, he even questioned whether there was a Chicago school, but that's another topic.  

After the presentation, I spoke with him on the "streamlining" comparisons, which he hadn't considered (leave it to a train buff to make that connection!)  In it, he went back to his "left brain-right brain" division of gca's, and clearly, Langford (with his formulas) is a left brain (engineering background, logic, etc. ) thinker.

He also wondered how someone writing about matching the gentle topo of the midwest came out with Boxcar bunkers, which is where I am speculating on a tenuous connection to small quarry pits I remember in the landscape to get the bricks and stones to build Chicago.  He did say there was no evidence that Langford ever met Raynor.

Lastly, he did mention that Larry Packard had secretly worked on the side, at nights, for Langford while working for Harris during the day and said that Langford was a much better gca than his boss.  So, we have at least William Mitchell and Larry Packard who can be counted as Langford descendants.  I can't think of any more, right off hand.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC Jones,

It took awhile, but I figured out that WS meant Whistling Straits, which is actually nearer Milwaukee. at least I think thats what WS stood for.

Ron tells the story about Pete Dye saying he was influenced by some great Raynor courses, that were actually Langford courses, who Pete hadn't heard of.  So, while Langford may not have influenced Pete at WS, he certainly was probably responsible for the straight edges of his long waste bunkers at other courses.

And, in a way, Pete was looking to do something completely opposite of what was then "standard" himself, with standard being Wilson and RTJ.  Thus, he came up with a composite of Langford and Scotland as his models, which then in a way became models for other gca's later.

I also believe that Doak, CC and other minimalists enjoy success right now by virtue of the fact that they followed the same path to do something different, using the GA (since Pete had already taken the Scottish idea) to differentiate themselves.

The next logical conclusion is that the next hot trend will be to mimick the 50's again perhaps RTJ and Wilson, or perhaps lesser lights like Floyd Farley.  Maybe RBHarris moon craters will come back in style!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks for this.

It's interesting. Judging only from the quotes you included, Langford seems actually to be honouring the “spirit of St. Andrews”, i.e. suggesting that, in the same way that the great links courses utilized their naturally-occurring (and thus naturally pleasing) sandy features, Illinois courses should also utilize what was most naturally-occurring in their neck of the woods, ridges, brooks, ponds, and pits.

Harris, on the other hand, seems to be honouring the “spirit of the times”, advocating on behalf of the changing tastes, technologies and democratic spirit of post war America… (though maybe one could argue that the British link courses did the same in terms of the tastes and technologies of their time, decades and centuries earlier.)

If any of that makes sense and is in any way true, it seems like the same dichotomy exists today, in gca and in all the creative arts, i.e. between responding to the tastes of the present or adhering (with subtle modifications) to the principles of the past.

Peter

[Eric Franzen]

We, on here, too often seem to fixate on our present prejudices and preferences and in doing so we seem too often and too easily to assign them to other eras that we admire (or not).

I think this gives us a really distorted view of history and what really was going on back then at any particular time.

It also tends to make us blame people for doing things back then which aren't in tune with the way we think today.

In doing this we can't seem to understand that back then they may not have even thought of what we feel today (what may certainly have been unknown to them back then simply because it lay in a future they would never know)

I was just thinking a bit about that the other day. In terms of if we even can imagine how futuristic and modern some of for example Tillinghast and Raynor's work must have looked when it first was opened for play back then.
We probably can't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Yes it makes sense, and as I alluded, the Harris writings (which came after he owned golf courses, whereas Langford was writing before he owned courses) seem more an attempt to justify his maintenance first approach.  

In saying that, I am not critiquing RBH - having come out of the depression and WWII, and being able to buy up five struggling courses, I am sure the cost factor was dearly and clearly on his mind.

Langford's 1915 piece was clearly meant to launch his career and was more into "deeper thought."  He does reflect the tradition of the game of minimizing disruption to nature.

But, he was writing in the early years of the "Chicago School" when Chicago skyscrapers of minimum ornamentation started appearing, in stark contrast to the more heavily ornamented Euro classic styling.  In architecture journals, I can recall Wright and others working hard on their "Prairie" style to reflect the midwest landscape (there was an LA, whose name escapes me at the moment) who was also considered a midwest themed LA).  

In general, I think there was a trend to create some unique American designs and styles (and art, like blues, Mark Twain in writing, etc.) rather than copy Europe, generally growing as America's industrial might and wealth grew.

It seems to me that Langford's writing synthesizes both the traditions of golf and of the Midwest schools of design thought at the same time.

BTW, it would also seem to discount any fasicnation he had with Raynor's approach of bringing the same 18 holes to every design, no matter what the topography.  That in turn would also cast doubt on his bunkering style being derived from Raynor's.  The more likely cause is the engineering training of both, which may show through, no matter how deeply Langford ended up thinking about gca.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Personally and IMHO I don't lump Frank Lloyd Wright in with the Chicago School of Sullivan and Mies.  I think the latter were influenced by a rather mechanistic, "escape from nature" view.  The idea that skyscrapers were born in flat Chicago should tell us enough about that.

I really love Mies for his advancements in spartan architecture and the beautiful purity of his work: he advanced Sullivan's "form follows function" incredibly.  His Barcelona Chair is a marvel of modern design, sleek and streamlined of "nonfunctionality."

(Of course, then he went and bolted functionless i-beams on the Seagrams Bldg and 845 Michigan Ave...)

Wright on the other hand was a whole nuther creature. I believe it was his contribution to architecture you are referencing, namely his use of nature not only as metaphor but as archetype.

His prairie houses' "horizontal linearity" evoke the far horizon of the plains, but he went much farther in studying nature: some of his buildings, in how they copy "natural principles," also are marvels of engineering. (Not Fallingwater!)

For example, his adaption of tree trunks into a "core" for skyscrapers is an idea that has so permeated modern design, offhand I can think only of the World Trade Center towers as examples of modern skyscrapers that depend(ed) on load-bearing perimeter. (Although maybe Norman Foster's new Hearst Building...)

Also, his Imperial Hotel's famous survival of the great Tokyo earthquake of 1923.

So to get to streamlining: if those GCAs were drawing a parallel to the mechanistic aspects of streamlining / a Miesian interpretation, then the reference to the Chicago School is maybe apt.

The Wright equivalent might be drawing inspiration by watching streamlining in nature: fish or porpoises darting through water, for example.  In which case, they owe their debt to Wright, who was maybe sui generis: perhaps Corbu's ideas on nature chip into him a bit -- but either way, both of them giants who advanced architecture into a sort of formalist-natural stye, giants whose shadow perhaps best looms over the work of A. MacKenzie.

It sounds like, in writing of their desire to break free and develop a style in harmony with the local topography and environment, they might owe a debt to Wright, but I doubt Mies!

PS As far as "American style" or not copying Europe goes, much of the credit for modern design must go to Euros: Gropius, Mies, Le Corbusier, even Saarinen.

Of course, for the Yanks there is mighty Sullivan -- and Wright...

PPS There is a great quote from Robert Venturi I've noodled with posting here to see what everyone thinks of its interpretation and application viz GCA.  This seems like as good a place as any: "It is all right to decorate construction but never construct decoration."

Taking a narrow application to the world of bunkering, to me the first part of this beautiful chiasmus justifies the work of MacKenzie, whose bunkers some on here find too "fluffy," whereas the second part highlights the flaw in the use of bunkers as framing and aiming; e.g., what Fazio sometimes is criticized for doing.

Do you agree? What are wider applications (beyond bunkering) of Venturi's quote?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

If we both live to see the day that the Robert Bruce Harris style comes back "in" again, I'll buy you a Scotch -- if I don't off myself first.

[Eric_Terhorst]

But Langford writes similarly:

"It doesn't follow that because a yawning sand pit is a naturally pleasing and effective hazard on seaside links that the same feature will be as pleasing in appearance in the fertile prairies of northern Illinois.  As the natural features in this locality consist of rolling ground, ridges, brooks, small ponds and abandoned clay and gravel pits, so should our Chicago hazards endeavor to be, as far as possible, imitations of these familiar and omnipresent features.

Such a result can only be achieved by a careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside and hazards that conform to and are imitations of their surroundings."

Some have speculated that his deep hazards are knockoffs of Raynor.  To me, this suggests that his gentle hazards are reflections of the countryside, and his steep ones are attempts to mimick small quarries found in those days all over the midwest.

In general, I think there was a trend to create some unique American designs and styles (and art, like blues, Mark Twain in writing, etc.) rather than copy Europe, generally growing as America's industrial might and wealth grew.

...it would also seem to discount any fascination [Langford] had with Raynor's approach of bringing the same 18 holes to every design, no matter what the topography.  That in turn would also cast doubt on his bunkering style being derived from Raynor's.  The more likely cause is the engineering training of both, which may show through, no matter how deeply Langford ended up thinking about gca.

Jeff,

Thanks very much for your posts.  

As one who simply enjoys the hell out of his courses without thinking too many deep thoughts about the art and philosophy of architecture, I like the way you have succinctly captured a couple of reasons Langford courses stand out (at least in terms of shear enjoyment) for me--1) the resulting product certainly reflects a desire to "create a unique American design", and  2) Langford & Moreau's painstaking and expertly realized engineering thoroughly succeeds in reflecting Langford's "careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside."  

On the recent Langford & Moreau tour that was summarized here we saw numerous examples of these principles at work in the courses at Lawsonia, West Bend, Spring Valley, and Ozaukee (thanks again Dan Moore!).  All you need to do is look at the 3rd green or the 7th hole at West Bend to see it all, just to name a couple examples.  Paging Dan for pics.  

But during the tour I heard Mike Kennedy observe, "Why can't Fazio build a green like this?" or words to that effect.  After seeing 5 Langford courses, I wish his work would have influenced more than just Pete Dye.  His work and courses seem to be under-appreciated.  May I take as a sign of good things to come the fact that Langford's genius is being touted at your recent ASGCA meeting?  

[paul cowley]

Jeff [and Ron]....I find that very interesting, as I have always felt that the model for American golf design has never strayed far from the current design fashions and philosophies  of the era they evolved in. The key words in the last sentence are "fashions" and "philosophies", and that's because they are plural......and this is because at all times throughout history there is always more than just one prevailing design philosophy in occurrence......and American golf course design, with its Mackenzies, Raynors, RTJ's, Dyes and Doaks , is consistent with this.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But Langford writes similarly:

"It doesn't follow that because a yawning sand pit is a naturally pleasing and effective hazard on seaside links that the same feature will be as pleasing in appearance in the fertile prairies of northern Illinois.  As the natural features in this locality consist of rolling ground, ridges, brooks, small ponds and abandoned clay and gravel pits, so should our Chicago hazards endeavor to be, as far as possible, imitations of these familiar and omnipresent features.

Such a result can only be achieved by a careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside and hazards that conform to and are imitations of their surroundings."
...

Seems quite a few of you were impressed by this quote, as was I. The course I learned on started with a par 3 with the green before the slope descended down to a creek. On the opposite side of the creek, was a rock wall not much wider than a fairway. I have always wondered why that could not have been used as a naturally occurring risk/reward hazard. The green could have been straight away from the tee with the fairway being routed around the left edge of the wall where the land sloped up away from the creek instead of being interrupted by the wall.

In the past thinking about using naturally occurring phenomena as hazards, I have even envisioned blackberry thickets as such hazards. I have run into a few, but they never look like they were there on purpose, which may indeed be the nature of the beast. Since these thickets are made of an invasive species of blackberry, it is probably not a good idea to purposely make hazards out of them.

If there are any Oregonians reading this, does anyone know if the thicket to the left of #6 at Willamette Valley by the rocks is intended to be a hazard guarding cutting the dogleg?

[Dan Moore]

Frank Lloyd Wright and the Prairie School really should be distinguished from the "Chicago School of Architecture." The initial Chicago School which commenced in the 1880's with the advent of the steel frame "skyscraper"  was really "corporate architecture" intended for large business use buildings that sought to overcome the limitations of nature and stylistically embraced Neo-classicism.  Firms such as Adler and Sullivan and Burnham and Root epitomized this school.  Mies’ modernism came much later in the second Chicago School.

It seems to me that if there is a Chicago School of Golf Architecture that it is reflected in the work of Harris and those that followed him in creating a functional, corporate style of architecture that refelected certain business or economic realities whereas Langford was more of a Frank Lloyd Wright type artistic designer.  I think its wrong to limit Langford to a left brained approach; his genius, as both Dave Esler and Ron Forse noted, comes from his ability to combine a highly engineered (left brained approach) with a highly natural artistic flair.  In fact, if he didn’t excel at the latter we probably wouldn’t even be talking about his work.  

Ironically Langford grew up just two miles from Frank Lloyd Wright's Oak Park, Il. studio and home.  In that studio most of Wright’s Prairie School masterpieces were designed including such later prairie school works such as the Robey House (1910) and the Coonley House (1908).   There is certainly a connection between Wright's use of the horizontal line to evoke the natural expanse of the Illinois Tallgrass Prairie and Langford's quote from his 1915 writings that  artificial hazards should be naturally and artistically constructed to reflect the natural features of the surrounding landscape.   Was Langford influenced by Wright: its impossible to say with any certainty, but as a highly educated individual with degrees from Yale and Columbia it is very likely he was at least aware of his neighbor Frank Lloyd Wright.  

Langford in my opinion had several primary influences.  First was his teacher and mentor David McIntosh, a Scottish pro who hailed from St. Andrew’s.  At the time of the 1915 writings cited by Jeff B., McIntosh was the pro at Glen Oak CC, Langford’s home club at the time.  Prior to Glen Oak McIntosh was the pro at Westward Ho Langford’s home club during the Yale years.  McIntosh dabled in design himself and was involved with Bert Coghill in the original courses at Coghill.  Ron Forse informed us Langford’s son Tommy indicated Langford admired Walter Travis.  I don’t know enough about Travis to assess how this influence may be reflected in Langford's work.  Both however were known to be excellent putters.  Whether they ever met or not its seems abundantly clear that Langford was influenced by Macdonald and Raynor and that a stylistic similarity is due to choice more than technique.  As a top player of the era and a student of the game he must have been aware of NGLA as it was being built while he was a graduate student in NYC at Columbia University.  He likely was familiar with Shoreacares and probably St. Louis CC.  Dave Esler presented us with many examples of the influence of the  “template holes” in the work of Langford Moreau.  Even the introductory sentence to the 1915 writings makes a connection.  “Much has been written about the construction, design and maintenance of the famous British seaside links, “ and the completion of the sentence also indicated he was not beholden, “but a perusal of this literature gives but little useful information to those who have the upkeep of Chicago courses in their charge.”  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()