[Ed Oden]

If multiple architects were preparing routings on the same piece of property, how much would they typically differ?  Would they each be entirely different and look nothing even remotely like the others?  Or would there be a lot of similarities?  I would think that most properties have a few prominent features that most architects will quickly spot and use in their designs.  Would these features breed some similarities?  I'm just talking about the basic routing and not the full design details.  For sake of argument, assume that the property is only large enough to accommodate a typical 18 hole course and does not have excess land. 

[Jeff Doerr]

Ed,

It's a good question that must have been asked here before. I hope a few of the guys have historical docs that will show variations in routings. I'm sure there is some GCA and/or legal policy against publishing your design that did not get the job.

[Joe Hancock]

Ed,

I know Tom D. will eventually answer this much better than I can, but imagine a Rustic Canyon type property and it would likely be used similarly by different archies, whereas a Sandhills type property would yield limitless variations. I think....

 

Joe

[Ed Oden]

Jeff:

I specialize in questions that have been asked before.  It is one of my best qualities.

Joe:

I tried to limit my example to exclude the Sand Hills type of property where, as you point out, the possibilities are limitless.  At Sand Hills, a different architect might not have even USED the same land as C&C did, much less come up with a similar routing.  I'm thinking of a property where all architects would compose their routings in essentially the same confines.

 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joe,
I disagree about Rustic -- I can see that property being routed several different ways - but yes the geometry does lend it to up and down the canyon.

Ed,
I like to come up with several to many different configurations - but most of them clearly don't work as well as the leader in the clubhouse.  The more severe the property the more likely the routings will be similar.

I've seen once case of 4 different architects coming up with a routing for a site - and they were all very different - even though the property was constrained acreagewise.

MacKenzie was going to make the 16th at Cypress a par 4.

[Ed Oden]

Ed,
I like to come up with several to many different configurations - but most of them clearly don't work as well as the leader in the clubhouse.  The more severe the property the more likely the routings will be similar.

Mike, I guess I could ask you a variation of the question as it relates to the many different configurations you devise for the same project.  Are they apples and oranges or simply tweaks to the same essential routing plan?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Apples and oranges to start with and then big tweeks and then small tweeks.
I work until I find a good solution, and then try to start completely fresh - changeing all options - clubhouse locations - directions....
Eventually I gravitate towards the best holes.
I have a good essay of the evolution of Wolf Point's routing coming out this spring - I hope it is interesting for others to see - it was for me.

I did read once where Hurdzan's office has had a competitive atmosphere with their associates - they each come up with a routing and present or champion their solutions.  I don't know if they do that every time - I can see competition as being counter productive if not managed well.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

I've actually seen two of this site's favorite architects route the same property unbeknownst to one another. The routings weren't that similar and most interestingly when they did use the same landforms they were actually going in the reverse direction.

Frankly, the sites that would generally derive similar routings amongst golf architects would be those ultra long and narrow ones like most of the original Scottish linksland sites, or even an NGLA which is almost nowhere more than two holes wide.

Put some of those old linksman architects on a flat and square piece of property and what'd be produced probably wouldn't be memorable.

[Kyle Henderson]

It seems to me that on sites with severe features, the modern theory of golf economics usually calls for the access road clubhouse location to be specified first. From there returning nines are routed, usually in such a way that par 3s do not come at the first or 18th holes, etc.

Is that generally true or are architects usually given more leeway -- a blank canvass if you will?

Mike Nuzzo,
After you decided on your favorite routing at Wolf Point, did you debate the sequencing at all (e.g. which hole will be the opener) or was that integrated into the process of creating each hole to begin with?

I've seen many course that I think would have a better rhythm if the holes were played out of their prescribed order. For instance: I think Spyglass Hill might be more compelling if the course started on what is presently the 7th hole.

Thoughts?

[Jim Nugent]

Sebonack is an example.  Nicklaus' guys came up with the first routing.  Then Tom entered the picture.  He did a different routing, I believe from topo maps.  They ended up using Doak's routing. 

Hopefully Tom will explain this more.  Seems like he's said the routings shared some things, but also had some substantial differences. 

[Philippe Binette]

I don't think 2 routings would be the same...

the bigger the property, the more chance routing would differ

but,

if you have a site with steep slopes here and there, it might force a certain way to route holes for 3-4 holes but still, they would be different in the end.

on a ''featureless flat site'' with a square shape there's no way 2 routings would be the same since no architect will see the same course when allowed total freedom.

In Quebec, due to the french land settlement form dating from the 1700, sites are often made out of one property, so the site form is a long thin stripe (each parcel back in the days was 75 yards wide x 1700 yards or so). So the cheapest way to buy enough land to built a course is to buy two lots on the side (150 yards wide) by 2 lots (3400 yards) which force a out and in routing... still it would be differenr

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think some common holes would be likely, but almost certainly there would be no duplicate routings in total. The property may dictate a number of similar outs n backs although some architects may have the holes in opposite directions.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's the way I would look at it:

Routing is effectively one major part of the Concept Design.

Concept Design usually requires the biggest amount of experience and innovation.

Hence successful routing could be considered the No.1 task that separates the great from the good from the average from the bad in the world of golf course architecture.

Therefore it follows that there are endless possibilities in this stage of the design so that those distinctions can be made.

Anyone disagree?

[Melvyn Morrow]

TE



"Wouldn'tbe memorable" - You Thinks So?

Then you have the right to your opinion

Modern Designs – look at the new Castle Course

A course design totally in tune with – WHAT?

There are many modern courses (last 60 years) that
question the right be called a proper golf course.

That’s my Opinion

Don’t be so quick to dismiss the earlier designers they had to use design linked with the nature of the land to produce a course. Today – with enough money a course can be designed anywhere, on anything – the only limitation is MONEY. I would not be surprised to see a floating course on some lake or lagoon in years to come - interesting engineering project. 

We are lucky that there are still a few modern designers who put their reputation before money.

[Scott Witter]

Ed:

I think if you only had a couple architects as Tom Paul says then you could very well see diverging routings.  If on the other hand, you had several architects, you would likely yield 'relatively' similar results--statistics, etc....with basically the general flow across the landscape, but with what could be very different characteristics to rhythm, diversity of par and variety of shot type, etc.

This presumes that they only have the ability to use/study a good topo plan.  If, they could walk the site, then I believe depending on the actual architects you worked with, the routings would very quite different.  Some would study the features more closely and use them to make the best (natural) routing and others would not be so interested or concerned with them and focus more on the broad brush generalities--a mistake IMO.  Some still may have other priorities in mind as well as how influential/out spoken the client was in the design process and if they have certain goals & objectives in mind they wish the architect to strongly consider.

The better architect works very hard to achieve a total experience as the round unfolds.  Sounds straightforward maybe, but I think fewer architects than you believe REALLY look close at.  Taking into consideration countless subtle nuances such as off site borrowed views, the sequencing of tough holes and quiet ones, changes in vegetation and how this can influence the memorability of the game.  I also think it would differ greatly depending whether or not the architect  must start and finish with 1, 9, 10 and 18 near the clubhouse.  If this is a parameter, then more routings would be similar.  If this isn't a restriction, the routings would be more random and probably better.

I'll bet Forrest R. would also have some good things to add...I believe he did write a decent book on this subject

[Adrian_Stiff]

Here's the way I would look at it:

Routing is effectively one major part of the Concept Design.

Concept Design usually requires the biggest amount of experience and innovation.

Hence successful routing could be considered the No.1 task that separates the great from the good from the average from the bad in the world of golf course architecture.

Therefore it follows that there are endless possibilities in this stage of the design so that those distinctions can be made.

Anyone disagree?

Ally- I dont totally disagree although I think the final shaping is often an important make or break factor. I have seen a few holes that have not come out as well as they should because of the lack of onsite supervision particularly on 'pro named' courses, greens blind that did not need to be for instance. I agree a crap routing is like having dodgy breeze blocks in the foundations though.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

I'm sure you're probably right that architects today might create a golf course on something like a flat and square piece of land that may not turn out to look in harmony with the surounding landform atmosphere of the place simply because it becomes completely over-shaped in relation to what else is around it.

However, if you are also saying that the 19th century architects could've taken the same land and created a very good golf course on it simply by doing almost nothing to a flat piece of the land, then I think you are really mistaken. If you really think that then I guess you'll need to explain how they could've created great golf on just flat land.

[Melvyn Morrow]

TE

I believe you may have misunderstood my comments – I said you should not dismiss them (or their abilities). A golf course has to be made - doing nothing – who suggested that they did nothing - again you seem to believe that only the 20th & 21st Century designers modified the land.
   
Just because we are talking about 100 years plus in the past does not mean these guys did not know their business or were less intelligent than their modern day counterparts.

This ridicules idea that they designed in the Dark Ages is down to a few so call Golden Age designers not knowing or understanding the history of their sport. You will be surprised at just what some of those 19th Century designers got up to – but that is for another day.

Give those 19th Century Designers the same tools and budgets as per their modern counterparts (and stop tinkering with technology), I think again you would be surprised at what they could achieve. Alternatively as I suggested in “In My Opinion” essay, ask the modern guys to design a course as per Fernie, T Dunn, Old Tom, Simpson and George Morris and get a team of judges to comment on the outcome.

I say just don’t dismiss them – until we fully understand their contribution.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

It seems to me since you've come on here you've been almost automatically defensive that everyone is dismissing the old 19th century architects.

Who's been dismissing them?

I think most of us understand the realities that they worked under. You might say that if they had the tools of the 20th and 21st century architects they would've done as good a job, but that's something we can never know and so I don't know how productive or interesting it is to discuss that.

I mean I'm interested in the break-throughs of a Henry Ford with automibles but I don't really think it's worth speculating if he would've built something like a Ferrari if he lived and worked in Enzo's era.

Furthermore, I've said on this website that if Old Tom Morris didn't deserve the respect he got in his era then it probably wouldn't have been given to him. They probably would've found someone else back then to give it to.

[Keith Williams]

I actually happen to be in possession of three different routing plans that represent this exact situation. 

The site in question will never become a golf course (due to change in ownership and development plans) but when it was under prior ownership, they went through three different periods in which they wanted to build a golf course/resort (late 1990's and two different times in the early 2000's) and each time consulted a different architect.  All three architects are very well known and two of them are possibly the two most well-known living architects today.

I have often thought of scanning the three layouts into digital format, photoshopping away the names and letting GCAers take guesses and contrast/compare; but I know it would only be right to get each architect's permission first and I'm not sure I would have much luck in accomplishing that.

Needless to say, the routings do differ more than I would have imagined (the site is spacious, but very hilly) and the way each one negotiates the topography is unique.

Keith.

[Melvyn Morrow]

TEPaul

Sorry I must be getting confused, I though you said

“ Put some of those old linksman architects on a flat and square piece of property and what'd be produced probably wouldn't be memorable”.

Then went on to say

“I think most of us understand the realities that they worked under. You might say that if they had the tools of the 20th and 21st century architects they would've done as good a job, but that's something we can never know and so I don't know how productive or interesting it is to discuss that.”

As far as being defensive re the 19th century Designers, - perhaps I am. But reading the rubbish quoted by Tom Simpson about earlier designers which unbelievable is still used today – someone needs to speak for those founders of golf course design and architecture.   

[Tom_Doak]

The answer depends on the land. 

If you've got 150-200 acres AND a set clubhouse location and a fair number of natural features, you are probably going to find that different designers' plans have some of the same holes, or backward versions of the same thing.  (Although the Nicklaus Design plan for Sebonack was very much different from my first attempt, even in areas where I thought there was one obvious thing to do.  So in the end, it all depends on what you are seeking to paste in there.)

If you've got 400 acres of land and no clubhouse site, then it would be a miracle for three different designers to wind up with more than a couple of common holes.

[wsmorrison]

William Flynn and Donald Ross submitted plans for the CC of York (Pennsylvania) where the clubhouse was fixed as the existing farmhouse so the starting and finishing points were given.  Ross and Flynn submitted very different routings.  A few holes were similar or in reverse, but many were perpendicular to each other and in areas the other didn't bother with at all.  It is a very interesting study and one that Bob Crosby and Craig Disher are working on for the Flynn book to demonstrate routing differences between Flynn and Ross.  The Ross plan was chosen in the end.  Ross's plan provided an easier walk and was not as difficult a design as that submitted by Flynn.  Flynn designed CC York's rival Lancaster CC (get it Lancaster vs. York?), which is said to have been a factor in the decision making process.

[BCrosby]

The competing Ross and Flynn routings for York GC are fascinating.

As far as I can tell both were given a fixed clubhouse location. Entry roads were set.

Their routings could not have been more different. The locations of the first and last holes on each nine were pretty much set by the clubhouse location. But other than that, where Ross routed a hole e/w, Flynn wanted a hole running n/s. And so it went across the property.

My guess is that Flynn's course would have been much harder and, perhaps, more interesting.

If what happened at York is any guide, geography is not destiny.

Bob

[Peter Nomm]

Our course has an original routing from another architect that is nowhere near the existing one today.

We often asked a similar question back when I worked at Desert Mountain - what if they used 6 different architects instead of having all Nicklaus courses?  I worked with the entire process of the Chiricahua Course and know that even though the master plan had original corridors suggested for the course, there was significant change by the time it was all done. 

So I would imagine that there could have been some VERY different designs depending upon the architects involved.  I think that would have really made Desert Mountain something special had they done that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()