Framing with trees, does it defeat the visual intent of the architecture ?

[Lester George]

Doug,

I understand your point.  Thats why they make yardage books and markers.  My rant has more to do with "classic" courses where trees have been added over the years to "frame" the hole which in most cases is a metaphor for "make it easier for me to score" otherwise I might have to use my judgment and depth perception to create an opportunity to score.

Lester

[Doug Ralston]

Lester;

Do not take my comment as criticism. #4 is one of my favorite holes anywhere. I love the 'sky view'. And when they have the right rough cut close [mostly!], I actually prefer the 'alternate route, and that little used fairway on the right side approach.

Lester, I have played Kincaid quite a few times. Little 'gem in the rough'. Sadly, I have heard Kentucky is having severe financial problems in their gov. Makes me fearful it may be awhile before we see you carving that other nine.

But I gladly play twice and call it a round!

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lester;

If you are coming up the left side at #4 Kincaid, and looking at the green from down there, I would like to see how many could guess their distance within 10yd without reference.

Doug,

Why is that the duty of the architect ?

Isn't it just the opposite, to create doubt and thereby enhance the challenge ?

Why do you feel that the golfer has a right of entitlement and the architect the obligation to provide architectural features/keys for the purpose of determining the yardage ?[/color]

[Lester George]

Doug,

As we discussed, I am glad you like Kincaid.  I did not take your post as criticism at all.  My dislike for "framing" does not necessarily extend to completely wooded sites where you don't have much option.  Thanks for commenting.

Lester

[Doug Ralston]

Lester;

If you are coming up the left side at #4 Kincaid, and looking at the green from down there, I would like to see how many could guess their distance within 10yd without reference.

Doug,

Why is that the duty of the architect ?

Isn't it just the opposite, to create doubt and thereby enhance the challenge ?

Why do you feel that the golfer has a right of entitlement and the architect the obligation to provide architectural features/keys for the purpose of determining the yardage ?[/color]

Patrick;

I was agreeing with your sentiment. I love that 'feel of sky' coming up there. It is fun to try to look back, and around, and put together a good guess as to what club and how to swing it. A personal favorite of a hole for me.

Doug

[Rick_Noyes]

I think that "framing" in the context of this thread is misunderstood.  Framing to me would be anything (inthis case trees) on either side or both sides of a fairway or green.  Designers, particularly landscape architects have always doen this to frame a view or direct your eye away from an unpleasant view by "closing off" your peripheral vision.
Anything planted or place behind a green would be more of a back-drop (or back-stop) which would close off your vision at that point.  I think that the "sky-line" would tend to make a player come-up short.  Particularly on an up-hill scenario.   Either because they mis-judge the distance or are affraid of the unknown beyond.
I have never met the superintendent that was in favor of planting anything in the vicinity of a putting surface other than grass.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Rick your point is well taken except in one respect, I have always thought that framing was a technique used to highlight an area that an artist or photographer wanted to emphasize.  Screening or using a backdrop would be used to hide something.  On a golf course you might want to hide a home that caused a visual distraction, a maintenance facility or to screen a road. 

I have always thought that screening or a backdrop should only extremely rarely be used internally to a property where open vistas create, as Dr. Klein would say, a sense of place. 

Framing would direct your eye to something rather than away.  Pete Dye even uses a 'framing' technique where he will create a ground feature that draws you to it even though that may not be the best line of play.  So even though the common use of framing would be vertical it is possible to get a similar effect horizontally. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think that "framing" in the context of this thread is misunderstood.
 
Framing to me would be anything (inthis case trees) on either side or both sides of a fairway or green. 

"Framing" in the context of this thread is SOLELY about framing greens.[/color]

Designers, particularly landscape architects have always doen this to frame a view or direct your eye away from an unpleasant view by "closing off" your peripheral vision.

Could you name five (5) who engaged in this practice ?
[/color]

Anything planted or place behind a green would be more of a back-drop (or back-stop) which would close off your vision at that point. 

For the purpose of "framing", supplying definition and/or perspective ?[/color]

I think that the "sky-line" would tend to make a player come-up short.  Particularly on an up-hill scenario.   Either because they mis-judge the distance or are affraid of the unknown beyond.

I have never met the superintendent that was in favor of planting anything in the vicinity of a putting surface other than grass.

I'd agree with that in general, but then, you have to ask yourself, how did so many greens get surrounded by trees after the architect left the building ?

And, why are they still there ?[/color]

[Sean_A]

I would love to hear from our friends across the water on this issue of framing.

Is "framing" the green a concept that has any legitmacy in Scotland, Ireland, or England?

My impression is this is exclusively an American ideal.

Bradley

Framing with mounds, bunkers, water and trees is used in England.  Though to be fair, often times trees are used to frame, block off unappealing views, create safety and create privacy for those living nearby.  Contrary to popular belief, many in England love their trees on golf courses and some course take on trees to grow to a certain age til they are moved to their permanent homes.  The usual story is to toughen courses up, but also for reasons of beauty.  Though the trees that are often planted are far from beautiful.  I can think of 5 different holes at my old club where trees are stuck behind greens (one could be a great skyline green) for no apparent purpose other than to frame a green - as if the view past the green isn't lovely.  I find it most odd, but my guess is that most others either don't notice, don't care or like it.  Being a "control the trees better" kind of guy for golf courses certainly places me in the minority. 

So far as answering the question, every course is different.  As Brent stated, there can be no generic answer - though I don't care for tree framing (and many other incidents of framing) regardless of archie intent. 

Dunlop - yours is a curious quote.  I don't recall any forest behind #17 at Woking.  The 18th fairway practically extends from behind the 17th green and there is a pond in the far distance.  I wonder if the neighbourhood changed that much in recent years.  There is however, dead ground short of the 17th green which does make approaching distance difficult to ascertain. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dunlop - yours is a curious quote.  I don't recall any forest behind #17 at Woking.  The 18th fairway practically extends from behind the 17th green and there is a pond in the far distance.  I wonder if the neighbourhood changed that much in recent years.  There is however, dead ground short of the 17th green which does make approaching distance difficult to ascertain. 

Ciao

Sean, maybe Simpson was referring to the trees that line the right side of the 18th fairway? My memory is slightly hazy but that could possibly fit as I too can't recall trees directly behind unless it is these. The green does fall away at the back though and is not "framed" in any way at the rear so what he says makes perfect sense, don't you think?. I do remember the seventeeth being a bit too tight on the left. They haven't cleared the vegetation there as of yet but they could do with actually taking the treeline back as well.

[Rick_Noyes]

Patrick,

Regretfully I was only thinking of one LA and one particular site when I was writing that post.  Fredrick Law Olmstead at Biltmore House outside of Asheville, NC.  Practically every view, from the drive up to the house, views of the house and from the house were orchestrated.  As an example,  if you have ever been there you can stand at the front of the house and look out towards a pergola.  The pergola looks farther away than it actually is.  The treeline one either side of the view is angled towards the pergola.
Standing at the pergola looking back towards the house, the treeline (as it angles out from the pergola) "frames" the house and makes the house look closer and larger (as if he needed to make it look larger).
Suppose Augusta decided to plant a hedge row of azaleas and flowering trees behind 15 green.  That would close off the view of the water on 16 and give a player a flase sense of security that they didn't have as much to worry about being long.
The reason, at least to me, as to why it's done and why they are still there is that as far as green's committees are concerned you can plant as much and as many anywhere you want.  But to takes and act of God or Congress to take one out.  Should architects have stipulations in their contracts that a course owner or club can't do anything to the course without approval?  I remember a thread some time ago when Tom Doak was asking about a waterfall at the 18th somewhere.  So if he decided not to incorporate into the design, what's to stop the owner from doing it a year later?  Doak suffers the slings and arrows of the raters, nobody knows the owner.

[Sean_A]

Dunlop - yours is a curious quote.  I don't recall any forest behind #17 at Woking.  The 18th fairway practically extends from behind the 17th green and there is a pond in the far distance.  I wonder if the neighbourhood changed that much in recent years.  There is however, dead ground short of the 17th green which does make approaching distance difficult to ascertain. 

Ciao

Sean, maybe Simpson was referring to the trees that line the right side of the 18th fairway? My memory is slightly hazy but that could possibly fit as I too can't recall trees directly behind unless it is these. The green does fall away at the back though and is not "framed" in any way at the rear so what he says makes perfect sense, don't you think?. I do remember the seventeeth being a bit too tight on the left. They haven't cleared the vegetation there as of yet but they could do with actually taking the treeline back as well.

Ally

This could be true, but I don't see how these trees could effect the judgement of the approach.  Perhaps the tee was in a different place back in the day - maybe to the left of the pond (as the golfer looks at the 16th green) rather than behind the 16th green.  This would make the trees down the right look to be behind the 17th green.  Or perhaps, there are less trees than previously.  I could see the 18th driving through a alley of trees then opening up a bit 100 yards out.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Regretfully I was only thinking of one LA and one particular site when I was writing that post. 

Fredrick Law Olmstead at Biltmore House outside of Asheville, NC.  Practically every view, from the drive up to the house, views of the house and from the house were orchestrated.  As an example,  if you have ever been there you can stand at the front of the house and look out towards a pergola.  The pergola looks farther away than it actually is.  The treeline one either side of the view is angled towards the pergola.
Standing at the pergola looking back towards the house, the treeline (as it angles out from the pergola) "frames" the house and makes the house look closer and larger (as if he needed to make it look larger).

I think you have to remember that golf is a game conducted on a field of play, an interactive game between the golfer and the architecture, whereas, LA tends to be inert, in that the observer doesn't physically interact with the objects.

I understand the need to screen or block views of unsightly objects/things, and the need to provide safety buffers, but, that's not the jist of this thread, which is about the penchant for framing greens that swept through America over the last 60 years.[/color]

Suppose Augusta decided to plant a hedge row of azaleas and flowering trees behind 15 green.  That would close off the view of the water on 16 and give a player a flase sense of security that they didn't have as much to worry about being long.

I'd completely disagree with that.

The view of the water behind #  15, fronting # 16 isn't a big factor, visually, physically, or from the perspective of playability.  The primary challenge tends to focus on the initial carry over the fronting water.

Planting hedge rows and trees would create unplayable lies and a very unfavorable situation wherein balls rolling off the green would end up in, or at the base of the hedge row.

While # 15 green might be framed by these bushes/tress, making it a more defined target, in practice it does one of the things I object to, it brings
the new bushes/trees, never intended by the architect, into play, with disastrous consequences.[/color]

The reason, at least to me, as to why it's done and why they are still there is that as far as green's committees are concerned you can plant as much and as many anywhere you want. 
But to takes and act of God or Congress to take one out. 


I agree.

It's an interesting dynamic, one I've always had trouble understanding.[/color]

Should architects have stipulations in their contracts that a course owner or club can't do anything to the course without approval? 

I started a thread along those lines not long ago.
In theory, it's a great idea, in practice, it's difficult to enforce.[/color]

I remember a thread some time ago when Tom Doak was asking about a waterfall at the 18th somewhere.  So if he decided not to incorporate into the design, what's to stop the owner from doing it a year later?  Doak suffers the slings and arrows of the raters, nobody knows the owner.


Dictators who work hand in glove with the architect tend to maintain the status quo, it's members, and especially NEW members that want to change everything.

But, they don't know enough to support and encourage tree removals.[/color]