[Patrick_Mucci]

The biggest disappointments ?

I was watching the Senior Tour at Cap Cana this evening and thought to myself: of all of the new golf courses that have been built in the last 20 or so years, it would stand to reason that resort courses in foreign lands, with little or no environmental constraints, should be the best golf courses.

They're able to retain the best architects.
They're able to select excellent sites
They're usually able to avoid environmental issues and permitting constraints.

So, why aren't they head and shoulders above their peers, above all of the other courses, including the courses at Bandon, Sand Hills, Sebonack, Wild Horse, Friar's Head and others that had to deal with less than ideal sites, permiting and environmental issues ?

Or, in the ultimate, is architecture a function of the end user ?

[JESII]

NO

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Mike Keiser would appear to differ with you.

[JESII]

Please explain...

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm not quite sure I understand why you think Sand Hills et al are built on "less than ideal sites."  Granted many had some permitting problems but resolved them and solved most of the environmental issues.

Is it true that resort courses outside the US are not as good as their counterparts in the US?

[TEPaul]

Patrick, you troglodyte, who says those off-shore courses aren't better than the ones you named here?

Obviously, you aren't reading some of the most important golf and golf architecture periodicals of our times like Leisure Golf and such. If a golf course has a name like Cap Kana it's almost a guarantee its architecture is superlative, or at least its photogenics are. We live in the 21st century now or aren't you aware of that? Things like turtle soup aren't that important anymore. The quality of golf these days revolves around things like the sophistication of concierge services.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Williamson,

Please go back and reread my post more carefully.

TEPaul,

While watching the telecast I couldn't help but wonder if the camera angles and panoramas were to capture the golf or the scenery.

Photogenics seem to have taken on more importance than the architecture over the last few decades.

Form versus function ?

[TEPaul]

"Photogenics seem to have taken on more importance than the architecture over the last few decades.
Form versus function?"

Yeah, Patrick, so what? Is that some kind of implied criticism on your part? Tom Fazio made a highly successful career and one helluva a reputation on that principle you know? Are you saying millions of golfers are wrong in what they like?

You've heard of the "Big World" theory haven't you pal? Matter of fact, you probably thought of it first.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat -

here's a quote from Kelly Blake Moran on another thread:

"I am constantly amazed by the contrast between what Sean [Arble] posts from the Isles compared to other posts of new courses in the States.  The architecture is so obvious in the pictures from the States, whereas it is more difficult to discern on Sean's posted pictures yet the praise for those courses is usually exceedingly high.  It is as if the courses in the States are designed from behind a camera lense and the ones in the Isles are designed face to face."

That's a great last line; from behind a camera as opposed to face to face.

It reminds me of a line from literature that I think is also excellent: "How can we meet the gods face to face until we have faces for them to meet?"

Architecture may ultimately be a function of the end user; but I think it's certainly a function of the INITIAL INTENTION.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Or, in the ultimate, is architecture a function of the end user?"

Patrick:

Let me ask you a straight question to see if you'll give me a straight answer.

If the golfer is the end user, what do you think today personally about the end user when it comes to golf architecture?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
First, the Dominican Republic has environmental* and regulatory requirements. They may not be as stringent as those in the US, but they do exist.

Second, that's quite a list you mentioned, how the heck could any course built anywhere be head and shoulders above them?

p.s...and if it was "Head and shoulders above (its) peers", it wouldn't be a peer, now would it?   

Third, I think these courses have a certain recreation and entertainment value not associated with a Pac Dunes or a Sand Hills. There's no need to lure anyone to the DR, or Cabo, or Grand Cayman with the promise of world class, architecturally 'superior' golf courses when the market, i.e. vacation-eers, really don't give a hoot, at least not in numbers that matter.



Law 64-00-Environment and Natural Resources:  Provides comprehensive protection of the environment, which is placed as an essential duty of the State. It regulates soil, water and air contamination, dangerous products, domestic and municipal waste, dangerous products, human settlings, sonic contamination, as well as the use and preservation of natural resources.
The administration of the environment, ecosystems and natural resources has been placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARN). Environmental aspects of all economic and human activities will be controlled by SEMARN, which will act by way of authorization, supervision, recommendation or consultation, to ensure the comprehensive protection of natural resources in the country.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Or, in the ultimate, is architecture a function of the end user?"

Patrick:

Let me ask you a straight question to see if you'll give me a straight answer.

If the golfer is the end user, what do you think today personally about the end user when it comes to golf architecture?

Which golfer ?

The resort golfer ?
The vacation home/community golfer ?
The private club golfer ?
The public club golfer ?
The competitive Amateur golfer ?
The Professional golfer ?
The PGA Tour golfer ?[/color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Your last post gets at the heart of your question more than the first post which delves into environmentalism.  As noted, there are environmental rules all over the world, and my understanding is that those in Europe exceed ours.  Japan is the same.  The rest of Asia is catching up but also has a less stable political system and many more payoffs, special interests etc. that hamper golf development.

As noted, there is no shortage of good sites in the US that have been developed as golf.  How exactly was Sebonac hampered, for example?

To design a great course, the client has to authorize you to design for better golfers, rather than dumb it down for public and resort play.  It allows you to add several features you might not add otherwise.

[RJ_Daley]

Who in the world in their right mind invests the multi millions in a high end golf destination, if not to know or have an almost airtight lock on the demographics of their end user? 

Those demographics vis-a-vis the quality of the golfer and their affluence obviously changes with the location, the overall theme of the project, and the philosophies of the developer. 

Keiser, Kohler, Pascucci, Bakst, Youngscap, O'Neil are golfer-sportsperson oriented, but knew full well that their target audience wasn't going to be coming to lie on a beach in the lap of luxuary.  Yes, they also provide facilities and on-site luxury since in most cases there isn't anything to do after the golf rounds there.  But, they started with a golf centric notion and hired archies to bring that in. 

Cap Cana is a totally different animal, from what I could glean on their unfinished web site.  It is selling a lifestyle where golf is a leisure time, status, recreation, with sales sizzle for all the other stuff.  So, they hired the archie with the big name, and experience in design for such, who will sell the best of the overall product.  It isn't golf centric, IMO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

There's another element that you overlooked, well to do individuals with a special love for the game.

Is Crump that different from Bakst, Youngscap, Pascucci and O'Neil ?

Keiser's efforts are geared toward a different end user.

But, don't confine your assessment to private courses.

Look at Hotel Resorts with golf courses as an amenity and development/community/residential courses and tell me about the quality of those golf courses in comparison to others.

Do you feel that the D/C/R courses are exceptional or mediocre ?

Dumbed down or cutting edge ?

Are they "golf" courses or courses that will accomodate people who want to play golf ?

Hence, what's the function of the architecture, a challenge or an accomodation ?

[John Moore II]

I would say that certainly that the end user is the determining factor in how a golf course is designed.
--Pat--If you are trying to say that Resort/Hotel courses can not compare to high end private clubs, I must disagree (however, I may have misunderstood). I think the quality of course at Bandon, Pinehurst, Whistling Straits, Kiawah and others certainly stand up to just about any high end private club in terms of overall quality and golf experience. And I would say that the average resort club compares adequately with the average private club as well.
--Clubs that tend to cater towards the high end of the market tend to be the best, certainly. People stand in line to play Bandon and Pinehurst same as people would be standing in line to become members at CPC and Pine Valley. I think the monetary demographics of customers is the biggest factor of course quality rather than playing demographics.

[Jim_Kennedy]

How do you feel about places like Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle Dunes or Teeth of the dog, etc.?

I've been to none of the above, only seen the pictures, but it doesn't look like the architects of these courses pursued 'dumbing' them down from  mythical perfection to lowly accomodation. 

Rather, it looks like they built 'golf' courses to accomodate people who want to play golf.

There isn't much more a golfer can ask for when architects get that right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would say that certainly that the end user is the determining factor in how a golf course is designed.

--Pat--If you are trying to say that Resort/Hotel courses can not compare to high end private clubs, I must disagree (however, I may have misunderstood).

I think the quality of course at Bandon, Pinehurst, Whistling Straits, Kiawah and others certainly stand up to just about any high end private club in terms of overall quality and golf experience. And I would say that the average resort club compares adequately with the average private club as well.

Pinehurst wasn't developed in the last two decades.

Bandon and Whistling Straits are golf destinations, not resorts with golf courses.[/color]

--Clubs that tend to cater towards the high end of the market tend to be the best, certainly. People stand in line to play Bandon and Pinehurst same as people would be standing in line to become members at CPC and Pine Valley. I think the monetary demographics of customers is the biggest factor of course quality rather than playing demographics.

Then, why don't great high end resort hotels developed in the last two decades have decent golf courses ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

How do you feel about places like Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle Dunes or Teeth of the dog, etc.?

Jim,

Teeth of the Dog isn't a new golf course.

You also have to differentiate between golf destinations and golf courses that are an adjunct to a hotel/resort.[/color]

I've been to none of the above, only seen the pictures, but it doesn't look like the architects of these courses pursued 'dumbing' them down from  mythical perfection to lowly accomodation.  [/b]

Again, you have to seperate golf courses built as a destination from golf courses built to accomodate hotel/resort guests and golf courses built for use by residents of a golfing community.

Of all the residential golf courses built in South Florida over the last few decades, how many of them have great golf courses ?

Off the top of my head, none come to mind.[/b]

[Jim_Kennedy]

After spending 5 weeks down if Fla, I agree with you.


What I don't seem to be grasping is why you think  ..."it would stand to reason that resort courses in foreign lands, with little or no environmental constraints, should be the best golf courses" when you know full well that resorts cater to a (mainly) different clientele than the other segments you named? If golf is not the main reason that people frequent the resort, why would they feel the need to build a course that most of their customers wouldn't appreciate? 

Just because they could? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

My thoughts are as follows.

A hotel/resort, building a golf course on foreign soil, especially in the tropics, would seem to want to build a great golf course, one that would be enjoyed by their guests, one that would attract guests, yet, there seems to be a paucity of them.

It would seem that money isn't the object, that environmental and permitting constraints aren't an impediment, so why haven't great golf courses been built for these hotel resorts.

Take the Bahamas for instance.
Easy access for American vacationers and golfers alike.
What great courses are there ?

Rockefeller tried it with Dorado and RTJ and that seemed to work.

Why hasn't it been done more often in the intervening years ?

The same goes for all of the many residential golf courses in Florida.
Where are the great ones ?
Why haven't they been built over the last 50 years ?

[John Moore II]

Pat--you are going away from your own topic here. You asked is the architecture (read--architectural quality) a product of the intended end user? I said that certainly it is. Be it a resort hotel, 'golf destination' as you so nicely say, high end private club, high end muni, mid grade muni or whatever. All those different types of properties are going to call for slightly different course requirements. But overall, the proposed client for a given course is going to dictate the quality of course constructed.
--to answer your question, Kapalua and Kiawah are resorts with onsite lodging (not high rise hotels) that have been built in the last 20 years and are of high quality.

[Sean_A]

I keep re-reading the question posed in the thread and the answer seems so obvious that I don't know why the question was asked.  Of course architecture is a function of the player.  Does anybody think that architecture exists independently of golfers?  Architecture has no meaning without golfers.  Architects try to design holes with the idea that people will have to interact with the architectural elements.  To take it further, wasn't it Dr Mac who said that the best courses are those which cater to all players rather than segments of the playing population?  In his day, this may have been a goal that was achieveable.  I am not so sure it can be done these days, but I could be wrong. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Again, I've not been to any of these, but what about Concession, Tesoro and Southern Hills plantation. They are all residential courses that garner praise. What about C&C's new venture?

.....and a search of the Caribbean turns up a some new (less than 20 years ago) resorts courses that couldn't all be bad, could they?
One that looks interesting is Varadero GC in Cuba, built by Les Furber. It won't be very long until we US money pouring into the development of this island. Could be a bright future for golf  IF....  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--you are going away from your own topic here.

Not that I'm aware of.[/color]

You asked is the architecture (read--architectural quality) a product of the intended end user? I said that certainly it is. Be it a resort hotel, 'golf destination' as you so nicely say, high end private club, high end muni, mid grade muni or whatever.

Then we agree.[/color]

All those different types of properties are going to call for slightly different course requirements.

But overall, the proposed client for a given course is going to dictate the quality of course constructed.

That may be more of a function of budget than intent.

Doesn't every developer want the best golf course ?

Is Donald Trump different from Mike Keiser in wanting the best course ?

Perhaps it's their respective ideas as to what constitutes the best course, or, their interpretation of quality.[/color]

--to answer your question, Kapalua and Kiawah are resorts with onsite lodging (not high rise hotels) that have been built in the last 20 years and are of high quality.

Kapalua is an older resort/hotel and had a golf course associated with it as early as 34 years ago, in 1974.  

As to Kiawah, I get confused.

Are you refering to Turtle Point Golf Course ?
Or, to Osprey Point Golf course ?
Or are you refering to Oak Point Golf course ?
Or, to Cougar Point golf course

Or, is it Pete Dye's 1991 Ocean Course

How would you rank/evaluate the first four ?
And, what it is about the Ocean course that makes it so great, or, is it just HARD ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()