Too much aesthetic variety?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Same post as above, but focus on aesthetic variety here.....

We all know courses where renovations from different architects seem out of place, so I'm not talking about that.

On a new course or total renovation do you use a constant style, or should you mix free form and sqaure tees?

Flat bunkers, pot, waste bunkers and "MacKenzie" bunkers?

Greens of various styles (a la Architects or Tour 18, but perhaps not so exaggerated)

My bias is that with the same architect doing different concepts, he/she will probably repeat enough design elements out of habit to be consistent enough, and the variations will produce some noticeable and positive differences.

How do you feel about varying aesthetics?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff - Square tees and free-form tees on the same course would definitely look strange to me.

Likewise for a museum of bunkering.

I'd rather change my style from course to course instead of hole to hole.

[TEPaul]

Aesthetic variety? Hmmm! I'm not completely sure what that would be.

I wouldn't want to see a golf course with something like a Muirhead/Stone Harbor green, a Dye green, and then an NGLA green. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't really like to hear the phrase "out of character" that much. But if anyone wants to see a real variety, in greens, for instance, just take a look at NGLA--who can deny there's every thing and any thing on that golf course and in some unusual arrangements as well? But the point is where they are (naturally) they work very well and look good too--and they're definitely different--one from the other.

I think architects need first to find holes that work well, then check to see where they are in a routing context, and then see after that how the variety is working out. If there's some anomolie in the vein of modern "formulaics", so what?

One of the best examples of departing from formulaics in all kinds of ways in the modern age and still making everything work well--holes, routing, variety, whatever, is Pacific Dunes.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- Since everyones opinions are diferent aesthetics are hard to quantify. But isn't the art part of the architecture, placing or finding) the features seemlessly into the land, or at least befitting it?

[Andrew_Roberts]

I agree course to course.
I believe it would look weird to have one hole have MacKenzie bunkers and the next with large Raynor bunkers.

But pot bunkers seem to work anywhere.

Green size and shape should vary from green to green.  That is what you are supposed to determine on sight.  Find an approprite green site and make the most interesting green you can make.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
As I said earlier, a whole bunch of different styles on one course usually looks hokey to me.  It is one of the first things I look for to see if a course has been tampered with (the assumption being most good architects don't do that).  And it's often more than just the bunkers.  I was at a course recently where mounds were added on some of the holes.  They really looked out of place compared to the rest of the course.  They just didn't fit in with the rest of the design.  Also green surrounds get changed.  Chipping areas get added on some holes because someone saw them on TV and felt their design needed them.  When this kind of stuff starts happening, it usually just looks like the course is in transistion or not sure which way it wants to go.  

[bodgeblack]

Jeff,

I agree that a uniform style throughout the course is better. However for the element of memorability you should break the consistency rule once or twice throughout the eighteen holes.

I think of the Belfry, England as a course where too many bunker styles have been used to the detriment of the course aesthetic. Instead of having memorable bunkering is just comes across as confused.

cheers

jamie