What is the next step in golf course architecture?

[Tim Bert]

David

It would be even cooler your group having the "course" all to themselves for an afternoon was a realistic possibility.  I suppose that would just be asking too much!

[DMoriarty]

Heck,  if  you are fantasizing you might as well through in a couple of unbelievable if hard to find bunkers. 

[Tim Bert]

Perhaps a cliffside green that could be played as a par 3 over the beach from one side OR a short par 4 with a mostly blind approach from the other side.  Oh, and it would need to have the biggest hump you've ever seen in it.

Access could only be arranged through the "gatekeeper."

[mike_beene]

And when you get tired of it,it would be nice if the resort would add a fourth course to play in your spare time.

[Mike Nuzzo]

For when water costs $4/gallon

[RJ_Daley]

DM, is that first pic of a course in S. Africa?

I wonder if the next step isn't so much on the purely design.architecture side so much as the construction/architecture design side.  Anotherwords, applied new construction techniques to radically change the way a golf course project is phased, or actual artificial materials used to incorporate into existing soils, beyond the current soil ammendments or drainage equipment.  Something that can allow the growth of turf with little water, or a better more efficient recapture system of water in use, and is more desirable to shape and not erode, yet is a good rootzone medium. 

[James Boon]

I agree with RJ, that finding a way to reduce water consumption, or better recycling of irrigation water would be good. Help increase golfs environmental credentials.

Also, Alister MacKenzie advocated two loops of nine - how about changing that to three loops of 6? Handy for a quick 6 holes before / during lunch / after work for those of us who don't get to play as much as we would like? So, instead of 9 hole courses with 2 tee options, smaller areas of land could be used for 6 hole courses with 3 tee options. Perhaps useful for an 18 hole course wanting a "relief nine" but with not enough land? Following Kyle's idea, the last loop of 6 could be floodlit (solar powered of course), to allow for night golf or to allow for later tee off times?

Cheers

James

[Mark Bourgeois]

Maybe architecture reflects not leads developments in the game, in which case perhaps the next big architectural steps will involve the design implications of sustainability and time to play:

1. slower green speeds (allowing for crazier greens) -- or maybe just paspalum
2. big scruffy (unmaintained) hills wherever ponds are today
3. instead of many small ponds, one large catchment pond, located out of play
4. maybe the use of small-water hazards like crossing streams (often dry but catch rainwater and funnel to catchment ponds; like arroyos?)
5. mounds instead of bunkers
6. holes without fairways (this would include some holes which "steal" a bit of fairway from other holes)
7. more par 3.5 holes (kind of a corollary to #6 -- it will help the medicine that is #6 go down, plus since everyone knows driver is the easiest club now to hit...)
8. fewer true par 5s (whatever that means -- but another corollary to #6)
9. more doglegs / angles to combat length

RJ:
10. PolyTurf in the bunkers
11. FieldTurf for largely out of play areas
12. Courses will get shrinkwrapped in Soiltac at the end of every season

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul: I've just finished up on some research work breeding turf so have my spare time back.  As such I want to read more extensively on architecture, and collect quality literature.  Could you list those ideas you've noted by Behr and MacKenzie until I get up to speed."


Brett:

Sure. Essentially Behr and Mackenzie seemed to be talking (and writing) in the late 1920s (early 1930s) about developing the idea of architectural arrangements without the use of rough. As you can imagine there are a few ways to do this and there seems to have been some evidence of it with plans and perhaps even the original concept of ANGC (it seems Bob Jones was also in on this idea).

It seems to have been an architectural expression (both philosophical and actual) to better test good players without unnecessarily penalizing less good players. It may've been their ultimate expression of what they thought "strategic" architecture and strategic golf should be. It clearly required additional width or maximum width with hazard features arranged in thoughtful and strategic ways within.

Obviously Behr's ideas on "Lines of Charm" and "Lines of Instinct" were very much part of this architectural philosophy.

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to pull your chain, I was trying to reference The Sheep Ranch without mentioning it by name.  Now that it's been mentioned and pictured, no problem.  I guess Mike Nuzzo's new course in Texas also has no real tees.

James Boon:

In Japan toward the end of the golf-building boom, they built a few high-end courses with retractable floodlights on the last 3 holes of each nine.  Ron Farris might've been involved in one of those, or at least know the names.  I don't know if anybody ever uses the lights or not ... stadium floodlights on the scale of a golf course must cost a pretty penny to turn on every night!

[James Boon]

Tom,

I hadn't realised anyone had actually floodlit a course, but thanks for letting me know. Not sure I'd be keen on it myself, and was only picking up on Kyle's point earlier. With issues of light pollution and the cost of energy used (both on financial and environmentally sustainable grounds) I imagine not many people would be mad enough to go for it. But in the future, who knows...

Cheers

James

[Peter Wagner]

Some random thoughts on change:

Form follows function.  Isn't that the old architect's mantra?  If this is also true in golf architecture than it explains why course design has changed very little in the past 50 years or so.  The sport of golf hasn't changed much as a function so there is no need to change the form.  The heritage of golf is guarded and maintained and this makes it a near certainty that the function will remain unchanged for the next 50 years and so design will remain largely unchanged.

One possible area of change might come in the form of a different use for a course.  Kyle H above brought up night golf for example.  I keep thinking there might be another future invention like what snow boarding has done for the skiing business.

An inherent problem in golf is the low density use of the land.  If an average course is 200 acres and the average number of players on any given minute is 100 then you have one person per 2 acres.  Pretty expensive when you look at it that way.  My memory is shot but wasn't it Jack Nicklaus that caused the Cayman Ball to be developed back in the late 70's?  Remember that was the ball that flew half the distance of a regular ball and Jack was going to start building 1/2 scale golf courses.  Given the acres per player ratio this was truly innovative thinking and it might be worth examining why the idea failed.

Technology will likely be the catalyst for real change in design.  I don't me club technology I mean agro-technology.  New grasses continue to hit the market.  Computer monitoring and control of irrigation continues to advance.  Something in this area will lead to archies being able to sculpted in a different way.

There is evolutionary change (skis are now shorter and wider than 20 years ago) and revolutionary change (snow boarding) and I would say that golf has never seen revolutionary change and this is why we've always seen small incremental changes in design technique.

Don't get me wrong, I like golf design the way it is and I see no need for a next step but if there were to be one it just might come out of some of the above BS.

- Peter

[Jeff Doerr]

I know it has been done, but I'd like to see more courses designed with the intent of playing in reverse. I can especially see this for private clubs or distant resorts. One piece of property with two distinct playing experiences.

Has anyone seen or played Teton Reserve/Hale Irwin?

[Mark Bourgeois]

You guys need to get out more!






As far as light pollution, the way things are going they may need them for daytime...











Free prize for anyone who fingers Space Mountain in this mess!

Mark

[Joe Bausch]

How 'bout more water hazards with aggressive predators?  Today at my local muni a buddy of mine hit a poor shot the ended up in this little pond that has a pair of gihugic snapping turtles.  As he was reaching to scoop out his ball, I pointed one of them out and it scared him so much he couldn't play the rest of the hole!  One of this pair is easily approaching the size of a trash can lid.  The other, while maybe just 18" diameter, still is enough to scare the daylights out of you:

[Tony Ristola]

One unfortunate thing that I think is already happening is that lesser designers will jump on the bandwagon of a creating a supposedly natural look and supposedly following in the footsteps of the golden agers, but their work will be a poor imitation, and will ultimately give natural looking courses and the golden agers a bad name.   

I realize that architects have always hearkened back to these guys, but now that a few designers who actually understand them have been somewhat successful, I expect many more lesser ones to copy the few.

One thing I might like to see is a really good design team abandon the stylistic trappings of the natural look on one project, and build a great golf course with obviously manufactured features and a purposefully manufactured look. 

My reasoning is that many are beginning to confuse a natural aesthetic with the underlying quality of the golf presented, and it would be nice if someone reminded us that a course could be great without jagged edged bunkers etc. 

Dont get me wrong it would take a perfect imperfect site for this, but I think it might be cool.

I don't think it's that tough a concept to understand. You have to know golf, its origins and have a feeling for nature. Then it is on to execution, which is another matter entirely. If you have scores of projects, regardless of "style" (though grass faced holes as an aesthetic exercise is tough to screw up) you can fall short, or on your face. Which brings me to another point. The builders. Most architects (ahh investors) are dependent on builders. Some get wise and get a good one... some get otherwise.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter has it about right....technology will be the biggest driver of new style of design.  It always has been from the bulldozer to the irrigation system.  Irrigation tech and grasses are aimed at keeping our golf courses looking pretty much as they do now.  But designs will change to use less water, probalby in the realm of fewer steep slopes, which will also be handy for ADA access and to make them more walkable for the aging population (and I mean from carts to ball and on to greens, carts will be more in use than ever)

As to low density land useage, I did have one client who wanted the driving range to double as the soccer field.  I pointed out that the peak use times were probably the same for both, but maybe the lighted concept could have weeknights as soccer games and leave daylight for golf?  I could envison golf courses doubling as cemetaries, and golf course lakes doubling as fish hatcheries, etc. to get more use out of the land. 

With courses experiencing low play in the heat of the day, that night lighting thing might work in southern climates for golf someday, too, but not if they keep electric rates high and keep blocking the building of new power plants.

[Peter Wagner]

....technology will be the biggest driver of new style of design.  It always has been from the bulldozer to the irrigation system.  Irrigation tech and grasses are aimed at keeping our golf courses looking pretty much as they do now. 

Jeff,
Yep, and we're kind of seeing an example right now in green speeds.  Grass, irrigation, and mower technologies are advancing and allowing supers the ability to present faster and smoother greens.  I'm guessing that this newish phenomenon will lead to different green designs.  One can only wonder what a future, radically better, mower might mean for course design. 

For example, lets sat we made a new rough mower with computer controlled blade depth and this mower had the ability to accurately raise it's blades while you cut.  This would allow variable height rough setups like Mike Davis just used in the US Open but our magic mower would do away with the stepped look.  It would be a smooth progression from lets say 0.5" next to the fairway to 4" by the OB line.  If a mower like that existed how would it change your designs?

Another area of change could come from creative thinking about the space needed to play.  Your clients idea for a soccer field / driving range is a good example.  It doesn't work but I understand his desire to make better use of the land.  Interesting to note that golf started with shared use fairways when sheep roamed St. Andrews.

- Peter