What is the next step in golf course architecture?

[Brett Morris]

Has architecture come full circle with minimalism? 

Will we ever see new courses constructed of the likes of Oakmont or Merion which will stand the test of time?  Augusta still ranks highly, will there ever be another like it, or are we destined to see course after course scraped from sand dunes with rough hewn bunkers?

I read here somewhere a post mentioning that Tom Doak had some ideas which have not been utilised in design yet.  What is the next step?

Just a thought I've been thinking of for a little while.  Go easy on me, it's my first topic.

Brett.   

[John_Conley]

Good question.

I always thought you could try the following:

* shards of glass in place of sand in greenside bunkers
* greens that slope too much for a ball to stop near the hole if it doesn't go in
* flaming tee grounds
* no fairway, just rough on a hole

Problem is a lot of these make more sense on a video game than on a real course.

I'm interested in hearing what Doak's ideas are, as well as if others like Engh and Brauer have things up their sleeve.

[Tom_Doak]

Brett:

There are as many new ideas out there as there are pieces of ground.  Plus, there are "blue sky" ideas which have nothing to do with golf, but which might be married with great golf by someone utilizing all of their brain.

But it's easier to succeed when you're sculpting holes out of beautiful sand dunes, so I'm not giving up any of the sandy properties ... I'll try some other things when the right client comes along.

[Dan Herrmann]

Keep in mind that a lot of courses are being built that don't use minimalist ideals.  Sure - we tend to love them, but others like another style.

This is a GREAT time for architecture - so many different styles.  And I think the different styles tend to  make each other better.

[David Lott]

A next step is going to be finding ways to build courses less expensively, while at the same time making the courses interesting. To a large extent this will mean working with the land, rather than reshaping it. This step will also include a further focus on designing courses that can be maintained less expensively. There will always be the very high end, where budget is not a huge constraint, but bling is going to be less fashionable in all areas of activity for a decade or so.

This is more a social-political prediction than one of architectural fashion, but the two are always intertwined.

[TEPaul]

I think that some of the experimental ideas that were clearly mentioned and in some cases tried by the like of Behr/Mackenzie in the late 1920s-1930s should be tried in the future. I sincerely believe they very well may be the NEXT STEP in golf course architecture!

With over 70-80 years of time and perception under the bridge, though, they may even seem more radical to us today than they did back then but I think they should be tried---really tried. I will hazard an opinion on them though---in today's world and today's "general" mentality on golf and architecture  those ideas would put more pressure than ever before on architects to definitely think their very best and do their very best.

[Thomas MacWood]

I think it would be cool to present a modern take on cop bunkers and other old fashioned features like ditches. It seems KBM has experimented along similar lines. It would be fun to play a golf courses with cops (and similar features) that are well thought out, esepcially if the site had some natural interest - the aesthetic contrast might work too.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brett -

I'll come at your (very good) first topic another way. I think there are a number of golf course architects - a few right here on this board, luckily for us - who in their hearts know very well what they'd like to do, and what, for them, would be the most meaningful and significant and interesting next steps in design. Having that vision and holding on to it is hard enough, it seems to me; engendering and maintaining a desire to see that vision realized is even harder; having the willingess and nerve and confidence to create that vision literally, on the ground, if given the chance is harder still; and actually being given that opportunity by a developer is the hardest (and most unlikely) step of all.

But don't mind me - I'm a glass-half-empty sort of guy, I think....If I wasn't, I'd say the next step would be the widest bunkerless golf course you've ever seen, and one that never needs watering, and one so quiet and understated that you'd have to look long and hard before you realized that it actually was a golf course...and yet one that would test the golfer in such an imaginatively and yet rigourous way that you'll think it must've dropped down from the sky, created by a kind of golf-god or golf-philospher-king type guy...

Peter     

[Brett Morris]

Thanks for the replies.

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.

Tom MacWood:  Thanks.  I've often wondered whether an architect could create a lasting championship layout using ditches, tee elevation, marshes, etc., without any bunkering at all.  Again, dependent on site.

Brett.

[Kalen Braley]

Bret,

This is a great question and I think its one worth discussing.

IMO I've observed that while everyone is keen on new and fresh ideas in word, much of the new and different stuff that gets built is often panned as over the top and gimmicky.  And fair enough, perhaps it is. But this to me is really the essence of how new ideas come about.  One person throw something out there, and everyone puts thier spin on it and runs with it.  Its got to be a slow evolution I think.

As for me, in my experience, and its pretty limited, the stuff that Jim Engh has done is pretty much the most cutting-edge/disimilar to other stuff I've seen.  I think this should be embraced and Jim given props for at least trying even if it isn't everyones cup of tea.

Overall I think it takes guts and courage to build "original" quirk into a course. And in an already tough industry to break into, its hard to blame one for playing it safe to continue to find work. If someone built a hole like 17 at TOC today, they would likely get run out of town on a stick. Its been asked many times why that was OK then, and not now and I can't recall hearing a good reason why.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brett - just in case you weren't aware of it, a nice way to start on Behr is his essay entitled
"Art in Golf Architecture" found in the "In My Opinion" section here.

Peter

[Tony Ristola]

Brett:

Here is a list of free books.
Just click and download.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32952.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Brett:  I've bumped this back up to the top, because I think it's kind of sad that all these architecture enthusiasts can't even come up with ten decent responses to your question. 

And three of them were about bringing back something that somebody built or wrote about 75-100 years ago!

[Michael Dugger]

Brett:  I've bumped this back up to the top, because I think it's kind of sad that all these architecture enthusiasts can't even come up with ten decent responses to your question. 

And three of them were about bringing back something that somebody built or wrote about 75-100 years ago!

I guess that's why you design the courses and we play 'em.

[Bart Bradley]

How about some sort of very private club with only greens and no tee boxes where you can pick out the next hole to play toward and tee up anywhere on the property you like?

Not safe with lots of golfers...but with just a couple of groups on the course you might be able to make something like this work.

Has this been done?

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

It has been done, but I'm not supposed to tell you where.

[mike_beene]

Daaaaaaaaaad

[mike_beene]

I wonder if we have really adapted to bunkers being fairly easy to play from.As labor intensive as they are,it would be interesting to see what some of you guys would design in the realm of a course with no more than 9 bunkers and shaved areas around the greens.

[Kyle Harris]

Flat Site Architecture:
Using shaped features as hazards on flat sites. The architect gives you all the level lies in the world from an absolutely terrible angle. Plenty of width, but very little of it ground worth playing from. I'd like to see dolomite mounts (a la the inside of the dogleg on the 3rd hole at Lederach) intermingled with bunkers. Greens designed with the idea of making a shot from a level lie require the correct trajectory and ball flight.

Non 9 and 18 hole courses:
Maximizing site features by building courses with the amount of golf holes suitable to the site.

Night golf friendly courses:
6-9 hole loops that can be lit for play at night.

[Mike Nuzzo]

It has been done, but I'm not supposed to tell you where.

Apparently more than once, at least I showed you some pictures of what it would look like...

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

It has been done, but I'm not supposed to tell you where.

Tom:

Is this the GCA equivalent of "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you"....Allllrighty then.  I guess it wasn't that bad of an idea.


What did it rate on the DOAK scale?


Bart

[mike_beene]

Is my clue one of the one's you are talking about?

[Bart Bradley]

Is my clue one of the one's you are talking about?

Mike:

What the hell are you talking about?  Clue? Come on, I'm clueless here.  What does "daaaad"  mean?  Its golf not espionage.

 

Bart

[mike_beene]

The old slogan at one prominent Texas club was "where the men are men and the sheep better watch out."Therefore the clue would pertain to sheep ranch.I was going to skip church in the morning.Now I am pretty sure I better go.

[DMoriarty]

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.
______________________________________________________________________________

Bart,

Wouldn't it be great if you located such a course in a fantastic natural location, close to some other first class golf courses, but completely out of the way of the rest of the world.  And if you threw in a couple of unbelievable green/tee sites, as well.  Nah, that would be asking too much.