Does an Architect Age Well?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

One small addendum to my previous comments -- I am not advocating that successful architects - even if limited to a particular style -- attempt to be something they are not.

If C&C wish to replicate the same type of course over and over again and someone is paying them to do it so be it.

My issue is that CLONE ARCHITECTURE is not exciting stuff and a few of C&C's most recent designs indicate to me a tired and predictable sameness. No doubt there are some C&C lovers who could case less and simply want the same basic pattern time after time.

 As I said before -- it's possible for past themes to be replicated -- the island green concept comes to mind. However, those seeking to use such themes had best be advised that they need to add a wrinkle that is far more compelling than what has been done previously -- I mentioned what Chris Cochran of Team Nicklaus did with the 16th hole at Cougar Canyon in Trinidad, CO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

One famous gca's son told me that his father had exactly 19 basic holes.  I think a bigger pallete is required - at least 35 or so would be enough to provide some design variety over a career, after fitting each hole concept to the site, which should entail minor changes.

Another way to look at it is to break concepts into "bits".  Does, for example,  a Redan have to occur on a par 3?  Does a Cape Hole always need to be on a par 4?  Does an inside fw bunker complex always need to have the green bunker on the outside?  If your formula calls for heavily bunkered fw to be followed by a lightly bunkered green, can you do an appropriate hole with heavy bunker both places?  Etc.

Also, at least one new idea should be brought in to each course, either by truly using the unique features of the site, or building something out of the box, or even by combining tried and true elements, like Fazio's cape hole with a tree on another thread.

That's design evolution and brand safety mixed into one package.

[Peter Pallotta]

Matt, Jeff

it seems to me you two are having the classic gca.com discussion -- i.e. apples vs oranges, theory vs practice, a critic's post facto assessment (using -- and shaped by -- the unique properties and limitations of words and language) vs an architect's a prior choices (using -- and shaped by -- the unique properties and limitations of the land and a given site).  Today, I feel like the two sides can never meet (I may feel differently tomorrow).

I've never played two courses that I'd say were similar -- on the ground, that is, shot by shot, were it counts.

Peter   

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

The issue is not copying the same holes with the same situation to an exact replica.

It's the idea that one can CLONE concepts and forms that don't really add much to what likely has been done better beforehand.

I'll use the island green concept again -- it's been done to death. Unless people really try something different and have an angle on that usage it simply falls into the category of "been there / done that." It's akin to the dropshot par-3 formula. Plenty of archies have included this dimension to give the golfer a wide panorama when playing such holes. It's been done way tooooo many times and often each so-called "new" usage only does the same thing that's been done before.

Peter, if you play a representative sample of the more active architects you can get a real beat on what it is they are tend to do. Some are more obvious than others -- the brand RTJ perfected shows this in numerous instances.

Look, I don't doubt that some people can play the same type of course with the same features over and over and over again. No different than some people can swallow vanilla ice cream everyday and not miss by one iota having something different as strawberry or chcocolate.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Does anyone ever write to your editor suggesting that your course reviews tend to sound the same after a while?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Maybe it's because I'm fairly consistent in what I like and don't like. If my prose is not to your liking I'll keep that in mind.

I'm also quite pragmatic in what I like -- there's no real preference to any one style or architect. I just don't want to see architects, especially those at the highest levels, think they can simply re-dress previous concepts with so little differentiation. Of course, no architect ever mails it in.

[paul cowley]

I've always had to make a conscious effort to temper off the wall ideas, that for whatever reason seem to spring from out of the blue....sometimes I have look at them and go "wow yoyo...don't you think that's a little strange".
And this isn't confined only to golf.

I have gradually learned its best to sit back and revisit them later....let them age a little....for further evaluation.

This seems to work as I get older.....I'm learning.

But I rue the day I don't have these ideas....but maybe by then I'll have Alzheimer's [runs in the family] and it won't be such a problem.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

"Maybe it's because I'm fairly consistent in what I like and don't like"

"I'm also quite pragmatic in what I like"

So, if a golf writer churns out similar articles time after time based on those principles, its great, but when gca's repeat certain elements because their experience and background has formed solid opinions as to likes, dislikes, and pragmatic ideas, they are just pricks?

Work with me here!

[PCCraig]

Going back to the first post. I really enjoyed reading the Dye book and seeing his evolution as a GCA. I may of enjoyed reading about his first designs in Ohio and Indiana more than any other in the book because I have heard so little of them in the past.

I would agree that you can see a certain excitement in the work of young GCA's.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I said that just to bust your chops -- lighten up a tad Jeff !

You say my reviews are similar but there's no details besides the quick statement.

However ...

I am quite pragmatic in liking a wide variety of golf courses -- likely far more than those who simply hunker down with a preference for just one style or for those architects who can't do much more than the same type of design outcome over and over again.

[Ken Fry]

Thanks for all the wonderful responses gentlemen.

Architecture draws such a close parallel to people's taste in music, in my opinion.  We're drawn to a certain genre or a group of genres and then have our favorites within those genres.  It would make sense then if we were forced to listen only to our favorite musician it would eventually become stale.  Thoughts?

Also, all of the discussion thus far has centered around "modern day" architects and the "business" of the profession.  Would we be able to insert the names of past generations of architects and have the same discussions?  Travel, communication, quantity of projects and competition all differ today compared to the Golden Age, no?

Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

conventional wisdom is that the GA guys all had their careers ended by the Depression.  They might not have had the opportunity to really shine in their old age.  Mac dies in '32, Ross in 47.  There might be some more comparisons for Ross since he lasted longer.

[Matt_Ward]

Ken:

According to more than few experts on the old time architects it's been said Tillinghast did his best work when he was younger -- soon after his name became mentioned after his promising beginning at Shawnee.

Jeff, is likely right -- The Great Depression certainly did cause a shut-off for plenty of people.