When did golf architects first use real landscape architecture principles?

[TEPaul]

I can't remember if a thread subject exactly like this has ever been on here but this subject has been on my mind for years.

I would love to track the very first examples in writing when a golf architect or architects began to talk and write about applying classic landscape architecture principles (probably English landscape architecture principles) to the design and architectural styles of GCA.

I realize that Macdonald wrote about the landscape architecture principles of Prince Puckler in his biography, "Scotland's Gift Golf" but that was as late as 1927-28.

And I also realize that some 19th century GB courses were done inside some huge English estates that had been massively landscape designed by the likes of Lancelot "Capability" Brown and Humphrey Repton up to a hundred years previous in the case of Brown. But ironically many of the golf architecture features such as bunkering in those classic English landscaped settings were pretty Victorian and geometric.

Who knows when these two art forms first began to merge or whose idea it was to do it. I'd love to see some old photos and examples but the old writing about it is what I'm really after.

I suppose one place to look again is in that five part "Arts and Crafts Golf" IN MY OPINION piece of Tom MacWood's but I've read it an awful lot and I can't find much in this particular vein and it just always bothered me when I asked him why it was never mentioned by anyone back then that he just said the philosophy was just too broad or too amorphous to have been mentioned.

I've been doing a lot of reading of late 19th century material on golf and architecture and I find those guys really did mention what was on their minds but I can't find anything yet about the merger of LA and GCA in that particular era.

Can you?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Actually, on sort of a flip side of the coin thought, I think I remember a few years ago David Moriarty finding a late 19th century article in which the writer was praising the highly geometric American style as the latest idea and an improvement on the random natural (un-man-made) architecture of the seaside courses of the other side.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,

I got to get me some of those landscape architecture principles.....that Philadelphia school place have any?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I got to get me some of those landscape architecture principles.....that Philadelphia school place have any?"


No Mike, The Philly School didn't get into that kind of so....sooo....sssooophiisst....soofffistica-aaa....aah shit....SOPHISTICATED LA Principle stuff. We only had guys like Hugh Wilson and Crump and Flynn and such who just went down to the Jersey shore and hung out in the dunes for hours on end and had some drinks and maybe smoked a bit of opium and studied and communed with that natural landscape and just came back and sort of copied those natural sandy, duny shapes down there in what they did on their courses.

But I'm serious about this subject, Mike; do you have any idea when and from whom LA first began to merge into GCA?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Maybe a guy like Warren H. Manning is a good candidate. Born in 1860, he  was a landscape architect who did 1700 projects in his career, including golf courses.

He was a "promoter of the informal and naturalistic “wild garden” approach" to LA.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

I have studied some of the great Virginia tidewater plantation estates. It is my sense that those properties were way ahead of the New England and Philadelphian estates when it came to landscaping as an artform in America.

Those Virginian land barons leveraged their tobaco crops on importing European culture to America. The Quakers and the Puritans were late in embracing those ideals. Not to pick on Tom MacWood, but that whole history was missing in the Arts & Crafts piece.

I think that landscaping art principles were very well established here long before the arts and crafts movement.

My theory is that the geometric nature of the first golf course here was because the game wasn't important enough to put more effort in to design and building until our elite sportsmen became genuinely enamored with it. Then they wanted natural looking golf courses because they wanted good golf courses.

Landscape design principles were mostly applied to the clubhouse grounds. Those buildings were situated to let natual light in, and the landscaping was an adornment to the whole experience. But sadly most of those great old clubhouses are overgrown and shrouded by shit trees now.

[TEPaul]

Bradley Anderson:

You're the best!

That last post is both incredibly thoughtful, informative and seemingly very well and accurately reseached.

Years ago this website had a pretty good group of people who discussed the way you do but most all of them are gone now. Go back and check it out around 1999. Things were asked for and given. It was short and sweet but it always seemed to be informative.

[Adam Russell]

Tom,
 Let's take a stab...

Big Picture Answer:
 Since the beginnings of both disciplines. Landscape architecture has no true definition, and such the principles are widely divergent. Here's a general one: l.a. is design dedicated to the advancement of public health/welfare. You can apply that to the first golf course design/designers. Golf arch's and land arch's were practicing each others principles before each's principles were defined/known.

Black/White Answer:
 Whoever was the first landscape architecture degreed professional to design a golf course. My guess would be someone around the 1920's/30's.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

In Philadelphia and with the Quaker mentality in the 19th and early 20th century around here it seem with architecture, particularly building architecture, they definitely had their 19th century era, particularly in the person of Frank Furness (a fairly outrageous "break all the rules" architect if he even felt there should be architectural rules), and then the entire town was roundly criticized by the architecture critics and academicians of the world as about the worst thing imaginable, so the town developed a certain inferiority complex for a time and begun to use architects from other towns.

And then they came roaring back with the vehicle of a certain corporation that transformed the area and the state and maybe parts of the nation. Around the turn of the century it was tht largest capitalization in the world and its influence on golf and the clubs around here, as well as many other things, was remarkable.

[TEPaul]

Adam Russell:

Keep going, please. And please look over that last post of yours for typos or whatever. I really would like to be as sure as possible about what you are trying to say.

Thanks

[Adam Russell]

Tom,
 Yeah, that came off a little academic, didn't it? 

 I get this argument all day at school, what is l.a - there's a treatise right now within the field to come up with a core set of guiding principles or ax the term l.a. My own take is that the stewardship of the land, the promotion of social well-being,  hell even something as dumbed down as borrowed views existed in both realms before any one person realized they did. So they have always used each other's principles, it's just recently gotten to the point where we put defining words to the why's. I think the question is when a landscape architect used golf architecture principles, and for that you need the American emergence of the sport around the early 1900s. Yet those l.a's were more concerned about ridding social problems, so golf principles take a backseat until there was a time for experimentation in the discipline. Hence the 20's/30's thing.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam - thanks. I'm glad you followed up, but even just your first post got me thinking , and thinking about someone like Colt. When he took great golf inland, what did he have that the links courses didn't? Well, TREES for one. And I'd imagine that landscape architects in those days thought a lot about, among other things, trees and how to use them. But was Colt following or informed by or paralleling the principles of great landscape architecture in his use (or non-use) of trees? I'd guess that, if anything, he was following or informed by or paralleling the principles of great GOLF architecture...and even then, not in a wholly conscious way, or at least not in a way that anyone was articulating fully.

But I am WAY out of my element here...

Peter 

[Adam Russell]

Peter -
 This is going to be hard for me to explain, but so many people cannot separate l.arch from the trees, which are the simplest part of design you can have. The only way I explain the thinking is that landscape architects design change, especially in the days of Colt. If the tree helps that design change your trying to get to, use it. But it is not required for a successful landscape design. And Colt wanted change, or else he would not have tried to go inland. So however he got to the final product, just by finishing the course he advanced a different type of thought on an issue - a key landscape architecture principle. But Colt had no clue he was applying the principle, because it wasn't until the development of modern landscape theory in the 1900s we questioned why we designed a certain way, and looked backwards for examples to find proof of the theories.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
 Yeah, that came off a little academic, didn't it?  

 I get this argument all day at school, what is l.a - there's a treatise right now within the field to come up with a core set of guiding principles or ax the term l.a. My own take is that the stewardship of the land, the promotion of social well-being,  hell even something as dumbed down as borrowed views existed in both realms before any one person realized they did. So they have always used each other's principles, it's just recently gotten to the point where we put defining words to the why's. I think the question is when a landscape architect used golf architecture principles, and for that you need the American emergence of the sport around the early 1900s. Yet those l.a's were more concerned about ridding social problems, so golf principles take a backseat until there was a time for experimentation in the discipline. Hence the 20's/30's thing."


Adam:

No, your first post didn't come off too academic---I just thought it had a lot of typos and so I couldn't understand it well enough.

What is LA? Well, why don't you tell me? What are LA principles? For me, I've always just gone with Cornish and Whitten on that from their book.

They list them as; Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm, Emphasis. If you'd like me to include the definiations they give in their book on those stated LA "principles" I'd be glad to.

When you get into ideas like social well being via landscape architecture, Adam, you're getting into a lot of the philosophy of the great American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. Frankly, he seemed to feel that wonderful landscape architecture, or at least excellent community planning via landscape architectural in the form of community living was the way to a truly civilized and contented society.

You said;

"I think the question is when a landscape architect used golf architecture principles, and for that you need the American emergence of the sport around the early 1900s."

Adam:

I just don't get that statement at all. Landscape architects using golf course architecture principles?? Hell, even we don't really know what golf course architecture principles are and I doubt any of the very good architects on here do either with real certainty, so how in the hell is some landscape architect going to use them?  

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

Americans today are totally confused about the artistic sensibilities of the Puritans and the Quakers.

While the Virginians were busy with imitating European culture, The Puritans and the Quakers were industriously about the business of inventing American culture. As I see it, Philidelphia was more an amalgam of the many influences that went into the making of an American culture, and the New Englanders despised that about them.

After the revolution, Virginia lost it's identity to it's indebtedness with the old world, and, apart from Jefferson's contribution to the American ideal, it never recovered. Actually Jefferson had more in common with France than he did with America.

So you can be proud of your Philadelphian roots.

But then came Chicago, and St Louis, and Detroit  

[TEPaul]

"And Colt wanted change, or else he would not have tried to go inland."

Wait a minute AdamR. I don't know if that can be said with any kind of historical accuracy at all. How do you know Colt wanted to go inland? I doubt anyone even realized what INLAND really meant when it first happened after golf first began to emigrate out of Scotland and its coastal linksland. I want to take that one up with you tomorrow though.

I doubt "change" for change's sake had a thing to do with GCA. It seems like the evolutionary change in architecture was more a matter of other unperceived extraneuous things like the development of comprehensive railroads, and because of that improved transportation and greater familiarity with golf in Scotland and the desire of the English to bring it home with them.

I have no idea who you are but you seem to be very familiar with LA. Do you teach it? Whatever the case is your posts tonight are most interesting! Let's keep it going.

[Adam Russell]

Tom,
 This is the problem when answering questions like this. I can't give you a definition of what LA is because one doesn't EXIST. We as a LA field cannot get a concrete definition hammered out. Even the profession's granddaddy FLO couldn't come up with one from the origins of the field, because it pulled from too many places. So they concentrated on the application of design.

LA principles are somewhat different since there are about a billion of them. Cornish and Whitten are right on with those five you listed, but there are way more than that. Why do golf architects design? Hopefully it is to help people experience a positive aspect of life. Which is a small type of change. And that is a principle of LA, designed change. It is not what you use to create a golf course/LA design that matters, it is the emotion/change that each end product produces. Which is why both are related and one can use the applications of the other's field with success, and did just that before they ever had any idea they were doing it.

I think Colt had to know he was taking a different path, at least in his small sphere of influence

BTW, I'm a graduating fifth-year senior LA at the University of Georgia, now you're #1 BLA program in the U.S. 

[TEPaul]

"It is not what you use to create a golf course/LA design that matters, it is the emotion/change that each end product produces."


BINGO!!!!!!!

Adam, I wish I could find a font to make that even bigger!

I'm very glad you landed on this particular website. I'll see you tomorrow. There's a lot to discuss. If I could figure out how to find a font to make a word bigger though it wouldn't be what I said----eg BINGO, it would be what you said-----eg EMOTION!!!  Or even emotion/change!!

PS:
Yesterday and today I was trying to figure out how to start a thread that had to do with the relationshop of EMOTION and golf course architecture but I just couldn't figure out a way to cast it. I think you just did on this thread!

[Adam Russell]

Wait a minute AdamR. I don't know if that can be said with any kind of historical accuracy at all. How do you know Colt wanted to go inland?

He had to understand the different way that he was going to have to go about things. Just the thought of how to invent new construction techniques for the project. I will back off your quoted line a little - Colt knew that he was doing something different in his limited little sphere, and that had to excite him, and make him want to do it. It wasn't change for change's sake, but it was a designed change from the type of design that had occured before. To produce a different vibe, so to speak.

That's it for tonight. Very cool topic.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I see; you're a graduating student at the University of Georgia are you? Do yourself and us and the U of Ga. a favor and put your professors in touch with this website and us. As you know there are professional architects and a good deal of pretty savy GCA thinkers on here and there have been for years and if your LA professors at the U of Ga. can tap dance and tango with us, then there is certainly something that can be said for that. If they can't then what the hell are they worth? This is the real world of GCA on here, Adam, or at least a mighty strong and opinionated slice of it.

And for those golfers that don't agree with our GCA sentiments, it doesn't matter much because we do recognize that some people have bad taste and that's OK--since even people with bad GCA taste need to eat, survive and be happy too. 

[TEPaul]

AdamR:

Somebody has indoctrinated you and transfixed you with the idea of the beauty and benefits of "change", at least in the area of LA. Could it have been one of your professors? Let's take that idea back to Square One tomorrow, or as the Arabs recommend, the next day, and then start to work it back up to see if there's any value at all in it. 

[Adam Russell]

Tom,
 The change thing comes somewhat from my personal ideas, and from a good deal of school. UGA is polarizing; we get hammered with heavy theory classes (4 or 5 over the course of five years) and are implored to assert ourselves. The consensus here is that the field will never advance unless LA's stop drawing tree circles and starting designing a difference in people lives. Sounds hokey, but when we get paid half as much as a architect/engineer, there is a need to flex the thought process to advance the profession. It sets us apart because the school is so adamant about it. They continually push the idea that there must be an original idea, and that the status quo will never be good enough. The funny thing is they see this with blinders on, which is one of my main criticisms. The message/design process they send can be applied in any number of arenas, yet they work so hard to gain acceptance in only one particular. GCA is a stepchild to regular design, because they think its all Desmond Muirhead and planning templates. I've always feel that I have to inject deep discussion or thought into my designs to get some professors to turn the corner. When I do, its amazing the looks, almost an epiphany-type thing where you can see they had no idea GCA goes really deep sometimes. That probably makes the college sound bad, but its just a unique group of people in a large room bouncing ridiculous ideas off of each other. Some just stick more than others. Its a great place to get an education.

As for professors, there is one. He's 85, named Bill Ramsey. Grew up playing East Lake. Went on to get architecture/LA degrees. Designed courses for Willard Byrd in Myrtle Beach way back so that he could have a job and still continue to play the amateur golf circuit. Says he built two, but can't remember the names anymore. Willard wouldn't keep letting him leave on Wednes. to go play, so he quit golf altogether and went to work for Sasaki Associates, probably one of the most influential LA firms of the last 100 years. Then he designed the old Omni in Atlanta. Asked him when the last time he played was, and he said right before he quit Willard. Which was like the late 50s. Cool, cool guy. Always tells me to design outdoor rooms, and force people to experience them. No passive design at UGA. Too bad he could care less about operating a computer. He would be a great addition.

[TEPaul]

AdamR:

Your last post contains some very interesting stuff particularly about UGA LA school. A lot to think about. What would you say you've gotten out of this website since you've been on it particularly about GCA and LA?

[Adam Russell]

Tom,
 With the website, its just like school. People bounce ideas off the wall, some are ridiculous, some are weird, but they all teach you something about the way people perceive nuances of GCA and the intuitive part of golf. I treat this site as an educational tool, and look to get the most out of subjects I know the least about, like California architecture. I've never been to Cali, and rely on the people here who grew up there to explain the feeling and emphasis behind the great designs in that part of the world.

With school, I've found out techniques and reasons behind the design choices we make. I always relate it to a football coach putting players in the right positions to succeed. I've learned how to do that with landscape design, and how to carry that into the world of golf course architecture. With certain moves and skills that I learned at UGA, I feel confident I can understand why I design the way that I do.

[Steve Burrows]

I can't imagine that there is a precise, identifiable moment when golf course architects first used "real" landscape architecture principles, but it is clear that there is a strong relationship between the two (further supported by the fact that many modern, practicing golf course designers have degrees in LA).

However, I do believe that there is a relationship between the advent of the profession of golf course design (at least in America) and the occurrence of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1894.  Olmsted obviously had a strong impact on the exposition, on account of his design of the grounds at Jackson Park, and (though there is only circumstantial evidence to support my claim), I think that C.B. MacDonald learned some lessons from this display, which he added and assimilated to his study of golf courses in the British Isles.  MacDonald was, of course, a Chicago native and socialite who would likely have been intrigued by such a designed landscape, and I think that the idea of these principles (however the principles of LA might actually be defined) helped trigger his work, which elevated him to the first true professional American golf course designer.