[Germain Pepin]

In a recent article (1 July 2007) published in Golf Course Architecture magazine, the author has this opinion:

"Purporting that a design is minimal simply because the constructor only moved 20,000 cubic yards of earth, is a misunderstanding of the concept of minimalism from a design perspective"

According to him, the concept of minimalism should not have a connection with the design process itself or the volume of material used. "Minimal design is achieved through elegant simplicity in form".

As a newbie in golf course architecture, i am wondering if this opinion is correct or not. Is it well accepted by most of us on this board?

[JC Jones]

Minimalism, in my opinion, is the maximization of the features of the land present on the property prior to the construction of the golf course.

[Michael Dugger]

Well put JC Jones...

I think the magazine article is incorrect if they believe it does not have a connection with the design process.

[Jud_T]

I would say that minimalism is also the ability to say that golf is walking and carting isn't golf in 100 words or less...

[Germain Pepin]

Minimalism, in my opinion, is the maximization of the features of the land present on the property prior to the construction of the golf course.

I like it. 

Minimalism has been used in the design world, such as building and landscape architecture. It has many definitions.

[Germain Pepin]

I would say that minimalism is also the ability to say that golf is walking and carting isn't golf in 100 words or less...

Well said Jud 

[Germain Pepin]

To be nonest with the author, he adds that "with proper understanding, it is clear that a golf course can have a minimal design even if millions of yards of earth are moved during the construction.".

[Norbert P]

                             Mnmlsm should be defined by the word that precedes or follows it.

          i.e.
            Construction mnmlsm
            Bunker mnmlsm
            Budget mnmlsm
            Shaping mnmlsm
            Mnmlstc edging
            Mnmlstc appearance*  
            mnmlstic etc.  

*If I may paraphrase, Tom Doak has said that he'll move a lot of dirt to make a course look minimalistic.   e.g., Rawl's Course in Lubbock, TX  
 
        
        

[Jeff_Brauer]

I willl let Tom Doak answer, and I recall some of his sentiments from before, including one that says he sometimes moves a lot of dirt in an effort to make it look like he moved none at all.  So, pure amounts of earthmoving isn't it exactly, even though in one sense, it shoud be.

I think a lot of people do get different notions tied up with minimalism.  It has come to mean the style of Doak and CC, including hairy bunkers vs clean edged ones, native roughs vs cut ones, and a seeming lack of artificial mounding and cart paths.  It basically has come to mean anything that doesn't look like other modern architecture of the 1970-2000 era.

In reality, a Floyd Farley muni in Nebraska may better represent true minimalism.  But, its not stylish enough.  Minimalism may currently be defined as an attractive golf course that doesn't APPEAR to have many "unnecessary embellishments."

[Germain Pepin]

Do we have to associate minimalism only with a sandy site? Probably not. But is it possible today to do a minimalist course outside a sandy site? If so, i would appreciate to know some of them.

 

[Kalen Braley]

With respect to Jeff's post.

I don't think such examples should be called "minimalism" at all...even if it looks minimalistic.  A better name is "Naturalism" because it looks as if little dirt was moved to create the golf course, when in fact it could very well be the opposite.  And if memory serves me correct, Tom D makes this distinction as well.

We did an exercise that sort of proved this with Pac Dunes earlier this year....as we found out quite a bit more dirt was moved than it looks...and IIRC, hardly anyone could guess even half of the spots where any major amount of dirt was moved.  This is naturalism at its finest IMO.

[Mac Plumart]

Shouldn't a trend in golf course architecture be minimalism regarding maintainance?  Water conservation, leading to fast and firm fairways, etc?

Won't this help the environment, paint golf in a better light regarding conservation, etc.

Combine this with "naturalism" or "minimalism" on the design front and now you've got something. 

Or am I off base?

[Jud_T]

mac,

you are right on target, particularly on a 6500 yard par 70 course! 

[Michael Dugger]

I have often felt "minimalism" vs another design style is only really applicable when applied to a "well-endowed" site.

It's the idea of retaining attractive natural features, not bulldozing everything away and putting down a Sandpines.

[Anthony Gray]

  Who defined minimalism? When was the term first used?

  Anthony

[Mike Wagner]

Is Chambers Bay the best example of what the author is talking about?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

At least you did not mention the Arts & Craft Movement 

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

Minimalism in art is an old term, but it was first used in connection with golf architecture (as far as I know) by Ron Whitten, in an article for GOLF WORLD in 1994, I think.  The two courses he focused on most were Sand Hills and the first course at Stonewall -- where, ironically, we moved something like 350,000 cubic yards of earth in construction.  [What can I say?  Tom Fazio did the original routing.]  But Ron cited Kapalua and High Pointe as other examples of minimalism.

Everyone has their own definition of the term and most people's definitions are kind of free-floating, depending on where they want to stand about a certain course.

My own idea of minimalism (or at least, what I am really trying to do) is to rely on natural contours as much as possible, and to disturb as little of the site as possible.  However, as I have pointed out here before, that doesn't necessarily mean you are moving as little earth as possible.  At Tumble Creek we did more than 100,000 cubic yards of earthwork on a single hole (the par-5 4th) to blow through an impossible area, but by biting the bullet on those five acres, we came up with a routing that let us build the other eight holes on that nine without any earthmoving at all.  To me, that is a LOT better than tweaking a little bit on every hole, because you only have to strip topsoil and hide your work on one hole instead of many.

I am wary of calling a project like The Rawls Course an example of minimalism.  That site was dead flat and it was impossible to leave any significant portion of it undisturbed, because it had to drain somewhere.  But when people tell me it's hypocritical of me to take a project like that, I have said that's not true, and point out how we designed it for efficiency in earthmoving and drainage, etc.  So, I wouldn't label it minimalism ... I would call that naturalist, in the sense that we tried to make it look real even though it isn't.

In general, though, labels like these become meaningless once everyone starts using them to mean different things.  "Minimalist" is now more of a buzzword, like "links-style" or "championship" before it.  But I am happy to have helped promote the word -- even if it is now somewhat abused at least it's a step in the right direction.

[Michael Dugger]

I would not really consider Chambers Bay minimalist.

Indeed they kept some of the natural features, like blowing the 10th hole through a dunelike valley.

But I am not wholly positive these "natural" holes are better than the created ones...

And the size, scope, cost and amount of earthmoving was ginormous....a la Rawls.

[Rob Rigg]

I have often felt "minimalism" vs another design style is only really applicable when applied to a "well-endowed" site.

It's the idea of retaining attractive natural features, not bulldozing everything away and putting down a Sandpines.

This is a great thought - Can "pleasing minimalism" exist on a site that does not have potential?

Can a flat site with a few interesting natural features create a "pleasing minimalistic" course?

[Norbert P]

Can a flat site with a few interesting natural features create a "pleasing minimalistic" course?

 Talkin' Stick North does it nicely.

[Rob Rigg]

Thanks Slag.

I am hoping to get down to AZ to play Talking Stick and We-ko-pa Saguaro one of these winter/springs.

Is that a totally flat site devoid of interest or did C&C just make the most of the interest that was there?

[Norbert P]

Thanks Slag.

I am hoping to get down to AZ to play Talking Stick and We-ko-pa Saguaro one of these winter/springs.

Is that a totally flat site devoid of interest or did C&C just make the most of the interest that was there?

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/talkingstick    Ran's report.

As I understand it, C&C first turned down the project as it was too flat, but with some urging and land drainage work, they did take the job.   It is a very flat site and what they did there was eye-opening for me in understanding depth of field through bunkering and subtle contouring.    It is very walkable, as well.

[Sean_A]

Lets face it, without a good site, minimalism doesn't really sell.  The problem is, a good site doesn't need to be a wow site to make for good golf.  Folks want wow and if an archie isn't going to get stuck into a a dullish site, it won't be heralded no matter how good the architecture is.  Golfers ride by really cool things all the time without a moment's thought.  That is where much of minimalism on a not so great site truly resides - in the realm of the ignored.  Its truly a pity, but that is what golfers fostered since not long after the idea of the profession of gca was developed.  I think these days, if an archie doesn't put in some pizzaz here and there, people will wonder what the hell they paid him for.

BTW - minimalism to me means using the land to its full potential.  What the archie does to the bits of land he is going to alter can be in any style he chooses.  Natural looking construction has nothing to do with minimalism imo.   

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Minimalism, in my opinion, is the maximization of the features of the land present on the property prior to the construction of the golf course.

I like it. 

Minimalism has been used in the design world, such as building and landscape architecture. It has many definitions.

The proof is in the pudding. Take the examples of some real cases. Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus. Each have a site on a sand base with great vertical and horizontal movement. One moves every inch of dirt and creates one of the world's top courses. The other moves very little and has had to have the designe altered 3 times in as many years.

If one accepts the term minimalism as a process and disregards the result they have a term that defines nothing.

Yes, minimizing the cost to construct by having a site with great features is important to creating a compelling design. But, that doesn't mean that all one has to do is put out 18 stakes in the ground.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()