Design (interior and otherwise)

[Ran Morrissett]

Due to an unhappy  event, I lost some furniture last fall. Fortunately, a lot of it was ugly  so no big deal. Not knowing what to do, I Googled "Design Chicks that like hanging Mike Miller, Josh Smith and Arthur Weaver golf paintings," but that yielded a surprisingly small sample of decorators from which to choose. The one I ended up going with to piece things back together recently saw a Huka Lodge brochure on my living room desk. Thumbing through it, she was captivated by one photo in particular and remarked something to the effect that, "Isn't it remarkable how peaceful and understated this room looks to the eye?" At the time, I was more concerned with how my scotch had dropped to an ominously low level but...then I started thinking about that comment and how it applied to golf course architecture.

On her return, I asked Decorator Woman to articulate what she meant and to be specific. Here are the bullet points as to why the room worked to the her trained eye:

"Central focus of the picture/room:

the window. While large in scale, the size of the panes lends proportion to the details of the room   

Contrasts:

straight lines, polygons, angles

deliberate yet not contrived                                 

therefore they compliment and don't compete

Harmony:

overall blending (nothing screams "I need attention")

colors are not distracting and harmonize with nature (stone, cream , yellow, white, pebble)

true retreat ambiance

Descriptions:

complete (nothing else is necessary)

unobtrusive

inconspicuous

unimposing

Floor and ceiling emulate one another (gentle triangle on ceiling and prism angles on floor tie together).

Eye is drawn subtly around room and is never over-stimulated or bedazzled."

 

So that was her description (if I can figure out how to use a scanner, I'll post the photo). I told her how I was thinking of this in a golf design context, prompting her to throw out, " Ran, you need to read up on German architect Ludwig Meis Van Der Rohe. He embraced a "no-nonsense" heritage in his designs. Similar to this photo, his clean simple lines are nonetheless sophisticated."

Based on that, I called the infamous Robert Walker, a licensed architect, who told me that 'With Mies, you don't realize the luxury of his work and materials until you are actually inside his built environment. A limited palette can be very good.'

That last comment really resonated with me and all this leads me - finally  - to my question: What golf courses (as Laura Linney is to acting) offer the same kind of understated appeal?

Three spring to mind: Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse and, of course, Royal Ashdown Forest. All three are chock full of character yet in an apparently effortless manner. These courses were economical to build (staying at the Huka not so much) in part because nothing was overdone and they enjoy a timeless element that doesn't require constant fiddling (as opposed to courses with lots of eye candy that are a maintenance budget disaster in the making). When I told Robert my thoughts, he agreed that "Ashdown is a prime example of understatement and that part of that understatement is achieved by exclusion.' Again, another great line and it reminds me how intertwined the various forms of design are.

Nonetheless, back to the question: What courses offer understated appeal? And shouldn't we herald them as being the best road map going forward?

Cheers,

[Mike_Young]

Pythagoras's Golden Ratio or Golden Rectangle   sort of works everywhere

[RJ_Daley]

Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point (though I've never played it - but since you are responding with design impressions and questions related to your encounter with an interior design photo...) the many pics we have been treated to of WP fit your criteria as expressed by Van de Rohe, IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Ran:

Is that not what minimalism and trying to conceal our construction work are all about?

Also, on more scenic sites, the focus of the picture/hole is the green and how it is positioned in relation to the background.  This is "framing" of a much different sort than mounding around the green, but I think it's the part of design that I've gotten much better at over time, and I think it might be the biggest reason our work has become more popular.

I will go look at your photos of Cape Kidnappers and try to find one that shows what I mean.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, check out your pictures of the tenth hole at Cape Kidnappers.

In the first two, you are pretty much on the line of the tee shot, but you probably shifted slightly to one side or the other so that the flag lines up directly with the shallow "v" in the saddle of the horizon.  In the third pic, you're in the landing area of the fairway, and from there most of the time the flag is profiled right against the water in the background.  It wouldn't have been that way if we had built up the green a couple of feet, or built a bump behind it to stop balls from going through.  That's why we built a fallaway green on the hole, and why it's positioned where it is, and why it's at the elevation it's at.

I know everyone thinks we make all of those decisions because of shot values, but often, for me, it's making the shot values work the way you want once you figure out where the green ought to be visually.

[Sean_A]

Ran

Understatement is what my favourite designs achieve - to one degree or another.  I can only think of a few courses I admire a great deal which I would consider flashy, excessive or intrusive - even among those with terrific settings.   This is probably one reason reason why I am slowly drifting toward courses which at first glance may seem rather flat or uninspiring.  It took me many years to well and truly understand the concept of TOC being ideal ground for golf even with minimal elevation change.  Of course, the spin-off of this sort of terrain is when an archie takes full advantage of a few seemingly minor land formations.  This is why I am fascinated with the idea of Seminole even though I have never set foot on the property.  Granted, and this is becoming more popular to talk about, wind increases the drama of a relatively flat site to degree which is immeasurable. 

Anyway, a prime example of what I think you are talking about is North Berwick.  How many folks have written off the course as a bunch of gimmicks (really using what was available - either man-made or not) combined with many boring holes?  Rarely do I hear people speak of North Berwick as having really fine architecture in the sense of the Golden Age.  I think they are dead wrong because they can't see past the weird holes, but it is easy to do.   

For a parkland example I would point to Woking.  It is perhaps a bit flashy here and there, but for the most part Woking is really living room golf which just hangs together well. 

Finally, I would point to Pennard.  Okay, the site is extreme, but the design is about as simple as it gets.  There isn't a touch of flash from an aesthetic PoV and I think this is really on of the main strengths of the course.  Braid let the land and the surroundings do ALL the work.  I can only think many see this as negative especially when compared to more sophisticated designs, but I see the restraint of the design as beguiling positive.  Its the sort of course that would never be built today because a modern archie would think he can get more out of that site.

Ciao 

[Richard Choi]

Love (non-golf) architecture topics! Hmmm, but I am not sure if minimalism in golf equates minimalism in architecture, especially when it comes to van der Rohe. Look at these photos of Van der Rohe's most famous works:





And my all time favorite piece of furniture, the Barcelona Chair



As you can see, van der Rohe was minimalist but not a naturalist (which is what golf architecture minimalism is really about). He didn't care to mimic the designs of nature, his purpose was to invoke certain feeling and utility with a least amount of design elements necessary, peeling away the layers until only what is truly necessary is left. And to achieve that, he uses bold and strong vertical and horizontal lines, something you will never see in nature.

To me, "minimalist" courses with frilly bunker edges and natural undulating contours don't really follow that same design philosophy. I would even dare to say something like Firestone is closer to the van der Rohe philosophy or even Augusta National (before the trees!).

[Brett Hochstein]

Richard,

I was thinking more like you regarding simplicity of line and texture.  The palette for architecture is inherently rigid.  Now, architects have the freedom to choose how they want people to feel by means of this rigid structure, and through line, form, and material, the range of results can be quite striking.  Most would just dismiss anything with strictly orthogonal arrangements of lines as unnatural and a product of man, but if you ask them to really experience it and describe how it makes them feel, the answer might really surprise them.  In the end it, it is all about creating human feeling over indifference, and it doesn't always have to be positive, for that isn't the way of life.  I would rather see a brutalist building like Boston's City Hall imposing the power of government over generic suburban office building, which imposes nothing, except perhaps doom and gloom come Monday.  Golf course architects have the same charge, though the palette is much different and organic.  But just as architects can make straight lines feel organic, golf course architects can make organic lines feel rigid and stifling.  Any sort of architectural design medium has this power to create and entice human emotion, and it is the job of the golf architect to create the right ones given the land, the surrounds, and the emotions of playing a game.

In thinking of Van der Rohe and golf, the first two holes that came to my mind for me are posted on this site.  They are the 11th at Kirtland http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/kirtland-country-club and the fourth green image at Chechessee Creek, among a number of other green complexes there: http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/chechessee-creek.  When first reading Ran's thoughts, my mental images didn't automatically shift to golf courses that look the most natural.  Rather, they shifted to what he described--simple, clean arrangement that creates perhaps those same feelings you might get on that totally natural course, feelings of peace, calm, safety, ambiance, etc.  I've always really, really liked these two holes from a purely emotional and aesthetic sense, and now after reading this, I even better understand why.

[Tom MacWood]

So that was her description (if I can figure out how to use a scanner, I'll post the photo). I told her how I was thinking of this in a golf design context, prompting her to throw out, " Ran, you need to read up on German architect Ludwig Meis Van Der Rohe. He embraced a "no-nonsense" heritage in his designs. Similar to this photo, his clean simple lines are nonetheless sophisticated."

Ran
Meis van der Rohe? A historically important architect without question. I'd say the golf courses of Robert Bruce Harris, very simply and sparsely bunkered, always placed far enough from greens and other features to allow a gang mower to get through, simple greens, simple fairways. Clean, simple, stark, cold, easily maintained and probably pretty damn boring after a few years. I don't think I'd want live in a Robert Bruce Harris interior. Find a new decorator.

[Andrew Summerell]

Meis Van Der Rohe was happy to show the inner workings of his architecture & design. You see the skeleton & how the building is held up.

What is called minimalism in golf is really naturalism, because the architect doesn’t want the golfer to see the architecture, but wants it to look natural.

The closest golf designs I’ve seen to Meis Van Der Rohe would be some of Raynor’s work. Everything has a purpose & the architecture/engineering is evident for all to see using the simplest lines.

[Tim Taylor]

Interesting fact about the Seagram's building (first of Richard Choi's three pics). Mies wanted the beams to be exposed but building codes didn't allow it. They had to be concrete-covered for fire safety purposes. The bronzed beams that give the building its famous appearance are purely decorative.

Minimalism? I don't know but it sure is a striking building.

Tim

[Melvyn Morrow]

Design is most certainly in the eye of the beholder

Design is the enhancement of the natural for the pleasure of ones senses. The simplicity of design never displays the complexity of the design process. Yet can yield the most satisfactory reactions by producing in the mind of an individual observer the illusion that little appears to have changed due to the ability to maintain a balance with the surroundings. 

Perhaps that is why modern designers insist on making real statements with their designs, proving that a great deal of work has gone into the ‘design and build’ of the item(s) concerned. Over design like over engineering just adds serious cost to the project without adding any additional substance.

If we are referring to Golf then I am a follower of the former.

Melvyn

[Josh Smith]

Ran,

         This design was very nice.  Can you enlist Rod Whitman to "throw in" a restoration job of your office back to this date stamp of Golf Magazine Innovator of the year---- Your Golden Age (moment)---Your 15 minutes of fame.  Hope all is well.

Josh

[Carl Rogers]

Tom to partially quote you ..."Also, on more scenic sites, the focus of the picture/hole is the green and how it is positioned in relation to the background.  This is "framing" of a much different sort than mounding around the green, but I think it's the part of design that I've gotten much better at over time, and I think it might be the biggest reason our work has become more popular. ..."

I think a better analogy to equate the best of golf architecture to building architecture would be a review of the Finnish Architect Alvar Aalto ... way too much to discuss here.  Lots of web sites ....   

In particular the building 'The Church of the Three Crosses' at Imatra, Finland.  Built in the late 50's almost at the end of his career, it does represent a certain culmination of his life's work.  It is a dissertation by itself.  The site is in nice upper lattitude flattish pine forest but otherwise nothing special.  Unlike the examples of the buildings posted on this thread, this building is impossible to describe, but it's most striking feature in relation to Tom's statement is its quasi-anthromorphic free flowing base, it's iceberg like form in how it is viewed as you move around it and a dramatically contrasting iregularly shaped curving but sharply etched roof profile.

To me a lot of terrific golf holes are similar in their treatment of foreground, middle ground, movement from side to side and sky edge.

[Bart Bradley]

Ran:

After seeing the photos posted of van der Rohe buildings, I immediately thought of Raynor's work.  Exposed architectural elements, strong geometric lines and elegance.  What could scream Raynor more than that?


Bart

[John Shimp]

Woking makes sense to me.

Others I've played are Elie, wilmington muni, roaring gap, and the 9 holer fenwick.
 
All not forced or over featured but simply appealing and tough at the same time.

[Tom MacWood]

Raynor? Remember we are talking about the interior design not the exterior. Van der Rohe's most famous home design was Farnsworth House. For every one photo of the interior you can find at least fifty photos of the exterior. I don't believe interior design was his strong suit. Here are a few pictures I found of the interior at Farnsworth.

His interiors are very sparse, and unless Ran will be living in a home with wall to wall glass where the outdoors is brought indoors (the primary design element of his interior at Farnsworth) I don't see the appeal, not do I see any correlation with Raynor. Raynor's design were not simple and sparse; they were big and bold.

I don't see a lot of art work on the walls either.

[Tom_Doak]

I think a better analogy to equate the best of golf architecture to building architecture would be a review of the Finnish Architect Alvar Aalto ... way too much to discuss here.  Lots of web sites ....   

In particular the building 'The Church of the Three Crosses' at Imatra, Finland.  Built in the late 50's almost at the end of his career, it does represent a certain culmination of his life's work.  It is a dissertation by itself.  The site is in nice upper lattitude flattish pine forest but otherwise nothing special.  Unlike the examples of the buildings posted on this thread, this building is impossible to describe, but it's most striking feature in relation to Tom's statement is its quasi-anthromorphic free flowing base, it's iceberg like form in how it is viewed as you move around it and a dramatically contrasting iregularly shaped curving but sharply etched roof profile.

To me a lot of terrific golf holes are similar in their treatment of foreground, middle ground, movement from side to side and sky edge.

Carl:

I will admit to being pretty lost in this discussion.  The parallels between building architecture and golf course architecture are strained, at best.  The one thing I've noticed about building architects is that most of them are just terrible at placing their buildings in a landscape ... they are almost always built up on a pedestal to where they don't fit in well at all ... but that's a discussion for another day.

I chose to quote you above because of a particular coincidence.  I decided for certain that I wanted to go ahead and study golf course architecture while sitting in my dormitory room at M.I.T. on my 18th birthday.  And that room was designed by Alvar Aalto ... his Baker House dormitory at M.I.T.

Compared to the dormitory my son is living in, Baker House was the Taj Mahal.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,
I am fairly lost also, because my world view of golf course architecture is too shallow.  Antonio Gaudi, also, would be a good study of the biomorphic - anthromorphic form in buildings, which I think / believe is closer to the world of golf.

On of the interesting elements of Baker House is a paradox of geometry that an object when viewed at angle (the street in this case), the object is perceived to diminish because its size appears to accelerate faster into the background.  We can hold any object in our hand and acknowledge this by viewing it frontally and then rotating it in place.

The pedstal, of course, is always for drainage away.  The clubhouse at Shinnecock Hills is the best example I know of the pedestal building on a golf course.  The meeting of ground and building of traditional Japanese Architecture is a good example how to handle this.

To me the problem of the clubhouse is that the usual programmatic paradigms:
1. a trailer, because the client is broke by that stage of the project or
2. the over built under used 'family' center or
3. the '5 star resort' that has something for everybody to spend money on while Dad is out on the course
have not worked out very well.

The Manor House in the UK tradition has worked out very well.  The clubhouse, of the pictures I have seen of course, at Cape Kidnappers is a terrifically attractive building both inside and out.

If I was lucky enough to work on such a project, I would try to think of something kind of modest regionally based, off to the side allowing the sky, clouds, trees, roll of the terrain and a view of the course itself make the real statement ... instead of something grandiose ...