Is Minimalist Architecture "Elitist"?

[Jim Hoak]

I recently had dinner with a former senior designer with the most non-minimalist golf course architect in the nation.  In talking about architecture and courses, and with me pluging for the philosophy of taking the land as you find it, moving the least amount of dirt possible, using the contours that the land gives you, etc., he gave the opinion that that philosophy was "elitist."  He said that you are given a piece of land by a developer/owner and are charged with building the best course you can on that given land.  He said that to argue against this would deprive certain areas and people of good courses since there is only so much good land in the country.  And that it was elitist to knock architecture that, while contrived to some degree, built an acceptable course on inferior land. 
He used the Madison Club in Palm Desert as an example.  The land given to the architect was totally flat with no contour.  He said that in his opinion the acclaimed modern minimalist architects could not have built a good course on that land, but that by moving dirt to an extreme amount, an acceptable course was built.  In his opinion, only "elitists" would criticize such a course.
How would you answer this argument?

[Jud_T]

I'd tell him to go play Talking Stick North and then tell me the "minimalists" could't build an interesting course on flat land.

[Kye Goalby]

So the Madison Club is used  as the example to illustrate that "minimalists" are elitists?  

Why do I find that so humorous?

http://www.madisonclubca.com/assets/44000/nmgstjies_1196378203.pdf

[jeffwarne]

I recently had dinner with a former senior designer with the most non-minimalist golf course architect in the nation.  In talking about architecture and courses, and with me pluging for the philosophy of taking the land as you find it, moving the least amount of dirt possible, using the contours that the land gives you, etc., he gave the opinion that that philosophy was "elitist."  He said that you are given a piece of land by a developer/owner and are charged with building the best course you can on that given land.  He said that to argue against this would deprive certain areas and people of good courses since there is only so much good land in the country.  And that it was elitist to knock architecture that, while contrived to some degree, built an acceptable course on inferior land. 
He used the Madison Club in Palm Desert as an example.  The land given to the architect was totally flat with no contour.  He said that in his opinion the acclaimed modern minimalist architects could not have built a good course on that land, but that by moving dirt to an extreme amount, an acceptable course was built.  In his opinion, only "elitists" would criticize such a course.
How would you answer this argument?

The architecture and architect? no
Even an architect who only accepts prime pieces of land to work with is not elitist, but selective (simply a different business model)

the critics? absolutely

I'm just always amazed at what is called minimalism and how widely the term is used and defined.

[Steve Lang]

  First were you pushing or pulling him in trying to persuade?  

Is $200 million in development costs and 5 million cubic yards moved, a babbling brook in the desert, and 150,000 non-resident shrubbery specimens placed there sustainable and perhaps not an elitist view of the desert environment, i.e. one to dominated by a man's desire, not natures?  

Is an invitation only club membership not the most elitist type, i.e.,  where money is to be extracted from its hand picked members with a smile?

[Andy Troeger]

I'd tell him to go play Talking Stick North and then tell me the "minimalists" could't build an interesting course on flat land.

Jud,
This is an interesting one to me--I think TSN proves the opposite of your intent from that post for most people. I know you and others on this site really like the place, and I grant that C & C did a nice job getting some strategic interest out of a boring site. I still don't think its all that great though, especially compared to courses on more interesting land. I would play We-Ko-Pa Saguaro 10-0 or 9-1 over TSN, for example. Even Warren at ND is much better in my opinion--that site isn't great either but at least there's some movement.

The interesting comparison to me with TSN is Fazio's Butterfield Trail in El Paso. I believe that was a similar flat piece of desert, but Fazio moved lots of dirt to create terrain. It's not great on a national scale or compared to many of Fazio's best efforts on more interesting properties, but I think its far more varied and interesting than TSN.

Nothing wrong with "minimalism," but I do think it requires at least a decent site to keep my interest over the long haul.  At the same time I agree with the arguments against spending millions to build courses that inevitably require large green fees to be self-sustaining. Butterfield Trail actually costs far less to play than TSN at peak season, but that is due to market factors, I expect.

[Jim Hoak]

Steve--I was neither pushing nor pulling him--just stating my preference for "natural" courses without much dirt moved and in keeping with the land.  He was stating his opinion that my preference was "elitist," because it ruled out courses on many bland pieces of land, denying the developers and golfers the best course that could be built on that piece of land. 
I did think that the Madison Club was an ironic choice for an argument against elitism, but I understand (but don't agree with) his argument that a designer unwilling to materially change a plot of land might be short-changing his customer.  I guess the point of his argument is--Could a "minimailist" architect have done a better job with the Madison Club on that piece of land?

[Anthony Fowler]

From one of Doak's essays:

"Sometimes, though, the best solution for the course as a whole may require major earthmoving on a handful of holes to connect the others. That's minimalism, too. And the key to success in those instances is to move enough earth to make the artificial work appear natural, not to move as little as possible."

http://dev.brightbridge.net/RGD/selected_essays/play_it_as_it_lies/

I don't think minimalism is ever at odds with creating the best possible course.  If the creation of the best possible course requires a lot of earth-moving, then it seems like it would be allowed (if not required) under minimalist philosophy.  There might, however, be circumstances in which a course should never be built because it is not possible to build a good course for a reasonable cost.

[Ben Sims]

Jim,

A man who's last name rhymes with yours--and oddly enough has the same number of syllables and letters in his name--created a minimalist course on a completely flat piece of land by moving massive amounts of earth in The Rawls Course at Texas Tech.  It's in one of the windiest places in the CONUS and without ever having seen The Madison Club, I am confident it is a better piece of architecture.  

I think you're argument is a winner, but I'm a golf snob.  Every time I mention minimalism to my casual golf buddies here locally, they look at me like I'm a bourgeois saying "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

OH!  And to answer your question.  Yes, I think Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, etc. could have done a better job with flat land.

[Peter Ferlicca]

Jim,

A man who's last name rhymes with yours--and oddly enough has the same number of syllables and letters in his name--created a minimalist course on a completely flat piece of land by moving massive amounts of earth in The Rawls Course at Texas Tech.  It's in one of the windiest places in the CONUS and without ever having seen The Madison Club, I am confident it is a better piece of architecture. 

I think you're argument is a winner, but I'm a golf snob.  Every time I mention minimalism to my casual golf buddies here locally, they look at me like I'm a bourgeois saying "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

OH!  And to answer your question.  Yes, I think Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, etc. could have done a better job with flat land.

I am a huge fan of minimalism too, but I cannot agree with your statement there.  For what the Madison Club was trying to be, there is no way any other architect could have accomplished a better finished product than what Tom Fazio did for them.  Doak already had Stone Eagle, if C&C, Hanse, DMK, any of those guys were to do Madison Club, they would have struggled to build a masterpiece on that piece of land, it was dead flat.

[Sean Leary]

Ben,

Is Rawls a better piece of architecture than Madison, or a better course? Is there a difference in your mind?

[Kirk Gill]

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism  (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.


Interesting notion to believe, without having seen the course in question, that a group of golf architects perceived as minimalists would have most certainly have produced a better course.

[Ben Sims]

Peter and Sean,

You've seen Madison and I haven't, I'll defer to you.  But the look of those pictures, all the water and that containment, it's just not my bag.    Fazio has obviously made a better piece of landscape architecture than any of the aforementioned architects could--or even would attempt. 

No doubt that Madison and Shadow creek are meritorious in their landscaping and construction accomplishments.  But better golf courses than what the minimalists would do?  I think the "modern minimalists" understand golf holes and strategy better than anyone out there right now, including Fazio. 

In the end, what makes architecture and a course?  Is it the surrounds? The aesthetics?  The way a hole plays?  We could be getting very broad with this debate. 

Kirk,

Yes, feel free to say that it's elitist of me to make that statement.  Based on the definition, I guess you'd be right.  I just think it's hilarious that I'm being called elitist in reference to debate about The Madison Club's architecture vs. minimalism.  A quote from the attached article by Fazio himself, "But we began by trying to find out how much dirt we had to move in order to create 225 outstanding lots". 

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I think there are rationalizations and marketing/self-promotions of all kinds. It is my belief that those who argue that tons of earth-moving results in more expensive green fees misunderstand what I believe is the true dynamic, i.e. that developers START with an idea of the kind of fees they want to charge (private initiations fees or public green fees) and then choose the architect/earth-movers they believe will JUSTIFY those fees.  But I also believe that those who choose to work on so-called poor sites and then move a lot of earth often have mixed motives - yes, some of it may be a sense that the creation of ANY golf course is good for the game and good for the average golfer in that it it gives them more places to play; but I think some of it is a caused by a dearth of imagination and/or a clear cut CHOICE to move a ton of earth each and EVERY time out because that is what they are being paid to do (literally; see point one above).

But to answer your question: no, I don't think it is elitist, I think it's eli...

Peter 

[Peter Ferlicca]

.Ben,

I am just stating that with what Madison wanted to accomplish, Fazio was the only architect to choose.  First off, it was a discovery property so they are going to go with there man Fazio.  Second, a minimalist architect wouldn't have worked on that site for a high-end private club.  A buddy of mine and I always mention that we should have DMK do the second course at Silverrock on the flat piece of property, and do a st. andrews replica with stacked sod bunkers and everything.  That would work if it was a public course.  For a high end private club in Coachella Valley, you either have to a good mountainside course or a great course on an inland flat property.  Tom Doak designed Stone Eagle on one of the best properties for desert golf, and some people still think it isn't a good course, and it even went through foreclosure because of it.  If you put a minimalist architect on a flat piece of property in the desert, and tell them they need to make a great course, with 200+ lots, with $200k initiation, you are going to have a hard time being successful.  I agree completely Ben that the minimalist architect would produce a more fun course to play with more strategy, but to be a successful club with high end clientele it wouldn't have worked. 

Let’s just say that instead of getting Fazio to do Madison Club, they hired DMK to build a great Scottish course in the desert.  No hard feelings to DMK, because I love his work, but it just wouldn't have been as successful as what Fazio did.  The more and more I talk with high end members on what architects they like the most, they all say Fazio first.  They just haven't seen the light yet, leaves more time for us admirers to enjoy the great work out there by the minimalists.

Also, I just remembered hearing this about Whisper Rock.  Bill Coore badly wanted to do the second course at Whisper Rock, (We could only imagine how good of course that would have been), but in the long run the club decided to go with Fazio for the second course.  I am sure for the club and membership that was probably the right call financially.

[Ben Sims]

.Ben,

... but to be a successful club with high end clientele it wouldn't have worked. 

... they all say Fazio first. 

I agree Peter.  For what was needed at The Madison, Fazio wins.  A better piece of architecture?  It probably is.  But a better golf course?  There's the debate.  That's all I was saying.

[Sean Leary]

Pete,

Why would a minimalist have more strategy and be more fun to play?

I'd rather play a great course that earth was moved on than a minimalist one that is just OK. I don't see why one has to be more strategic and fun than the other. It might be, but it isn't just because it is minimalist.

[Tom Dunne]

Jud,

Whether or not you meant to, you've touched on a key point. C&C did TONS of earthmoving for the two courses at Talking Stick--and yet the finished product still falls under the rubric of "minimalist" architecture. Bill Coore pointed out several years ago that if you were only going by how much earth was moved in the process, Kapalua Plantation would actually be considered a far more "minimalist" course.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/golf-love-at-first-site/1

Minimalism is a difficult term to pin down--is it the process or something more about the finished product that leads people to describe a course as such?

Jim Hoak,

I'm absolutely not buying what your guy is selling. I do think Jud's Talking Stick example is a good counter to what a different architect would do with a pancake-flat, featureless site--or maybe Doak's Texas Tech course, which I haven't played. The difference is priorities. The developer of a high-end residential community may say "Build me the best possible course," etc., but often what's implicit is that they also want that course to help sell homes or homesites, and that opens the door for all kinds of site compromise and the catering to a certain type of taste in golf architecture--what makes a pretty picture.  

Flipping the script and calling minimalist design "elitist" in defense of an architecture that is more a means to an end than an art form in its own right may be a neat party trick, but it doesn't hold up. I've never been to the Madison Club, but as a Discovery Land Co. project I'll go out on a limb and say this is not exactly the best property to be carrying the "golf for the people" banner. What's really elitist is trying to justify outlandish construction fees and maintenance budgets, costs that are passed along to the homeowner's association golfer, by saying "there's only so much good land in the country."

I'd really love to hear the argument that would paint courses like Wild Horse, Common Ground, or Rustic Canyon as somehow being "elitist". Again, I have no idea whether Madison Club is a good golf course, but considering that you could do Rustic Canyon and its clubhouse twice for the amount that that club spent in tree planting alone--well, the charge of elitism is pretty laughable.

[Ben Sims]

Pete,

Why would a minimalist have more strategy and be more fun to play?

I'd rather play a great course that earth was moved on than a minimalist one that is just OK. I don't see why one has to be more strategic and fun than the other. It might be, but it isn't just because it is minimalist.

Sean,

I don't think Peter is making an either Fazio or minimalism argument.  I think he trying to say either Fazio does his thing and minimalism can do it's thing.  Some folks know they are going to enjoy a certain course more based on how it was created and who created it.  

I think Tom Paul has touched on the either/and argument of golf architecture.

But, in Peter's defense.  Name a course you would consider great that you consider great in the past 15 years that WASN'T designed by a "minimalist"

--EDIT.  Tom Dunne is way smarter than me--

[Peter Ferlicca]

Pete,

Why would a minimalist have more strategy and be more fun to play?

I'd rather play a great course that earth was moved on than a minimalist one that is just OK. I don't see why one has to be more strategic and fun than the other. It might be, but it isn't just because it is minimalist.

Sean,  

I completely agree with your second statement, I would take a great course with moved earth over a ok minimalist any day.  Madison VS. Talking Stick North.  I guarantee you, if you took everyone on this board and had them play both courses, you would be hard pressed to find a person who would prefer to play Talking Stick over Madison on a daily basis.  Now with your first statement, IMO most minimalists create more interesting greens which add to the overall strategy and enjoyment to the golf course, but that does not always make it a better course than a Fazio course with tons of dirt moved.   I am very familiar with the Coachella Valley so I have quite a taste of a lot of different Fazio courses.  Eldorado, and Bighorn Canyons are both fun courses but with tasteless greens.  His newer ones, Madison and Montesoro have very fun and unique greens and are both a blast to play.  If you asked me to take a minimalist architect over Eldorado on that piece of land I would go with the minimalist, but if you threw in Madison or Montesoro vs a minimalist architect, I would go with Fazio.   Another great way to look at it, I always try to imagine what a Tom Fazio would have done with a site like Stone Eagle and it makes me cringe, on a great site like that you can’t imagine anything other than a minimalist architect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am not sure that elitism has anything to do with architectural style at all, unless you make the connection that the cost of the golf course affects the cost of the membership.  By that token, what was the membership price of Stone Eagle and did construction cost or design style have anything at all with that going under and Madison Club being solvent (we think)?

At the same time, there are many low budge, affordable public courses that had subsidized earthmoving costs because the golf course acts to curb floods.  Minimalism wouldn't work in those cases, either, but the course is far from elitist.

Maybe the definition of elitism is how study and expensive the front entry gate is!

[Peter Ferlicca]

I am not sure that elitism has anything to do with architectural style at all, unless you make the connection that the cost of the golf course affects the cost of the membership.  By that token, what was the membership price of Stone Eagle and did construction cost or design style have anything at all with that going under and Madison Club being solvent (we think)?

At the same time, there are many low budge, affordable public courses that had subsidized earthmoving costs because the golf course acts to curb floods.  Minimalism wouldn't work in those cases, either, but the course is far from elitist.

Maybe the definition of elitism is how study and expensive the front entry gate is!

Well, Madison is backed by Discovery so they can afford to take a hit a little better than other managing companies.  But a main reason Stone Eagle had financial trouble was because the lots were not on the golf course but in a cove, compared to Madison where all the lots are raised up looking down at the beautifully maintained Fazio course.  When you can sell ¼ acre lots of flat desert for a half million that adds up quickly to pay off the start-up costs.  All the biggest homes in the desert are all on Fazio courses, Bighorn Canyons, Madison, Quarry, and the Vintage.  He obviously knows how to build a successful private golf club.   IMO, if you are going to build a private golf club that is strictly golf (no homes) you go with a minimalist.  If you are going to build a residential private club you have to go with market names Fazio, Nicklaus.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't recall the project, but Fazio was involved with at least one where he was pitching all the homes off the golf course.  Maybe he lost his mind and went all trendy on us, rather than doing what he knows works.

Believe me, I understand the residential golf course model!

Funny story about Bighorn Canyons. One day I got the topo maps for the project in the mail with no explanation.  At least one of the backers preferred I design the golf course and sent me the maps.  Of course, later, GE Capital had other ideas. But, the original idea of the course was that the huge clubhouse was underutilized and big enough for two courses, so the idea was simply to start the course across the street, under the tunnel.

Somewhere along the way, Fazio convinced them all that a separate clubhouse was needed to make the best possible golf course, for a variety of valid reasons (among them that starting there was on the SW corner, setting up bad sun angles for golfers all day) but I always got the impression part of it was he did it because he could, and now I guess they have two underutilized clubhouses, and at least slightly higher operations costs than they really need.

[Tom_Doak]

  If you are going to build a residential private club you have to go with market names Fazio, Nicklaus.

PFerlicca:

Aren't you at Tumble Creek now?  Last I heard, they were doing fine up there after deciding not to go with Fazio or Nicklaus.  They might have sold more lots more quickly that way ... I have never claimed to have any ability to sell housing lots ... but I am pretty sure they got at least as good a golf course by going the route they did.

The argument for The Madison Club is b.s.  There is a bunch of good land for golf around Palm Springs; what they are really saying is that the un-minimalist approach is essential if you want to buy boring land and sell expensive real estate on it, which really has nothing much to do with the golf at all.

The argument that a minimalist course is necessarily more interesting or strategic than a course where lots of earth was moved is also b.s.  It's only true to the extent that some minimalist designers are more interested in building cool features and strategy into their holes than some other architects who spend a bigger portion of their time worrying about how the course will look from the lots.  But you can certainly create a lot of strategy by moving earth around ... The Rawls Course is one example.  (I wouldn't call it minimalist, myself.)

[Ben Sims]

  If you are going to build a residential private club you have to go with market names Fazio, Nicklaus.

 It's only true to the extent that some minimalist designers are more interested in building cool features and strategy into their holes than some other architects who spend a bigger portion of their time worrying about how the course will look from the lots.  But you can certainly create a lot of strategy by moving earth around ... The Rawls Course is one example.  (I wouldn't call it minimalist, myself.)

Tom,

Like I posed to Sean above, name a practicing architect that IS creating the same strategy as the minimalists by moving around loads of dirt.  I'm not denigrating anyone's work per se. I just think that it's broad brushed--just as it is to say that only minimalists are creating good stuff--to infer that minimalism ISN'T the driving catalyst behind the more strategic view of golf architecture of late.

What are you doing posting anyway?  Shouldn't you be getting your beauty rest.  You've got a lot of flesh to press tomorrow.