[Bart Bradley]

In terms of golf course design, what does "intimacy" mean?

How important is it?

What courses do or do not display intimacy in the design?

Look forward to the input!

Bart

[JESII]

I think intimacy should equal cohesion, or connectivity...which should all be very important...otherwise you can get lost...in playing and recalling the course...

[George Pazin]

Seems like a bit of a subjective term (not that that is a bad thing).

Some people might consider intimacy to be isolated holes (don't much care for that myself).

Others might consider intimacy to be short green to tee walks where you might even bump into other golfers - now THAT I LOVE!

What does it mean to you, Bart?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think intimacy should equal cohesion, or connectivity...which should all be very important...otherwise you can get lost...in playing and recalling the course...

I don't think you'll get a better answer than that one, Bart. Though I wish Sullivan would sometimes...write...in complete sentences. 

I think of intimacy as isolation. And I tend to distinguish between 'expansive isolation' (e.g. Sand Hills) and 'focused isolation' (e.g. Pine Valley). 

Both kinds of isolation/types of courses work for me, but with Jim's post I realized that they work, when they work, because of the cohesion/connectivity the architect has designed into them. 

Otherwise you get something akin to either a farmer's field or an elevator that's stuck between floors.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I think it is very important, and very misunderstood.

I am all for providing room to play the game and plenty of width in the fairways.  However, at the edges, and at the tees and greens, we must design features that are more at the human scale and which connect the golf course back to the native environment.  That doesn't necessarily mean isolating each hole with trees [especially planted nursery trees that aren't native to the site!], but it does mean getting the tees and greens tied back into natural grade and landscape.  I am positive that one of the reasons people like Pacific Dunes so well is the intimacy of the course with its environment.

[Mac Plumart]

Intimacy is a HUGE factor for me.  And I think the definition of intimacy can add to what I am getting at...close or warm friendship.

I think of it as having an "at one with the course" feeling.  No distractions for non-golf stuff.  Sometimes that feeling might be created by tree lined corridors, other times vast open spaces.  But maybe better than that you get a mix of both.

The Golf Club mixes both in well...Sand Hills has that openess to it...Kiawah Ocean with that wind whipping and stunning views (think 4 and 14 tee box)...

  
I think neighborhood courses have a tough time of getting an intimate relationship between course and golfer going, but perhaps some have accomplished it.  Courses close by busy roads would be another tough one to make intimate.
 

Also, check out Tom D's post...making the course intimate with its natural environment.  Mind-bottling, yet again!

[Sean_A]

In terms of golf course design, what does "intimacy" mean?

How important is it?

What courses do or do not display intimacy in the design?

Look forward to the input!

Bart

Bart

To me intimacy is about connecting the course with the land and connecting each hole to one another on a scale appropriate for the game.  Lack of intimacy may be one of the biggest shortcomings in modern design.  In a way, modern design can replicate strip mall developments.  Vast, sprawling, often one storey constructions which are surounded by a huge parking lot.  They provide a convenient way to shop, yet few really enjoy the experience.  Indeed, few give much thought to concept of these island developments which need cars to connect them and what the implications are for such developments.  In a nutshell, this is exactly how I see much of modern golf architeture.  Islands of holes detached from one another by distance and a lack of cohesion to game.  I think much of the "isolated holes" movement was really about not having to design an 18 hole course as a single entity.  Now we have a generation of golfers who believe that what is most important about a course is the solely the quality of each individual hole no matter if the course as a whole can never work in an intimate manner suitable for golf.  Granted, many courses thrive on being compelling enough for golfers to ignore the intimact issue if they aren't interested in playing the course weekly, but very few of these courses can command the attention of the astute golfer beyond the odd holiday round. 

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom Doak - Thanks for that post.  Another Doak post that once again proves that I, like Sgt. Shultz, "know nothing!"

(In other words, a very educational post, and greatly appreciated)

Sean - You just captured my concept of "The Journey" very nicely.  To me, a round of golf should be a journey of discovery and delight mixed with a wee bit of anguish and pain (It's my old Irish Catholic guilt coming  out ).

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
"In terms of golf course design, what does "intimacy" mean?
How important is it?
What courses do or do not display intimacy in the design?"

For this tragic “intimacy” in golf course design provides areas on the course where one can get lost in one’s own little world. I think this can be achieved partly by the architectect designing the space/local environment but nature also plays a part by providing the wheeling and calling of birds, or the whispering of the wind in sea-grasses or Casurina pines.
It is very important to me as I just love that feeling of isolation within a natural setting, of being cut off from the world and it is only myself, golf and nature.
Strangely enough I have never felt this feeling on parkland courses (in Scotand or Australia) but only on the linksy type courses such as Carnoustie in Scotland.  In Australia I felt this on Peter Thompson’s Twin Waters course, which I believe was modeled in part on Carnoustie. The courses on the Mornington Peninsula also elicit this response. I will play St. Andrew’s Beach this Christmas; so Tom Doak have you managed to insert this romantic part of golf course architecture, intimacy, into St. Andrew’s?  I will let you know post-Christmas!!

Colin

[Anthony Gray]

  to know her is to love her......Cruden Bay

[Mike Hendren]

To me an intimate course is one where you are totally immersed, even sucked in to the architecture and environment.  I recently played the intimateTacoma Country and Golf Club which featured vintage understated architectural elements on a relatively tight tree-lined site.  Oddly the other two intimate courses that immediately came to mind were the expansive Ballyneal and broad-shouldered San Francisco Golf Club.

Three totally different golf courses, but each intimate as I would use that adjective.

Mike

[Mac Plumart]

Can anyone provide a list of 5 or 10 courses that they feel meet the intamcy of the course fitting the land?  I think this is an very interesting concept and I'd like to give them a look.

[Adam Clayman]

I've always used the term to describe how one feels when holes come close to each other. Areas like shared fairways, or in a situation like at The Valley Club of Montecito where you can stand on one green and see two or three others. I imagine that the 11th green and 12th holes at ANGC feel intimate. Pacific Grove has a number of spots where you watch someone you might have a match with, who is four or five groups ahead or behind you.

It's interesting how many different interpretations there are.

[JESII]

Adam,

That's pretty close to how I would picture it as well...I also think it's important that those playing other shots nearby are not clear distractions to you and yours.  Applebrook is almost intimate, but the green-flowing-into-tee concept places the tee right behind the green a few times whici I don't love.

[jonathan_becker]

Can anyone provide a list of 5 or 10 courses that they feel meet the intamcy of the course fitting the land? 

Mac,

The first one that comes to mind for me is Country in Pepper Pike.  It's spectacular.  

Here's Ran's profile for it.  http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/the-country-club-pepper-pike

What's amazing is that the property sits right down the street from Chagrin Blvd which is one of the busiest streets in NE Ohio.  While out on the course, you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere.  

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I know what you mean about tees directly behind greens. They only work on a course with nobody out there. I usually consider it a design flaw, but every time I see it, there's usually nowhere else for the teeing ground to go. Maybe that's too intimate?

Bayside's (Ne) has this on their 3rd tee, but there really is nowhere else for it, with the fourth fairway to it's left and the 6th fairway ibehind. If people would play the white tees, it wouldn't be an issue, though.

[Ian Andrew]

Can anyone provide a list of 5 or 10 courses that they feel meet the intimacy of the course fitting the land?  I think this is an very interesting concept and I'd like to give them a look.

The best example I can give you to explain the value of intimacy is Banff Springs. At Banff Springs Thompson understood that the mountains would be the most dramatic part of the course. He encouraged their “participation” by enlarging his hole corridors another half times more than normal to allow a panoramic view out to the scenery beyond. It’s an excellent example of borrowed scenery.

As an architect he instinctively understood that to compete on an even footing with the scenery he would have to be much bolder with his architecture which included the need to increase the scale of his features – in particular the bunkering. He used bigger bunkers, in larger numbers, and doubled the swing back and forth in his fairways to emphasize the space but to also fill the canvas. The risk with this approach is overwhelming the golfer with the shear scale of the course.

Banff Springs works because of intimacy – or as Tom put it a connection between human scale and the setting which we find ourselves part of. In golf design this is done by employing elements that are in human scale to bring the size dfown to something we can relate to on a personal level. In Thompson’s case it is in the bunker details, from size of bays and noses to small intimate details around the greens that manage to offer an element that makes you feel comfortable despite the mammoth scale of everything around you.

Most of the greatest works of architecture work in a larger scale, yet once you look at each piece, you can see that the key to success in each of these projects is the small detailing that people can relate to on a very personal level.

That is intimacy.

[JC Jones]

Bart,

This very topic came to mind (and I think there may be a thread out there about it) after playing Seminole and Sugarloaf Mountain about the same time.  Seminole is very intimate, you feel the whole golf course at just about every point (save maybe the 6th and 8th greens) and at many points you can see much of the golf course from where you are.  Another example would be Belvedere, a course you played this summer.  The front 9 has you completely involved and you are connected to the rest of the course throughout the entire 9.

Juxtapose with Sugarloaf Mountain where every hole, despite relatively short distances between greens and tees, is in complete isolation from the previous and the next.  Very rarely do you see another hole from the one you are on and it is difficult to know where you are in the round and where you are on the golf course.

I very much prefer intimate golf courses.  I don't like much of the isolation on modern golf courses.  Perhaps the best modern course to create the intimacy of a classic course that I've played would be Kingsley Club (particularly the front 9).

[Bart Bradley]

Bart,

This very topic came to mind (and I think there may be a thread out there about it) after playing Seminole and Sugarloaf Mountain about the same time.  Seminole is very intimate, you feel the whole golf course at just about every point (save maybe the 6th and 8th greens) and at many points you can see much of the golf course from where you are.  Another example would be Belvedere, a course you played this summer.  The front 9 has you completely involved and you are connected to the rest of the course throughout the entire 9.

Juxtapose with Sugarloaf Mountain where every hole, despite relatively short distances between greens and tees, is in complete isolation from the previous and the next.  Very rarely do you see another hole from the one you are on and it is difficult to know where you are in the round and where you are on the golf course.

I very much prefer intimate golf courses.  I don't like much of the isolation on modern golf courses.  Perhaps the best modern course to create the intimacy of a classic course that I've played would be Kingsley Club (particularly the front 9).

JC:

I am not entirely sure that I agree with your description of intimate.  Intimate, for me, means cozy, comfortable, in harmony.  I think that holes can be isolated from one another if linked properly and one can still feel intimacy...a commune with nature and the golf course.  I don't think that a sense of isolation in nature is contrary to a feeling of intimacy.  What do you all think about that? 

Ian:

You are touching so closely on what I am trying to figure out about my intuitive reactions to golf courses.  Yes, "Most of the greatest works of architecture work in a larger scale" but huge scale can make a place feel empty instead of intimate.  Has anyone else experienced an emptiness because scale became overwhelming?

Bart

[Colin Macqueen]

Bart,

I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "I don't think that a sense of isolation in nature is contrary to a feeling of intimacy.  What do you all think about that?"
I mentioned in a previous post that  "........ I just love that feeling of isolation within a natural setting, of being cut off from the world and it is only myself, golf and nature."

I believe I only ever get a feeling of intimacy viz. a viz. golf course architecture when there is a sense of isolation. I guess dunes do it for me! When they are on a large scale, yes there can be a feeling of loneliness but that just enhances the feeling of intimacy with the surrounds . As I write I am intrigued with the idea that I seem to be linking (no pun here!) intimacy which normally suggests closeness with being alone with myself but at least I am close to nature.....Hmmmm....Dunno.

Colin

Colin

[Tom_Doak]

This thread has provided a fascinating list of courses which one poster or another feels as "intimate", yet I would almost guarantee that no poster would agree with all of the courses listed.  For some it is having holes close together; for others, it is being isolated!

If asked to name names myself, I would start with Cypress Point, and Crystal Downs would be right on its heels.

[Jud_T]

Prestwick
Portmarnock
Old Elm
Shoreacres
TOC
Pac Dunes
Lawsonia

essentially some of my favorite courses....

[JC Jones]

JC:

I am not entirely sure that I agree with your description of intimate.  Intimate, for me, means cozy, comfortable, in harmony.  I think that holes can be isolated from one another if linked properly and one can still feel intimacy...a commune with nature and the golf course.  I don't think that a sense of isolation in nature is contrary to a feeling of intimacy.  What do you all think about that? 


Bart

Bart,

I don't think that one can be isolated from every other hole on the golf course and yet still feel a commune with the golf course.  I agree that one could feel a commune with nature when in isolation but not with the rest of the golf course.

I agree that a sense of isolation in nature, by itself, is not contrary to a feeling of intimacy.  For example, you could be on an isolated golf course (or a golf course that made you feel isolated from the rest of the world) yet the holes could be close to each other such that there is a feeling of intimacy.  Tom Doak's example of Crystal Downs is a great.  When playing the front 9, I very much have a feeling of intimacy and a closeness with the surrounding holes.  I also feel a sense of isolation from the rest of the world and in commune with nature but it is the golf course that gives me that sense of isolation and not individual holes.  This is part of the appeal, to me, of more natural golf courses where the topography of the land is not thrown out of whack by the golf course.

When individual holes give me a sense of isolation it very well may be that I feel in commune with nature, generally, but certainly not with the rest of the golf course and often times I get "lost" on the property.

[John Kirk]

While thinking about this subject yesterday, I imagined walking to a spot to tee off, and playing to another spot, and then walking to another spot or place where the next hole starts, and so on.

Nothing groundbreaking in that thought, but that's how I imagined it, moving from one nice spot to another.

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I think you make a great point.  I find playing a hole and then jumping in a cart and driving a fair distance from green to tee takes away from that intimate feeling.  Especially if you cross a road, cut through a neighborhood.  Perhaps walking mitigates some of that feeling, but then it is like you are hiking rather than playing golf in an intimate setting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()