I think the biggest problem with coming up with thoughtful criticism of “modern” architecture is that so much of it is regurgitated over and over by many architects to the point where we have all seen it a hundred times before. This goes for the Fazio, Rees, RTJ, Jr., and Hills’ of the world as well as the C&C, Dye, and Doak’s as well. On one hand you can only see so many of the Fazio template holes with “risk-reward” bunkering and user friendly slopes kicking balls back into the fairway with a housing development on one side of the hole before it’s not worth commenting on…it’s been seen before and we all know what it is. On the other hand, you have many of the minimalistic designers who have fallen back on the natural scraggly look with wide fairways, big greens with undulation, all on a pretty site for a golf course….sometimes (not all the time in both cases) there isn’t much worth commenting on.
Unfortunately though, it all boils down for many to group think and what we’ve been conditioned to enjoy in architecture.
Many will write off a Fazio, Jones (either), Hills, etc… course off before even visiting it or if they do they wrote it off as “typical” junk before they pull their clubs out of their trunk. I’ve played some really good Fazio courses, I know of a really solid Rees Jones original design as well as a renovation that I believe he made the course firmly better than it was before…but with narrow minds it’s worthless to bring it up because without playing the course it’s going to be universally panned.
On the other hand the sacred modern designers on here can do no wrong, and every one of their course is “their best and an instantaneous universal top 20 golf course in the United States”…but rarely is that the case. It’s just that when many on here see all the signs of minimalistic design and what’s in vogue many go gaga without actually explaining what makes the hole different than any other of that designers courses and the participants here who don’t actually like it keep their mouth shut because they don’t want to sound like they don’t know what they’re talking about to the others.
I wish more architects, on both sides of the design spectrum, took bigger chances in their designs and that the participants here were more open minded to accept these risks. For as much as Pete Dye got hammered for building “volcano” bunkers in Indiana or Nicklaus got flack for building over the top greens in Michigan…at least they are trying new things and I give them credit for it. For as much attention that Tom Doak gets for building new upscale designs like Rock Creek Cattle and Old Macdonald, what sets him apart in my mind is his ability to build courses like Commonground or his new pitch and putt in Detroit for little $$ that give back to the community, both being “outside-the-box” designs that push boundaries of what a high profile architect will work on.