The Direct Relationship Between Architecture and Experience/Ambience

[Adam Clayman]

A courses sense of place does more to enhance the experience than water views. But, isn;t that sense of place generated by the architecture?

I was thinking Sandpiper when I mentioned coastal course let-down. Shel's Half Moon Bay is a good one. I assume Trumps SoCal course fits this bill too.

Any more?

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am certain that there are really very few who are into GCA. I may go as far as say if 1% of the golfing world knows what GCA stand for then I would be surprised.

I do not believe we can blame them for their ignorance as it was born out of the apathy from the golfing world.

The insipid courses that have been manufactured over the last 60-70 years has in fact nearly killed off any thought of design let alone architecture. It seems to have lost its direction, but then is that not the case when a sport goes through its menopause and seeks changes for the sake of change not necessity. There was nothing wrong with golf or the design process, it was the uncontrolled influx of technology that concentrated the minds of golfers. Here after WW2 golfer purchased new equipment and low and behold their scores started to improve. Are we all going to believe it was all down to a sudden rush of skill, are we that naïve and vain that we will take credit form the equipment – you bloody well bet many are. At a stroke handicaps improve, the game seems to be on the boil, new courses, new technology, yet in real terms – please be honest and critical -  what good did this period after the second World War actually do for golf or GCA. If we are honest we must say nothing in fact it made us take a step backwards, ignoring the courses in favour of the equipment instead of a balanced approach for the harmony of the game.

As many know this was the period of the cart introduction seen as a great improvement in how to make golf easy. That very item has for nearly 60 years given many architects and designers one of the biggest pains in the butt by trying to fit carts into the game.

It seems that on the introductory of WW2 we forgot all that we had learnt in golf and design, one wonders if the golf books were burnt when Hitler had that big book burning party in the mid 1940’s. The second half of the 20th Century whilst producing many great courses seems to have failed to capitalize on the qualities and merits gained in the first half of that sad century. WE have taken GCA, architecture and design to a new low to the point that the average golfer does not understand GCA or its implication to his/her game. Not a great endorsement, but the cost of making golf easy for the non-gofing public, perhaps we should have left the game as its best, as a walking and thinking game  and those seeking the easy life should seek their pleasures elsewhere.

There was a direct relationship between the Golfer and GCA, but we have done our best to try to kill it off. Yet there is still hope as we copy some of the great holes from the past but do we really understand why or has our imagination really failed us giving the choice of a Redan or Road Hole instead of an Island Green.

There certainly was once a direct relationship between the land, the course, the architecture, the experience, the ambience, all of which enticed the player to become a golfer and exploded golf onto the world at large.

Melvyn

[Carl Rogers]

I don't think seeing the clubhouse at Friars Head would change my opinion of the course at all.

I used to take a fair bit of pride that Pacific Dunes earned it's rankings while operating out of a (very nice) double-wide, and I doubt the completion of the clubhouse there has affected anyone's thugs about the course.  Indeed, we located the clubhouse mostly out of view fro the course so that it would have the least effect.

TD,
It was deliberate?  Were there other options?  Utility problems? ... utility cost?  From what I have seen of the pics, the building at PD looks pretty interesting.  I will be out there in February.
The clubhouse at Cape Kidnappers looks terrific.  I doubt I will ever get there.
I have a feeling the at TOC, the club house and all the buildings at 18 add quite a lot to the experience.

[Mac Plumart]

JC...

In your original post, you asked does a good and/or bad experience at a golf course affect the analysis of the courses architecture.  If you are there solely for analyzing the architecture/quality of the course...it better not...if it does that person needs to get a new gig.

HOWEVER, if I am soley looking for a place I want to play at again and again and again and not there to soley rate the quality of the course...the experience matters to me a whole bundle.  I don't want over-crowded, over-priced courses, regardless of the quality of the architecture. 

TPC Sawgrass was like that for me...so expensive, so crowded...I won't go back despite liking the courses itself.  I am afraid of Pebble Beach for these very reasons.

Dismal River...darn solid course, GREAT experience in my opinion.  I'd be back in a heart beat. 

The Golf Club and Sand Hills...great courses, great experience.  The ideal mix for me.

The Bear's Club...pretty darn cool experience, but the course isn't ideal for me and my tastes.

Champions Retreat...solid courses and off-the-hook experience.  One of my fondest golf memories.



Anyway, I think I made my point.  But to re-iterate:

1) if you are playing a course to evalute its architecture/quality, you better block out the non-essential stuff and focus on the course.

2) if you are looking for a club to join and/or a frequent place to play, it all matters and it should.

[Tim Bert]

Mac - Agree that the total experience is very important for membership / return trips.

BUT - what people are looking for in that experience varies greatly by person. For some the quality of the course is a much higher percentage of the total experience than for others.  As for the non-golf stuff, some people like the heavy service model and some prefer the low key experience.  Some like lots of extras and some are looking to get away from the extras.   Fortunately there are many different options out there.

[JC Jones]

Do you think that repeat plays at a course with overwhelming ambience and experience would help the average person judge the course for its architecture, alone?

Also, I'm not sure bells and whistles and 10000 sq. ft. clubhouses are the only things that can add to experience.  History and sense of place could have more of an impact.  When I played Pac Dunes I didn't know the clubhouse was temporary and I distinctly remember it for being perfect for the rustic, outpost-esque atmosphere of the place.  I would think a big clubhouse with bells and whistles would be more out of place.  Perhaps it doesn't affect the evaluation of the architecture qua architecture but it might help to put one in a place in their mind to evaluate the architecture more positively.

[TEPaul]

"Quite often we speak of how a great experience, club atmosphere or ambience can have an effect on our evaluation of the architecture of a golf course."


Experience, club atmosphere, ambience?

Architecture is architecture. I've seen some great golf course architecture in places that aren't even golf courses! I'd be glad to name them or even show them to somebody.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

"Experience, club atmosphere, ambience?"

It’s what you discover when you visit other clubs, you know friendship, welcome, openly friendly and helpful, The Scottish way, even found at The R&A if and when you waken one of their Members. You know that factor missing here of late, experience to rise above, to maintain a good sense of humour and an accord with all as if great friends.

Also "Experience, club atmosphere, ambience?"does not work well with carts/distance aids

Hope that has helped

Melvyn

[jim_lewis]

What Mac said!

If you have a responsibility to evaluate the course (rater), you must focus only on the course. If you can't do that, you should turn in your rater's credentials.

Otherwise, feel free to use whatever criteria you choose to evaluate the total experience.

[Tim Martin]

What Mac said!

If you have a responsibility to evaluate the course (rater), you must focus only on the course. If you can't do that, you should turn in your rater's credentials.

Otherwise, feel free to use whatever criteria you choose to evaluate the total experience.

Rating the experience is altogether different from rating the architecture. Apples and oranges. I think most on this site would much prefer to walk a top 100 course with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in their bag without getting near the clubhouse than having all the frills imaginable on a Doak 3. But I think that 95% of the golfing population would take the Doak 3 with all the frills. 

[Mac Plumart]

I think it is important to remember that a lot of people value different things in terms of experience/ambience.

Tim, you mention frills.  But courses/clubs like Sand Hills and The Golf Club really don't have frills...but they certainly have an ambience.  This type of thing might be one person's ideal experience, while another might like the Shadow Creek experience.

Heck, even Ballyneal has an ambience/experience.  Walking only, caddies, in the Chop Hills, getting away from it all, pure golf.

Anyway, ambience/experience isn't always fancy frills...in fact it might be the exact opposite.  But to each their own. 

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Don't you think it interesting both how, why and even when golf emigrated out of Scotland and became a world-wide game?

Well, belay that, I guess for some that's just a rhetorical question. 

[Mac Plumart]

I've seen some great golf course architecture in places that aren't even golf courses! I'd be glad to name them or even show them to somebody.

Okay Tom Paul, you got me.  Please enlighten us/me.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Wait for it, the only name that Tom can use these days is "MERION", so he will say Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion,
Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion, Merion,
Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion,  Merion, Merion, Merion and the last site is Merion.

Tom 'Have Golf club will Travel' Paul,    hope you have a nice day at Merion

Melvyn

 
,

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I'd be happy to; particularly since I know you have the furthest thing from the miasmatically myopic mind of Melvyn Morrow. Woo-ee---there's some pretty nice alliteration in that last one! 

[JC Jones]

Anyway, ambience/experience isn't always fancy frills...in fact it might be the exact opposite.  But to each their own. 

Is it possible for one to appreciate and enjoy varying forms of ambience/experience?  Can someone love the rustic escape of Sand Hills, the over the top amenities and "poshness" of Shadow Creek, the very spartan locker room at Merion and the Kingsley Club double-wide?

Does it matter more that the ambience/experience reflect the club and the course and if so, does it influence the evaluation of the architecture by "setting the tone"?