A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"

[Ian Andrew]

The article can be found here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/magazine-architecture

I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of learning more about golf architecture by looking outside of golf architecture for inspiration and insight. I’ve been having great fun with Malcolm Gladwell’s concepts and drawing them back into golf architecture I read Tom’s piece recently and loved how he drew Stuart Brand’s thoughts on architecture and applied them into Golf Architecture. The reason I selected this piece was I felt that Tom had left a great deal of room for additional interpretation and provided the opportunity to explore a few of the themes more deeply.

I’m not going to break down his piece. I have no ability to do so. Instead I wanted to pose a number of questions for discussion:

In one section the question is asked, “What makes a building come to be loved?’ He concludes age. “the older the building gets, the more we have respect and affection for its maturity, for the accumulated human investment it shows, for its attractive patina it wears–muted bricks, worn stairs, colorfully stained roof, lush vines.”

I happen to disagree with this conclusion. For example the work of Trent Jones has had fifty years to mature, but I would argue that the respect and interest in his work has been in constant decline over that period. And to counter the point, many of the so-called Minimalists have gained instant respect and admiration? Does this disprove the notion or does this come back to one of Brand’s three factors and suggest that both reactions could be explained by current fashion?

I was fascinated by the theme found in the following, “After identifying the qualities found with those beloved evolved works of architecture, Brand addresses the state of modern design and the phenomenon known as ‘Magazine Architecture’. Most works have neither High Road or Low Road virtues.”   Later on Tom goes on to say, “Brand came to the conclusion that these high profile architects were more interested in visual impact than in functionality – they saw themselves as artists. While looking back through architectural history, Brand found a point when architects began considering themselves artists resulting in the steady decline of architecture.“  

I personally think we are well into an era of reactive architecture where many firms copy the latest popular style, but cease to address the foundation of the underlying trend. Is the reason that these projects are less successful largely because golf architecture (in its worst form) has devolved to a visual based art?

Later on Tom adds “Brand contends the major culprit is architectural photography. A California architect says, ‘You get work through getting awards, and the award system is based on photographs. Not use. Not context. Just purely visual photographs taken before people start using the building.’ And as a result it is not uncommon for some architects to specifically design their buildings to photograph well at the expense of working well.”

Has golf architecture also followed that pattern, routing to places they shouldn’t go to achieve the ‘money shot?’ I could argue that rise of Golf Magazines and then internet sites like Golf Club Atlas have become a detriment to better architecture because of the emphasis on visual stimulation? I’ve always enjoyed the question of how a course like Pinehurst #2 would be received if built today. I still believe well over time. But some could argue the recent work has more to do with generating visual appeal than enhancing the qualities that make it special?

The theme that kept coming back to me over and over again “What makes a golf course come to be loved?’ I found some pretty strong clues in one of the paragraphs and look forward to your response on that.

“By spanning generations, they transcend style and turn into history….what such buildings have instead is an offhand, haphazard-seeming mastery and layers upon layers of soul. They embody all the meaning of the word ‘mature’–experienced, complex, subtle, wise, savvy, idiosyncratic, partly hidden, resilient and set in their ways. Time has taught them and they teach us.”

I hope this generates some discussion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - thanks much for this thread (and for proposing the other one).  I have to rush out but I can't stop myself from posting quickly a reaction to your/Tom's thoughts.

I think one of the easy/simplistic ways to define and differentiate Theism from Existentialism is to say that, in the former, essence predates existence; while for the latter, it is existence that predates essence.  That is, Theism posits a Soul that exists eternally and becomes manifest in time and in a body --our true essence predates out physical existence.  Existentialism posits no such soul -- and so with our births begins the long, hard, lonely and scary process of forging -- and continually re-affirming -- a meaningful essence; step by step, and through personal choice and intention.  

I think golf courses that span and have existed for generations are loved because they have been the objects of love, i.e. they have a true essence because of a generations-long process that includes choices and intentions that continually and constantly re-affirm the 'meaning' of those courses.

Peter  

[Peter Pallotta]

(Ah..I can't help myself!)

Ian - to put it better and more simply, I think the value a golf course has is exactly the value we GIVE it.

I think NGLA is a perfect example.  Like another CB (i.e. CB DeMille, with "The Ten Commandments"), CB Macdonald came out and said, essentially, "This course is Important!".  And so it was, and has remained.

I think the same thing is happening with your work on/love of Stanley Thompson's courses.  I really do believe that you are going a long way to ensuring that a course like Highland Links will be valued and revered for decades to come-- because in treating it as worthy of love you are re-affirming its essence.

Peter  

[Mac Plumart]

I found the article interesting with many parrellels to golf course architecture.  Perhaps some of my thoughts echo Ian's, but perhaps some of them add to his thoughts while others stray.

I agree with Brand/Macwood's comments that the the age of a building/course adds to its level of love of reverence.  But here is the kicker, it has to be truly functional and good.  It can't be the fad de jour, it has to be the real deal.  Over time, the truth regarding the course will come out and the fad de jour will change and the truly great courses will be left standing.  But again, here is a kicker...if the course truly added something to the history of golf course archictecture (despite being a fad or not) it will remain, at least somewhat, revered.  But if it is a copy of the history changing course, it will fade away over time.

An example of a truly history changing course might be, TPC Sawgrass with its extreme architecture and island green.  Other courses have the island green concept and the extreme architecture and they may have been highly regarded at one point, but they have faded away while Sawgrass remains a unanimous gem among golf course rating entities.

Interestingly enough, I think I have some examples of fad de jour courses that have faded in interest over time.  A number of months ago, I dug up every Top 100 World list I could going back as far in history as I could (the oldest one I found was, ironicly enough, Tom Macwood's In My Opinion piece on the Top 100 courses in the world from 1939) to see what courses used to be Top 100 but have fallen in recent times.  Here are some of those courses...

Black Diamond Ranch, Shadow Creek, World Woods Pine Barrens, Troon (Arizona), and Banff. I've played 3 of these 5 and I can see why they are not Top 100 in the world, but I could see if the hype machine ran with them they could fool some people for a brief period of time.

And I think that is the key that Brand is talking about when he talks about the passage of time and the love for a building (or in our minds, courses).  Over time, hype machines fade away as you can only afford to throw so much money to market an impostor.  Over time, the truth comes out.  Crystal Downs was not in vogue for quite some time, and although I haven't played it and can't offer a first hand experience, it seems to have taken its rightful place among the worlds best.  I believe Fishers Island was hidden for awhile and even the great NGLA hid in the weeds for a bit.  But time has a way of righting these wrongs.

And it is my opinion, that right now the "minimalism" and "natural" trend is a fad.  I think the truly revolutionary minimalistic design will be highly regarded forever, as they truly added to the greatness of golf course architecture.  Specifically, Sand Hills.  HOWEVER, when I watch a television program with Donald Trump walking around the "Great Dunes of Scotland" and talking about how natural this or that is...I think it has hit fad stage.  And understand, I am not knocking Mr. Trump.  But the bottom line is that he is a business man.  If he sees a business opportunity, he will grab on to it and sell the crap out of it.  I think he sees this trend as a business opportunity.  To me, this is not a true believer in minamlism espousing his core values and beliefs.  He is making a business deal to make himself some money.  

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, run with them, counter them, whatever you feel will add to the discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

I don't doubt that minimalism is a fad, to the extent that there are some architects who really don't believe in that philosophy who are now trying to do it, or at least saying they are doing it, because it's what's considered cool right now. 

However I've always thought that fads are things without any underlying value or philosophy, and minimalism (in the right hands) is not all that.

I enjoyed the article, and am glad that none of my courses were mentioned by name!  And I certainly do agree that golf architecture, like building architecture, has gone off the tracks in recent years because architects are more rewarded for winning awards and setting up good pictures, than for actually designing a course that plays well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have told this story before, but once heard the CEO of Cobra Golf give a presentation which I recall to this day, about the design of golf clubs.  He discussed many separate design ideas, and ended each part of the discussion with "That turned out to be a fad and not a trend."  At the end, he discussed designing equipment for distance gains, and then concluded that "That turned out to be a trend and not a fad." 

I guess it will take a little time to sort out whether minimalism is a fad or trend.  Personally, I think the idea of moving less earth (where that is actually done in minimalism) is a trend but the lacy edged bunkers that many really think are the "badge" of a minimalist will turn out to be a fad.

The reason is that cost and water are going to be the drivers of any business and moving less earth saves on both, over highly mounded and artificial designs.  It satisfies the basic long term needs of the golf model.  Frilly edge bunkers look nice, photograph well, etc., but add to expense and occaisionally, unnecesarily to my some golf scores.

In essence, trends solve problems and address basic needs, but artistic things are tend to be fads.

[Sean_A]

The concept of creating for the camera is an odd one for me.  So far as I can tell, most pro photographers are more than willing to snap from a spot which tells little about a hole (takes it out of context if you will).  So, why bother trying to set that up for a photographer?  They will find the prime spot because that is what they do.  

Could it be more a case of trying to make memories easy for the golfer by presenting as stunning a view as is possible?  Its almost the opposite of setting up for the pro in that the archie is going for a grass roots approach in trying to reach each individual golfer rather than from top down presentation.  In either case, any archie worth his fee will figure out how to incorprate views (perhaps nit the very best views, but very fine views) without overly compromising his routing.  A beautiful spot is a beautiful spot and it sells itself.  Beauty doesn't require that we see it out of context and through the lense of a pro.  It just is and is obviously so for those who care to take the time.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

Personally, I think the idea of moving less earth (where that is actually done in minimalism) is a trend but the lacy edged bunkers that many really think are the "badge" of a minimalist will turn out to be a fad.

Thanks, that should prove to be right on the money.  Great post...the entire thing.

And Tom...I agree.  I tried to touch on what you are talking about, but obviously didn't do a great job.  My example of Donald Trump talking about how "natural" everything looked was my attempt to demonstrate how popular "minamalism" and "naturalism" are.  But maybe I should have continued with how he wants to build some big ass mounds to block out his farmer friend.  Maybe it would look natural, but he isn't espousing the core values of minimalislm.  Jeff nailed it, IMO. 

[Peter Pallotta]

The claim that most work has neither High nor Low Virtue seems very true.  The exceptions, interestingly, are the ones that manifest both. The shabby chic of the old-line clubs, with members rich enough that they don't judge guests by the size of their wallets but by their level of respect for the game, and for the course.   

Building architects mocked most of that series Prince Charles did on architecture years ago -- but one image that always struck me was of a beautiful and wonderfully proportioned Venetian building from the 1500s, 5 stories, a place of commerce and business. And the Prince says "I bet we all find this building beautiful, and that most of us would say it is because it is old and that buildings were just designed more attractively in the old days".  But then the Prince surprises us (well, me at least) but telling us that, in fact, Venice had a very strict building code way back in the 1400s, a code that dictated how tall a building could be and how wide and how many windows it had to have and how far apart those windows had to be etc etc.

In other words, that Venetian building was beautiful because it was INTENDED to be beautiful.  And, to connect that to my earlier post, that building had its essence planned and honoured from the start, and it has had it re-affirmed by every generation since who loved it enough not to tear it down for a more 'efficient' or modern structure.         

Peter

PS Labels are what little minds stick onto things to explain and exploit and profit by them after creative minds have actually done the hard work of making the thing in the first place.

[Ed Oden]

I'm not sure this is entirely germane to Tom's essay or the discussion in this thread, but I've always found Geoff Shackelford's analogy of golf course architecture to baseball stadium design in "Grounds for Golf" very interesting:

If you are a fan of our national pastime you know that baseball stadium design has known a variety styles, all influenced by the era those ballparks were constructed in.  The early, often quirky parks were built on low budgets and incorporated existing site features into the outfield boundaries.  These were the ultimate natural ballparks.

Then there was the post-war school of larger, cleaner parks such as Dodger Stadium, which maintains a certain straightforward charm today.  However, many of its features influenced the 1970s boom of “multipurpose” artificial surface stadiums where designers made a great effort to eliminate the defining quirks of the older parks and never shied away from exposing plenty of concrete.  Worse, the fan’s ability to see and enjoy the game was forgotten in the design process.

Today, we are witnessing somewhat of a “retro” movement in stadium design, though the results have varied in capturing the character of the classic parks.  The two greatest success stories are Camden Yards in Baltimore and Pac Bell Park in San Francisco.  In each case the parks successfully incorporate existing features, leading immediate character.  Camden has the old railway building in right field, Pac Bell the San Francisco Bay within easy reach of a Barry Bonds home run.

Just like with a modern golf course, forcing these oddities instead of incorporating existing features will ultimately fail to lend genuine character.  That is why so many of the new ballparks have never quite matched the character and passion felt for a Crosley Field in Cincinnati or a Polo Grounds in New York.

[Bradley Anderson]

The article can be found here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/magazine-architecture

“What makes a building come to be loved?’ He concludes age. “the older the building gets, the more we have respect and affection for its maturity, for the accumulated human investment it shows, for its attractive patina it wears–muted bricks, worn stairs, colorfully stained roof, lush vines.”

I happen to disagree with this conclusion. For example the work of Trent Jones has had fifty years to mature, but I would argue that the respect and interest in his work has been in constant decline over that period. And to counter the point, many of the so-called Minimalists have gained instant respect and admiration? Does this disprove the notion or does this come back to one of Brand’s three factors and suggest that both reactions could be explained by current fashion?

I tend to agree with the statement that age increases respect and affection for an objects maturity.

I was in the pro-shop one day of a club that was preparing to sell 9 of its 27 holes to development. And I recall someone saying that a lot of human drama had played out there over those 9 holes. That phrase "human drama" stuck with me. Even an average golf hole, after it has aged, has been the scene of many wonderful moments between friends and golf opponents. And you can't create those stories with anything else but time.

[Bradley Anderson]

The article can be found here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/magazine-architecture

“What makes a building come to be loved?’ He concludes age. “the older the building gets, the more we have respect and affection for its maturity, for the accumulated human investment it shows, for its attractive patina it wears–muted bricks, worn stairs, colorfully stained roof, lush vines.”

I happen to disagree with this conclusion. For example the work of Trent Jones has had fifty years to mature, but I would argue that the respect and interest in his work has been in constant decline over that period. And to counter the point, many of the so-called Minimalists have gained instant respect and admiration? Does this disprove the notion or does this come back to one of Brand’s three factors and suggest that both reactions could be explained by current fashion?

I tend to agree with the statement that age increases respect and affection for an objects maturity.

I was in the pro-shop one day of a club that was preparing to sell 9 of its 27 holes to development. And someone said that a lot of human drama had been played out there over those 9 holes. That phrase "human drama" stuck with me. Even an average golf hole, after it has aged, has been the scene of many wonderful moments between friends and golf opponents. And you can't create those stories and legends with anything else but time.

So I would agree that the passage of time definitely adds to the character of a hole, but mostly from the stand point of everything that has happened between golfers there. Most golfers don't care as much about the architecture of those older holes as they do the golf stories that those older holes set the stage for. And I would add that the better the design is, the more rich the stories are.

[George Pazin]

...but the lacy edged bunkers that many really think are the "badge" of a minimalist will turn out to be a fad.

Is this really the "badge" of minimalism, or merely what others hope to label it as?

[JNC Lyon]

I believe age can make a golf course great.  However, age is less an element of greatness than it is a test of greatness.  Ian, you give the example of Trent Jones courses that have had many years to age but have not been revealed as great golf courses.  This demonstrates that age has proven these golf courses to be inadequate.  Age has not made them great.  Age has revealed them as deficient after 50 years.

Contrast these courses with a layout like Brora.  James Braid laid out this course softly on the land over 100 years ago.  The course makes no excessive attempts at art, and it relies on the beauty and challenge of the land to appeal to golfers.  Today, the golf course inspires golfers and challenges good players just as it did 100 years ago.  Brora has passed the test of age with flying colors, and golfers love it all the more.

[Niall C]

"I agree with Brand/Macwood's comments that the the age of a building/course adds to its level of love of reverence.  But here is the kicker, it has to be truly functional and good.  It can't be the fad de jour, it has to be the real deal.  Over time, the truth regarding the course will come out and the fad de jour will change and the truly great courses will be left standing.  But again, here is a kicker...if the course truly added something to the history of golf course archictecture (despite being a fad or not) it will remain, at least somewhat, revered.  But if it is a copy of the history changing course, it will fade away over time."

Mac

In the context of your quote above, how would you categorise NGLA ?

Ian,

As of the time of writing this I haven't read Tom's Opinion Piece or at least if I have its has been long enough that I've forgotten it, so some comments based on your post.

Re your comments on Trent Jones, he has certainly built enough courses so I've got to think that his courses were admired at some point, and as fashions go around it wouldn't surprise me if there was a revival of appreciation of his work. Your post also seems to assume that the minimalists will be as reveered in 50 years time as they are now. Who's to say they won't go the same way as Trent Jones with fading fan base followed by a revival sometime in the future.

I think all that age can tell you is that the course had had some alluring appeal, either that or it has been re-invented/redesigned to some advantage to keep it going.

Niall

[JNC Lyon]

Tom's article proves a point that I come back to time and time again when I think about golf courses architecture: the architect needs to get out of the way and let the land dictate.  He quotes architects like Fazio and Rees Jones who think of themselves as exulted artists.  They are not willing to exercise restraint or listen to what others have to say.  As Tom Fazio said in the Sports Illustrated article on about Golf Club Atlas, "I'm not interested in their opinion.  I don't read that stuff."  As a result, these architects often produce layouts that are awkward and artificial.  Furthermore, they de-emphasize things like routing and charm, making their golf courses much less enjoyable for traditional golfers.  The result is a set of courses that focus on grandeur and style instead of golf.

On the other hand, architects like Tom Doak, Kelly Blake Moran, Mike Young, and many, many others who post on this site are willing to listen to and discuss architecture with the amateurs on this site.  Consequently, their courses are less expensive to build, less expensive to play, and more likely to reflect their natural environment.  If the architect gets a rugged site, the course might be a challenge to play.  However, these courses are always walkable, functional, and ultimately enjoyable for an average player.

One of my favorite golf courses is Addington, just South of London.  Architect J.F. Abercromby laid out one of the most wild and fun golfing experiences.  At 6,200 yards, it is not a long golf course, but it is still eminently difficult.  The course makes great use of the ravines, hillsides, and heather that dot the course to create a truly unique adventure.  On the best holes at the Addington, the emphasis is always on THE LAND.  The topography is so striking that it made sense for Abercromby to make sparse use of bunkers and other manmade features.  Nowhere is the Addington a work of art for the architecture.  It is thoroughly a display of the land's greatness.  The course, like so many in that part of the world, shows the best of what the land had to offer, with the architect playing second fiddle.

[Peter Pallotta]

KBM - that was an excellent post, thanks.  These sentences in particular stayed with me:

"I believe what is underappreciated today is the amount of time required to absorb the beauty of a landscape (golf courses included). Complete immersion within the golfing landscape can eventually reveal the beauty of the course, strategic and visual beauty. A design approach that tries to capture the beauty of the land within the design may be too subtle to play well in magazines."


 

[Steve Kline]

First, Ian thanks for doing this. This is actually the first opinion piece from the site I've read. And I actually read all the comments before responding.

Now, on to my thoughts. I think Mac touched on what struck me the most - Function and Form. The truly great courses were designed by individuals that somehow or another understood or tapped into the function of a golf course (just as the great building architects did). When I think of the function of golf and the golf course I think the following:

1) It is a game, something I do for enjoyment, challenge, and competition. The course needs to reflect that and bring that out. There must be something in the great course that challenges you yet adds too your enjoyment of life.

2) The game is played outdoors. The course should reflect some sterile interior living space. It must reflect the setting that it is in. It must appear to be as one with the area surrounding it.

The form can be added after the function but never before for a truly lasting imact.

In regards to "magazine architecture," while it is function that truly separates the great from the not great it is form that the novice admirer/critic first recognizes. Function is hard to describe, harder to understand, and hardest to implement. So the novice admirer/critic always reverts back to form. Magazines, awards, etc. demanded a need for more novice admirer/critics to more quickly ascertain the "greatness" of the new designs, which led to a higher reliance on form over function. However, over time the novice can understand and appreciate function over form, but it takes repeated interactions with the function of the particular design for the novice to truly appreciate how great the function is. I think this is one of the reasons why it appears that the older course is mroe beloved (althought that isn't always the case).

I think there is another element to this as well - ego. Initially, many golf courses had great pieces of land to work. The early architects sought out to bring to light those natural features, calling out the function of the golf course. As time went less desirable properties were turned into golf courses. The architects felt this required more art to frame things since the natural framing wasn't already there. Because this form was more easily understood than the function, architects began to be recognized for that. This played to the architect's ego in that his creation was now more prized than the creation of nature. The architect then felt more confident that we could force onto the land would be better than what the land provided from the start - regardless of how great the initial site was. While not the same, I can see parallels of this in the article that MacWood wrote.

For me the greatest course I've ever played is Pine Valley. The function is truly astounding. It provided endless enjoyment while providing me an incredible challenge. The course was completely at one with its surroundings. When playing the course my dad and I constantly marveled at how each hole seemed as if it had been there forever and that not an ounce of dirt had to be moved to create it (I know that's true, but that's how I felt). But contrast that to so many other courses, perhaps a resort course at Pinehurst. The resort course lacks any connection with the surrounding elements that you see when driving from miles and miles away into the village. The course has no sandy waste, no scrub; it is wall to wall grass of perfect green. Instead of being surrounded by nature it is surrounded by condos. Instead of being sourrounded by nature it has containment mounds, which the architect instead for function (to keep balls in play) but actually keep function out because the course loses its connection with the surrounding elements. Because it lacks the connection with nature there is no sense of challenge, of conquering the land before me.

I am a pretty religious person and a scripture that stands out to me says that you will see God's beauty in all of nature around you. Nothing can be created that is more beautiful than the natural landforms of Pebble, Sandhills/Ballyneal, NGLA/Fisher's Island or Cruden Bay/North Berwick or TOC.

[Steve Kline]

JNC - I wrote my reply at the same time as you were writing your #16.

[JNC Lyon]

Thanks Steve, great post.  I'm guessing you mean to say "The course should NOT reflect some sterile interior living space."

I have class now, but I'll write a full reply later.  One quick thought: would you agree that "function" and elements like "difficulty" and "ruggedness" are not always mutually exclusive.  Many people would say a course like Pine Valley is not functional because of its difficult, but you and I seem to agree that courses like Pine Valley or Addington are highly functional.

[Steve Kline]

You are right that I meant "should not."

I agree that function and difficulty and ruggedness are not mutually exclusive. I think the architects like Fazio and Jones misunderstand function. I think they view it as framing, the correct angle of a dogleg, having an equal of dogleg rights and lefts, seeing the course before you, etc. I view those as form and completely missing the idea of function. In my opinion, function is why I do I play golf. Part of it is difficulty and ruggedness but that it doesn't have to be just that. I posted after playing Ballyneal that I didn't think it was that difficult of course (I played it in no wind). But, I found the functional value of it be quite high. I felt I had to overcome the elements of that surrounding land to score well. The greens required thought and creativity to attack them - or else a big score was going to come. I think Ballyneal in it's own way could be classed as difficult and rugged - certainly different than Pine Valley though. Ballyneal was challenging in a cerebral context of the right strategy to attack the hole under different conditions and pin placements. So many courses lack this cerebral challenge. When everything is right there in front of you why brother? I've already figure out the answer to the problem, now it is only a matter of my ability to pull off that which I know to be true. While for many good to great golfers that is enough of challenge - can I repeat the swing I have practice and hit the shot. But for most golfers who can't do that there needs to be something more, something cerebral about that game, something challenging to the mind.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom's article proves a point that I come back to time and time again when I think about golf courses architecture: the architect needs to get out of the way and let the land dictate.  He quotes architects like Fazio and Rees Jones who think of themselves as exulted artists.  They are not willing to exercise restraint or listen to what others have to say.  As Tom Fazio said in the Sports Illustrated article on about Golf Club Atlas, "I'm not interested in their opinion.  I don't read that stuff."  As a result, these architects often produce layouts that are awkward and artificial.  Furthermore, they de-emphasize things like routing and charm, making their golf courses much less enjoyable for traditional golfers.  The result is a set of courses that focus on grandeur and style instead of golf.

On the other hand, architects like Tom Doak, Kelly Blake Moran, Mike Young, and many, many others who post on this site are willing to listen to and discuss architecture with the amateurs on this site.  Consequently, their courses are less expensive to build, less expensive to play, and more likely to reflect their natural environment.  If the architect gets a rugged site, the course might be a challenge to play.  However, these courses are always walkable, functional, and ultimately enjoyable for an average player.

JNC,
Do you really believe that Doak and the others you mentioned build less expensive and more natural courses as a consequence of discussing architecture on this website? I've sure they've all learned things from participation here, but I would guess their general philosophies were developed long before we came along!

While I don't particularly appreciate Fazio's comment that you quoted, I also believe Fazio's style has changed at least a bit over time. His courses continue be expensive in many cases, but go play Gozzer Ranch and see if it fits your notion of awkward. Victoria National was not an especially "natural" site because of its previous uses, but I don't see it as looking especially artificial.  Fazio might spend a lot of money, but if anything I think he strives to make his courses a bit "too perfect" and not awkward enough.

[Mac Plumart]

Niall...

To answer your question as to how I regard The National Golf Links of America, I regard it as historic and a seminal moment in the world of golf.  I see the point you might be driving at, and that it was CB MacDonald's ideal course which was composed of "copies" of ideal links holes.  Regardless, the ideal course concept, the course itself, and the entire movement it seems to have spawned (the creation of golf courses worthy of the name in the United States) certainly have left their mark on the history of the game.  In my opinion, the course is extremely important and will never be forgotten.  HOWEVER, modern equipment might make it obsolete to test the very best players in the game.  

Regardless, it is one of the truly great golf courses that seems to fit the bill of getting better/more loved with age.  Note the current price of the Evangelist of Golf book, the uproar that building Sebonack right next door to it caused, and the 461 post/6659 views thread going around on this webiste right now titled, "The Creation of NGLA..."

But let's not get tied down to semantics.  This thread has too much good to offer and so much more to discuss in the context of the IMO piece.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I just spent a couple of days in Spain with Mike Wood, a fellow architect who is now evaluating courses on environmental grounds for the Golf Environment Institute.

Our project there has received many favorable comments for the routing and for how it uses the natural vegetation (oak trees) to effect on many holes.  But, there are also a few holes in the open, and everyone wonders what we will do with those.  Of course, the client wants us to find something that looks finished on opening day, but as Mike pointed out, what we've lost in recent years is the patience to landscape a property for the benefit of golfers 20 or 50 years from now.  We could easily plant some small oaks in places, and know that it will be many years before they add much to the landscape; but eventually they will add as much to it as the trees at Oak Hill do.  [And no, we won't plant them that thick!]

[JNC Lyon]

Tom's article proves a point that I come back to time and time again when I think about golf courses architecture: the architect needs to get out of the way and let the land dictate.  He quotes architects like Fazio and Rees Jones who think of themselves as exulted artists.  They are not willing to exercise restraint or listen to what others have to say.  As Tom Fazio said in the Sports Illustrated article on about Golf Club Atlas, "I'm not interested in their opinion.  I don't read that stuff."  As a result, these architects often produce layouts that are awkward and artificial.  Furthermore, they de-emphasize things like routing and charm, making their golf courses much less enjoyable for traditional golfers.  The result is a set of courses that focus on grandeur and style instead of golf.

On the other hand, architects like Tom Doak, Kelly Blake Moran, Mike Young, and many, many others who post on this site are willing to listen to and discuss architecture with the amateurs on this site.  Consequently, their courses are less expensive to build, less expensive to play, and more likely to reflect their natural environment.  If the architect gets a rugged site, the course might be a challenge to play.  However, these courses are always walkable, functional, and ultimately enjoyable for an average player.

JNC,
Do you really believe that Doak and the others you mentioned build less expensive and more natural courses as a consequence of discussing architecture on this website? I've sure they've all learned things from participation here, but I would guess their general philosophies were developed long before we came along!

While I don't particularly appreciate Fazio's comment that you quoted, I also believe Fazio's style has changed at least a bit over time. His courses continue be expensive in many cases, but go play Gozzer Ranch and see if it fits your notion of awkward. Victoria National was not an especially "natural" site because of its previous uses, but I don't see it as looking especially artificial.  Fazio might spend a lot of money, but if anything I think he strives to make his courses a bit "too perfect" and not awkward enough.

Andy,

I think Fazio's courses look awkward because they are perfect.  Bright white sand and clean, sculpted bunkers look un-natural and out of place anywhere.  His courses are too "sharp," to use Tom MacWood's term.  I agree that he can get it right sometimes, and courses like Victoria National appear to be exceptions to the rule.  However, many times his courses, along with those of other architects, are way overdone to the point that they are unappealing.

Regarding your first paragraph, I'm not sure if posting on GCA has affected their philosophies.  However, there is correlation between their willingness to discuss architecture with others and to build courses that are more functional than their exulted counterparts.  Willingness to deliberate and debate with fans of golf course architecture is a mark of higher thinking, and that shows through in their work.