A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"

[JNC Lyon]

Steve,

Man versus nature is the basic of architectural concepts, and it is one of my favorites.  Ran used it to describe the challenge of Addington's 12th.  I found that challenge at Prestwick's 13th as well.  It's a long par four with a wide fairway and only one tiny pot bunker between the tee and the green.  However, the hole is one of the toughest fours anywhere because of the wild contours in the landing area and around the green.  The day I played, there was a heavy breeze in my face, and the green was pretty much unreachable in two.  Nevertheless, I had great fun playing the hole and battling the elements. 

This battle against nature is timeless.  It's why I always love to see the rare PGA Tour event with awful weather--it forces the players to adjust, be creative, and persevere.  As you say, this challenge of nature is a mental challenge rather than a physical challenge.  The architect who allows for nature to take lead brings this mental challenge to the forefront.

[Ed Oden]

I am no researcher.  But every now and then I will flip through archived issues of American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, etc. from the golden age while looking for information about something I'm interested in.  One thing that often jumps out at me is how similar those old periodicals are to those of today.  The format, the topics, the writing, the advertisements all seem to me to share a lot in common with modern golf magazines.  For example, the February 1917 Golf Illustrated article I posted on the Overhills thread (for some reason, the link no longer works) reads like a puff piece from a current golf rag, including course photographs that are clearly intended to be appealing.  Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

[Mac Plumart]

Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

Yes and yes.  I have been a long time student on human behaviors, specifically behavioral economics.  And this study has led me to believe that human beings are, essentially, the same over time.  It is just their circumstances are different.  Thought processes, wants, desires, egos, faults, insecurities, reactions to crisis, etc...very similar if not the exact same.  Ed, in response to your post's comparison...history repeats itself, right?  We've all heard that before...and I believe there is a reason for it.

[JNC Lyon]

I am no researcher.  But every now and then I will flip through archived issues of American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, etc. from the golden age while looking for information about something I'm interested in.  One thing that often jumps out at me is how similar those old periodicals are to those of today.  The format, the topics, the writing, the advertisements all seem to me to share a lot in common with modern golf magazines.  For example, the February 1917 Golf Illustrated article I posted on the Overhills thread (for some reason, the link no longer works) reads like a puff piece from a current golf rag, including course photographs that are clearly intended to be appealing.  Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

Ed,

I agree, many of the articles are of the same ilk in those early 20th Century magazines as those now.  However, I'm guessing the circulation of those magazines was much lower, and it seems today's magazines are much more ad-laden than those in the olden days.  The "Magazine Architecture" that Tom MacWood refers to creates holes that are geared for advertising purposes in the age of color photography and glossy magazines.  There are some similarities between old and new magazines, but there are major differences as well.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Mac, I'm with George on the definition of minimalism, or should I say, the ridiculous assumption that frilly edged bunkers is the tell tale.

The trend of minimalism is older than Doak, C&C etc. It's the whims of the day that are fads and are at risk of being outdated and eventually ridiculed.

I had one comment about the association with buildings. I agree with Ian in disagreeing with Tom, in that poor buildings usually don't stand the test of time. We love good buildings because they are smartly built, The same is true for great golf courses. But, until you experience that smarts, you might not appreciate them the way someone who visits frequently does.

[Ed Oden]

JNC, the circulation may have been much lower, but the target audience was almost identical.  And I've actually been amazed at both the quantity and sophistication of the advertising in the old periodicals.  I think advertisers and publishers knew exactly what they were doing back then.  And if they were in tune, then I suspect that at least some of the course owners, developers, architects, etc. who were placing ads and the subject of articles were similarly aware of the impact media could have on their business prospects.  I'm not saying that "magazine architecture" was as prevelant then as today.  But I'd be surprised if it didn't exist.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff, Mac, I'm with George on the definition of minimalism, or should I say, the ridiculous assumption that frilly edged bunkers is the tell tale.

Adam...I've read these posts a few times.  Maybe I am missing something, but I think we are all arguing the same point.  I take Jeff's comments to mean that just because someone puts a frilley edged bunker on a course doesn't mean they are minamalists.  They might want people to think they are, but that is not neccessarily the case.  And the casual golfer might be fooled into believing that the frilly edged bunker is the true sign of minamlism.  I think this is what Jeff meant by the badge of honor.  But, of course, we know that minamalism is much more than that.  And that is what I think you and George are saying.  So, aren't we all in agreement.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC, the circulation may have been much lower, but the target audience was almost identical.  And I've actually been amazed at both the quantity and sophistication of the advertising in the old periodicals.  I think advertisers and publishers knew exactly what they were doing back then.  And if they were in tune, then I suspect that at least some of the course owners, developers, architects, etc. who were placing ads and the subject of articles were similarly aware of the impact media could have on their business prospects.  I'm not saying that "magazine architecture" was as prevelant then as today.  But I'd be surprised if it didn't exist.

It does not surprise me that publishers and advertisers were just as shrewd as they are today.  It's not as if commercialism just materialized in the 1950s and has poisoned golf course architecture ever since.  Somehow, though, it seems like the courses of the Golden Age were much more functional, as we've defined it in this thread, than those built today.  What is the reason for that?

[Colin Macqueen]

Ian,

This idea of yours is a great thing in regards to developing this forum.  I have read almost all the Opinion pieces over the last couple of years.  Of course I did not nearly internalise the message(s).  This selecting out of pieces and having the informed folks on the forum dissect and discuss means I will go back and re-read those pieces and possibly get real insight from the contributors picking it apart. I do not have the experience/background to glean all I should from the In My Opinion section so this will be a real boon for me. I don't think I have the insights to contribute meaningfully but I will certainly learn a lot by following the discussions.

As someone (I think Mac P. suggested it would be neat if this could have a sub-section on the front page so access is easy and obvious).
Thanks a lot,
Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Who does it serve? That's the question, it seems to me.

Those 4 story museums from the 1400s in Venice, or the 5 story walk-ups in Little Italy in New York: in one sense, you can't get two more different kinds of buildings/architecture -- and yet, both have a 'human quality', i.e. they both fit our eyes and our sense of scale and proportion, and in this sense they are mainly about serving the needs of the people, for art or shelter as the case may be....which they both do and have done very well for a long long time.  On the other hand, the 60 story sky-scraper, who does it serve? Well in one sense, it serves people too -- but it is too big and tall and the elevator rides are too long and no one (really) wants to live in 400 square feet with windows that don't open (because 'we have air-conditioning') -- the scale and proportion is so off.  BUT they DO serve the needs and wants of developers and business and commerce, and do that very very well...and so not surprsingly it has become a world full of sky scrapers.

The tier two English courses that Sean profiles, the lesser known Colt courses that dot the countryside...modest, elegant, simple and inexpensive to maintain, providing smart quality golf -- they have served golfers/people for decades, and have done so very very well. The biggest and newest monstrosity in the desert that cost a fortune to build and a fortune to maintain and a fortune to play -- who does it serve? (Well, actually, in this climate it serves almost no one).

Peter  

[Ed Oden]

JNC, the circulation may have been much lower, but the target audience was almost identical.  And I've actually been amazed at both the quantity and sophistication of the advertising in the old periodicals.  I think advertisers and publishers knew exactly what they were doing back then.  And if they were in tune, then I suspect that at least some of the course owners, developers, architects, etc. who were placing ads and the subject of articles were similarly aware of the impact media could have on their business prospects.  I'm not saying that "magazine architecture" was as prevelant then as today.  But I'd be surprised if it didn't exist.

It does not surprise me that publishers and advertisers were just as shrewd as they are today.  It's not as if commercialism just materialized in the 1950s and has poisoned golf course architecture ever since.  Somehow, though, it seems like the courses of the Golden Age were much more functional, as we've defined it in this thread, than those built today.  What is the reason for that?

Do you think the shrewdness stopped with the publishers and advertisers?  I'm not convinced that golden age architects and developers were materially less savvy than today.  For example, there are a lot of pictures of Mackenzie, Hunter, Hollins et al showing people Cypress Point.  Most of them are taken from the 16th tee.  Coincidence?  I  doubt it.  They were not fools.  I suspect they knew that was the "money shot".  While I tend to agree that "magazine architecture" likely plays a larger role today than it did in the early 20th century, I think it's a mistake to assume the difference is anything more than one of degrees.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC, the circulation may have been much lower, but the target audience was almost identical.  And I've actually been amazed at both the quantity and sophistication of the advertising in the old periodicals.  I think advertisers and publishers knew exactly what they were doing back then.  And if they were in tune, then I suspect that at least some of the course owners, developers, architects, etc. who were placing ads and the subject of articles were similarly aware of the impact media could have on their business prospects.  I'm not saying that "magazine architecture" was as prevelant then as today.  But I'd be surprised if it didn't exist.

It does not surprise me that publishers and advertisers were just as shrewd as they are today.  It's not as if commercialism just materialized in the 1950s and has poisoned golf course architecture ever since.  Somehow, though, it seems like the courses of the Golden Age were much more functional, as we've defined it in this thread, than those built today.  What is the reason for that?

Do you think the shrewdness stopped with the publishers and advertisers?  I'm not convinced that golden age architects and developers were materially less savvy than today.  For example, there are a lot of pictures of Mackenzie, Hunter, Hollins et al showing people Cypress Point.  Most of them are taken from the 16th tee.  Coincidence?  I  doubt it.  They were not fools.  I suspect they knew that was the "money shot".  While I tend to agree that "magazine architecture" likely plays a larger role today than it did in the early 20th century, I think it's a mistake to assume the difference is anything more than one of degrees.

Even if architects were market savvy, which I'm sure they were, didn't their work focus more on the land, whereas today's work focuses often focuses on the architect? 

In many cases, architects were already wealthy and did not need their architecture practice to make a living. One exception was Ross, who was the most significant Golden Ager to make golf course architecture into a business.

[Ed Oden]

JNC, I rarely see things in black and white these days.  So I struggle with generalizations because I think they are all too often misused to draw conclusions that don't apply to real situations.  I suspect you are probably right.  Still, from what I can tell, the ODGs were pretty effective self-promoters.  So I am hesitant to make assumptions about the relative focus of golden age versus modern architects.

[Ben Voelker]

Ian,

Thanks for doing this.  I think this exercise is perfect for the discussion board.

I find it interesting that the conclusion is that architects see themselves as "artists" and that is the problem.  I think that's an interesting premise, but it seems to me that one could arrive at a nearly opposite conclusion.

I wonder if, in golf and building architecture, standardization of acceptable methodology and "standard of practice" over the past 30 years causes the loss of originality in the vast majority of those working in the field.  We have become TOO GOOD for our own good.  For example, we know the best materials (read: cheapest) for a particular type of building and the best drainage practices for golf courses.  It would be bizarre to do something outside of those known commodities today.  100 years ago, the experts didn't know and things could be tried that would never satisfy the strict standards of today.  This could be extended far beyond the example I have given.  In golf course architecture, we now have minimum playing corridors, no tee/green crossovers, cart paths, drainage, etc, etc.

My wife and I are living in Thailand and I had a conversation with her uncle while he was here, who is a successful architect in the US.  We were looking at a building that was being built that had some nice ornamental finishing on the facade.  He was chuckling about this and said, paraphrasing, that this never would happen at home because everything on a building serves some purpose.  There's no room for experimentation.  It's too expensive and too risky when we already know what's best.

[Steve Kline]

Ian,

Thanks for doing this.  I think this exercise is perfect for the discussion board.

I find it interesting that the conclusion is that architects see themselves as "artists" and that is the problem.  I think that's an interesting premise, but it seems to me that one could arrive at a nearly opposite conclusion.

I wonder if, in golf and building architecture, standardization of acceptable methodology and "standard of practice" over the past 30 years causes the loss of originality in the vast majority of those working in the field.  We have become TOO GOOD for our own good.  For example, we know the best materials (read: cheapest) for a particular type of building and the best drainage practices for golf courses.  It would be bizarre to do something outside of those known commodities today.  100 years ago, the experts didn't know and things could be tried that would never satisfy the strict standards of today.  This could be extended far beyond the example I have given.  In golf course architecture, we now have minimum playing corridors, no tee/green crossovers, cart paths, drainage, etc, etc.

My wife and I are living in Thailand and I had a conversation with her uncle while he was here, who is a successful architect in the US.  We were looking at a building that was being built that had some nice ornamental finishing on the facade.  He was chuckling about this and said, paraphrasing, that this never would happen at home because everything on a building serves some purpose.  There's no room for experimentation.  It's too expensive and too risky when we already know what's best.

Like Mac said I think we are all agreeing here. I read Ben's comments, specifically the part about minimum playing corridors, no tee/green crossovers, etc. hear function. Modern architects that don't get it and don't design inspiring courses think those things create the function of the golf course and that they then bring art to it to make it pretty. But those things aren't function. They are mere components that may or may not allow the function to shine.

The old guys were surely self promoters too. And, when I see pictures of Mackenzie's original work I think or how artistic the bunkers are. But those bunkers fit in with the surrounding land. He and the developers of Cypress would have been fools not to use the 16th in their promotions. But the artistry already existed - who could create such a confluence of land and sea as that. MacKenzie merely brought the function to it necessary for golf so that the art that already existed could shine. Contrast that with today with Trump (probably the worst case scenario) who totally destroys the function for the artistry of a gigantic waterfall. Trump is quintessential form over function.

[JNC Lyon]

If anything, modern construction techniques have made these "architect as artist" fellows even more entitled and exulted.  If they are using modern techniques have automatically made their courses better than those of the Golden Age.  I always think of Robert Trent Jones, Jr.'s comments about Donald Ross being an inferior architect who only built one type of green and one type of golf course.  When you have an architect like RTJ Jr. completely dismissing an architect like Ross, there seems to be a problem with the modern architect's attitude.

[Kyle Harris]

If anything, modern construction techniques have made these "architect as artist" fellows even more entitled and exulted.  If they are using modern techniques have automatically made their courses better than those of the Golden Age.  I always think of Robert Trent Jones, Jr.'s comments about Donald Ross being an inferior architect who only built one type of green and one type of golf course.  When you have an architect like RTJ Jr. completely dismissing an architect like Ross, there seems to be a problem with the modern architect's attitude.

Disagree.

RTJ, Jr. is comparing apples to oranges. They both worked under different auspices and circumstances.

It's difficult to fault RTJ, Jr. though, as the perception of his architecture is often gauged against that of Ross. He has to survive and there is the effect of dual responsibility, the critics and the artists both must know their place.

[JNC Lyon]

If anything, modern construction techniques have made these "architect as artist" fellows even more entitled and exulted.  If they are using modern techniques have automatically made their courses better than those of the Golden Age.  I always think of Robert Trent Jones, Jr.'s comments about Donald Ross being an inferior architect who only built one type of green and one type of golf course.  When you have an architect like RTJ Jr. completely dismissing an architect like Ross, there seems to be a problem with the modern architect's attitude.

Disagree.

RTJ, Jr. is comparing apples to oranges. They both worked under different auspices and circumstances.

It's difficult to fault RTJ, Jr. though, as the perception of his architecture is often gauged against that of Ross. He has to survive and there is the effect of dual responsibility, the critics and the artists both must know their place.

I"m not sure I understand why it's unfair to compare RTJ Jr. to Ross.  They are both building golf courses that serve similar functional purposes.  When I play a course like Kaluhyat in Central New York, I'm going it to compare to the great layouts in the region, such as Ross' Teugega or Emmet/Rayner's Leatherstocking, in terms of functionality.  In this comparison, his work does not match up well. Kaluhyat is unwalkable, often one-dimensional in terms of strategy, and is overpopulated with hazards.

He should try to draw influence from the great architects of the past.  Instead, he tries to defend his own work by tearing down the work of others.

The "apples to oranges" argument is more of an excuse for inferior architecture.  I think we use it reassure ourselves that certain types of architecture are not better or worse, just different.

[Kyle Harris]

I think you're generalizing golf architecture.

Are you saying that Ross's assignment and clients at say, Oak Hill, are the same and therefore comparable to Robert Trent Jones Jr.'s assignment at say, Princeville?

You do realize that golf architects, both THEN and NOW, are foremost responsible to meeting their client's needs, right? Which plays right into RTJ, Jr.'s point: in certain lights, one could paint Ross as the inferior architect. You're committing the same fallacy in defending Ross that RTJ is committing in criticizing Ross.

[Mac Plumart]

KBM...

Perhaps you strayed off topic, but perhaps not.

I think you touch on some key topics.  To me the most notable is that golf courses are seen as a business enterprise to many.  I personally think that can be a bad way to view golf courses and, arguably, has been the catalyst for bad times in the golfing world.  To take the opposite approach, some of the greatest golf courses in the history of the world were clearly stated to NOT be profitable business...rather places for lovers of the game to simply golf.  Pine Valley, The Golf Club, and The National Golf Links of America are examples of those types of courses.

Nevertheless, this business aspect of the game and courses might be THE catalyst to magazine architecture as these endeavors need the "money shot" to sell the sizzle in magazines, marketing brochures, and the like.  I'll use Cougar Point in Kiawah as an example of this.  Here is a picture I took while on the course...



It looks pretty good, doesn't it.  Peaceful, secluded, interesting shot into the green, etc.  Well, to be frank, the course is really bad...but pop that picture out there and people will be interested to check it out...me included.  The "magazine architecture" hole sold me on giving it a shot.  But the course itself will preclude from me from ever playing it again.  To be specific, the routing is awful, it isn't secluded at all, holes and concepts are repetative...the bottom line is that they didn't have ample contiguous/continous tracts of land to build a proper course and they piecemealed this thing together to get a collection of golf holes rather than a golf course.

But they've got the money shot and they are selling that.

[JNC Lyon]

I think you're generalizing golf architecture.

Are you saying that Ross's assignment and clients at say, Oak Hill, are the same and therefore comparable to Robert Trent Jones Jr.'s assignment at say, Princeville?

You do realize that golf architects, both THEN and NOW, are foremost responsible to meeting their client's needs, right? Which plays right into RTJ, Jr.'s point: in certain lights, one could paint Ross as the inferior architect. You're committing the same fallacy in defending Ross that RTJ is committing in criticizing Ross.

I understand that every golf course built needs to meet the specific demands of the client.  Therefore, Oak Hill and Kaluhyat are not perfectly comparable because they were built for different client demands.  However, I think we can compare how well these golf courses met client demands.

I can speak all day about how Oak Hill's two golf courses are perfect layouts for a private membership of serious golfers.  I think Ross' layouts there met their demands perfectly.  In Kaluhyat's case, I don't see how a course that is (a) nearly unwalkable, (b) laden with water hazards that slow down play, (c) overly difficult for the resort population that plays the course, and (d) expensive to build and therefore very expensive to play.

Kaluhyat's best comparison in the area is Leatherstocking, because both layouts were designed as resort courses associated with expensive hotels.  Leatherstocking functions much better as a public/resort layout than Kaluhyat, mostly because of the playability differences that I mention above.

Moreover, golf courses built under different conditions can be compared.  While the Oak Hill-Kaluhyat comparison is far from perfect, it is still possible.

[Kyle Harris]

I think you're generalizing golf architecture.

Are you saying that Ross's assignment and clients at say, Oak Hill, are the same and therefore comparable to Robert Trent Jones Jr.'s assignment at say, Princeville?

You do realize that golf architects, both THEN and NOW, are foremost responsible to meeting their client's needs, right? Which plays right into RTJ, Jr.'s point: in certain lights, one could paint Ross as the inferior architect. You're committing the same fallacy in defending Ross that RTJ is committing in criticizing Ross.

I understand that every golf course built needs to meet the specific demands of the client.  Therefore, Oak Hill and Kaluhyat are not perfectly comparable because they were built for different client demands.  However, I think we can compare how well these golf courses met client demands.

I can speak all day about how Oak Hill's two golf courses are perfect layouts for a private membership of serious golfers.  I think Ross' layouts there met their demands perfectly.  In Kaluhyat's case, I don't see how a course that is (a) nearly unwalkable, (b) laden with water hazards that slow down play, (c) overly difficult for the resort population that plays the course, and (d) expensive to build and therefore very expensive to play.

Kaluhyat's best comparison in the area is Leatherstocking, because both layouts were designed as resort courses associated with expensive hotels.  Leatherstocking functions much better as a public/resort layout than Kaluhyat, mostly because of the playability differences that I mention above.

Moreover, golf courses built under different conditions can be compared.  While the Oak Hill-Kaluhyat comparison is far from perfect, it is still possible.

John:

You have to qualify these statements. As a critic, you kill your credibility if you attempt to speak for everybody. Leatherstocking works for you as a resort course. Even resorts target different clients and patronage. There are numerous golfers out there that will thump their chest with pride about getting their ass handed to them by a golf course designed by one of the Jones boys, and will gladly hand over a sum to do it.

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

I understand what you are saying.  I guess I'm used to writing for school where "qualifying statements" is death.  However, I think some of my statements don't need qualifying.  Kaluhyat's routing is inferior to the courses I named.  There are long walks between holes, individual holes are detached from one another, and RTJ makes no attempt at creating flow.  The course seems to be 18 holes strung across a large swath of land.  I understand courses are constructed in different times and under different circumstances.  However, I'm guessing the owners never asked him for a bad routing.  In magazine architecture, a designer can build one photogenic hole and not even worry about the routing.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I understand what you are saying.  I guess I'm used to writing for school where "qualifying statements" is death.  However, I think some of my statements don't need qualifying.  Kaluhyat's routing is inferior to the courses I named.  There are long walks between holes, individual holes are detached from one another, and RTJ makes no attempt at creating flow.  The course seems to be 18 holes strung across a large swath of land.  I understand courses are constructed in different times and under different circumstances.  However, I'm guessing the owners never asked him for a bad routing.  In magazine architecture, a designer can build one photogenic hole and not even worry about the routing.

Bad routing, to whom? From what position of authority and knowledge are you able to make those statements? Have you asked RTJ, Jr?

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

I understand what you are saying.  I guess I'm used to writing for school where "qualifying statements" is death.  However, I think some of my statements don't need qualifying.  Kaluhyat's routing is inferior to the courses I named.  There are long walks between holes, individual holes are detached from one another, and RTJ makes no attempt at creating flow.  The course seems to be 18 holes strung across a large swath of land.  I understand courses are constructed in different times and under different circumstances.  However, I'm guessing the owners never asked him for a bad routing.  In magazine architecture, a designer can build one photogenic hole and not even worry about the routing.

Bad routing, to whom? From what position of authority and knowledge are you able to make those statements? Have you asked RTJ, Jr?

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.  I think it's a bad routing, and I know other critics agree. It's a poor routing in that there is no flow to it.  he routing is fractured and choppy.  It makes no place for walking golf, which is inexcusable because the terrain is benign.  If you want a golf course that (a) is walkable, and (b) has a clear flow between holes, Kaluhyat is deficient. 

I'm not sure what "authority" I need here.  I've studied golf course architecture fairly extensively, and I understand what makes a good routing.  I can compare Kaluhyat to other courses in the region, particularly other modern layouts.  In terms of routing, it is inferior to other public courses. I have not spoken to RTJ, Jr., nor do I think need to to make a judgment about Kaluhyat's routing.