News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ian Andrew

Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #50 on: March 09, 2012, 11:48:30 PM »
While on holiday last year I decided that I would read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. The book not only explained how and why new trends emerge but also broke down the factors and the people required for a trend to occur. I loved the book and found myself often applying the concepts back to my own business to see if I could influence my own future.

Gladwell describes the tipping point itself as that magical moment when something begins to spread like wildfire. It eventually got me thinking about golf architecture, looking at how Minimalism was finally able to push Modernism aside and wondering at what was the Tipping Point.

The populist appeal of Minimalist courses has exploded in the last 10 years. The next generation of architects are more rooted in this style than in Modernism. That makes this trend the future of architecture for some time to come. What fascinated me in retrospect after reading the book was how did Minimalism get to this point?

My first experience with Minimalism was a trip to Columbus in 1995 where I saw The Golf Club designed by Pete Dye. While odd in places, like the use of ponds, I still loved the way it sat on the land. Interestingly, my next trip took me to Michigan to see Crystal Downs, and on a side trip I saw a new course called High Pointe which really tweaked my interest in the concept of Minimalism.

All trends begin with an innovator, someone willing to step outside of convention and go their own way. The innovator would be Pete Dye. His choices in the 1960’s were absolutely revolutionary and created the foundation for the current crop of Minimalist architects to build from. Interestingly his innovations did not create an immediate and lasting trend, but simply developed the starting point. While many trends to appear to be overnight sensations, the reality is most take time to emerge.

It turned out to be the future generation of designers who worked for Pete that would play a much larger role in developing the trend than Pete himself. While his initial work remains inspirational, his move to Maximalism (modernism to the extreme) saw most key players start their own enterprises.
   
The first clear sign that architecture might be in for a major shift was Sand Hills. While it was not the first project for Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, nor the first minimalistic work built, it was the one that caught everyone’s attention. It received massive critical praise and was covered extensively by the golf magazines. While the architecture was refreshingly original, and the site was certainly unique, the notion of Bill and Ben finding a golf course had its own wonderful appeal creating some stickiness to the story. I’ll return to that concept later.

Every trend needs the Maven who finds the new places to go and see. The Maven in golf architecture terms is that person we trust to make a recommendation on whether we should travel to see it ourselves. We use them to make those decisions for us and often their opinions on architecture shape our opinions. While some would expect that the Mavens are the golf writer, they are not. The writer’s role is the connector. Most of the Mavens have found their way to architecture panels through recommendations of others who recognize their knowledge over their own.. They are the golfers who are far better travelled, read and informed than most. Tom Doak is the most famous of the Mavens and his book The Confidential Guide is seen by many to be the bible on the subject. Whether you agree or not with what’s written, the influence is undeniable.

Every trend needs a connector, someone who spreads the message far and wide, to help push the trend into the forefront. The connector is usually a person who reads about, hears about, or sees something they consider worthy of particular interest. They are the ones that get the message out to a greater audience through their network of friends. The golf magazines and architecture critics have long played a role, but now the internet has become far more efficient shortening the distance from Maven to consumer.

No trend can happen without having stickiness. Minimalism has many elements that have made it sticky. One of the appeals of Minimalism is golf’s love for tradition and its clear connections to the past. Another is the increased playability which addresses the fact that for most people find the game too hard. Another is the increase in options which has appeal in an era where more people desire to express themselves even in sport. Lastly the costs of the game have come into question and Minimalism represents a more cost effective alternative in tougher times.

Every concept needs the Salesman. I talked about Bill Coore’s ability to articulate the vision and Tom Doak’s influence as a Maven, but the Tipping Point was Bandon Dunes. The man who made Minimalism main steam or populist was Mike Keiser. He believed in Minimalism, he believed in his architects, he believed in a different way to present the game and the average consumer bought into the concept in a massive way. He has since taken that concept onto a number of successful projects and is now considered a key Maven because of his role.

The interesting thing about all trends is while they are enjoying their success, quietly somewhere the next trend is already beginning to emerge and look for the same critical players to bring it to the forefront.

In other words I think the watershed moment was Bandon Dunes.



Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #51 on: March 10, 2012, 12:59:31 AM »
Ian:  Can I put Maven on my business card?  [I don't think I will.]

I was going to say so before, but I agree with you that Bandon Dunes was the real tipping point.  It popularized and monetized a concept that previously was seen strictly as an outlier.  When I visited the resort to play Pacific Dunes 18 months after it opened, I realized it had already hosted more rounds of golf than Sand Hills had hosted in EIGHT YEARS.  And Bandon Dunes had hosted 150,000 rounds of golf in four years.

And that was right when our business suddenly took off.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2012, 04:00:03 AM »
I don't deny the importance of the Bandon courses, but I live near NYC and I am continually amazed how few people have played there, and many don't even know of the resort. That leads me to believe that the Streamsong project has the potential to be very impactful, especially if it becomes a popular east coast winter get-away destination for "guys golf trips" like Bandon.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 04:05:01 AM by Bill Brightly »

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2012, 06:15:51 AM »
think of it as Pine Valley on the ocean.

?!!  uh, road trip... Mulan Mashie here we come....
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #54 on: March 10, 2012, 06:30:26 AM »
Ian,

Great post.  Hard to argue with.  Perhaps part of the excitement of the Olympic project is the potential to fan the wildfire further and faster around the globe.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Ian Andrew

Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #55 on: March 10, 2012, 08:08:56 AM »
Jud,

I think the decision needed a lot of dominoes to fall, including the success of Castle Stuart, to put Gil in a position to win the project. I think by the time he got to the interview process, he and Tom were the most logical candidates to quite a few in the golf business (as Randy kept pointing design/build model made most sense). The question was whether past preconceptions would still carry the day.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2012, 09:24:32 AM »
Ian - excellent post No. 50, thanks.

Tom D - your point about the committee not wanting the Rio Olympics brand usurped/diminished was one I'd never thought of at all. Spot on, I think.

Ian, Tom - not to flog a dead horse, but I think the appeal of the minimalist ethos and aesthetic runs even deeper in the human soul/psyche: it is the magic of feeling that somehow nature herself has cared enough about our times of play and refreshment that she has provided (indeed, already contains within herself) a field of play.  

A romantic/airy notion I know -- but somehow I think it's true

Peter

« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 09:28:21 AM by PPallotta »

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2012, 09:33:45 AM »

To me, the Watershed Moment is the fact that a Non-Golf visionary group made the decision that they did not need the marketing hype that comes with the IMG model.

I said Non-Golf visionary to expound upon the notion that a select group of visonaries (those listed above) have been selecting this avenue for over a decade already. The difference is they were selecting those who they felt could carry out THEIR vision, the Build It and THey Will Come mindset.  And if that failed, well, it was their money that was at stake, not the CEO's of their corporation. 


Tim:

I am not sure you've got this quite right.

To me, the Rio2016 committee understood something that few outsiders seemed to recognize -- that the Rio Olympics is its own brand, and that it doesn't need a golf course design brand, in fact the project might be DIMINISHED by a same-old, same-old golf course design brand.  Obviously, the signature architects didn't see that one coming, in fact they are probably still have trouble relating to it.

That is not much different than the "visionaries" you cite.  Mike Keiser understood from the start that the Pacific Ocean was his real brand. He didn't need a name architect, so much as someone who would make the most of the beautiful land he'd bought.  And there was no doubt in his mind that a Nicklaus or Fazio course by the ocean would be following the herd, instead of leading it.  Likewise, Mark Parsinen recognized that his real brand was links golf in Scotland ... not a big name.

Dick Youngscap recognized that the Sand Hills were a brand of its own -- the logo pretty much proves it -- but he DID need Ben Crenshaw's name and reputation to help convince a few people it would work.

Signature golf design was never about golf ... it was about real estate.  Eventually, the guys who wanted to develop a reputation for GOLF realized they needed to hire somebody else.  Anyway, the real estate golf model is over, and I'm guessing the signature design model is close on its heels.

Tom, I think we are both saying the same thing although differently.  As you point out all those guys (the Visionaries) were individuals making the final decision.  With the IOC, the decision had to come from a committee that would have to own their final choice.

My hope is that this shows others (the Lemmings of the decsion making process) that product is actually the golf course and not the celebrity of the person designing it.

As for Branding, your analysis is spot on.  When you have something to sell that is ancellary to the golf course, you don't need to add the McSig to the equation.  If you don't, maybe you do.  Land planners hate to have a lake between the houses and the golf. They call this "double ammenitizing" the lot.  In their formulas, they may place a 30% premium on a water lot and a 20% premium on a golf lot but know they can't place a 50% premium on a golf/lake lot (probably why my house is on one).



Coasting is a downhill process

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2012, 10:52:43 AM »
Ian, TD and others,
You guys have stated so many really good points here and hopefully these things continue to evolve. 
I have read Tipping Point and Outliers and agree with the correlations being made.  But I think there is another issue mentioned in Outliers that will have significant affect on future golf design.  That issue is location.  I don't know that minimalism is the right word for me yet because so often I will see a project I really like and it has a "minimalist defined" look however it took a tremendous amount of earth moving to achieve. And as we look back one of our biggest problems in golf over the last 30 years is location, whether it be bad land ( would not allow efficient construction) or demographics.  I hope TD doesn't mind this example but I would assume the Rawls course would be a good example for this website.  I'm sure it's a good course with good strategies , shaping etc but I am assuming, emphasize assuming, it was a large dirt move and it is not the greatest location for golf and so I never hear it mentioned here. 
We are all after what this site calls a "minimalist look" but there will continue to be be instances where that look will require non minimalist actions. 
So I still say there are places where golf just isn't meant to be and no matter what is done the location is going to keep it that way.  I've worked in Central America for about 15 years and I appreciate the work but the fact is people will never go to Costa Rica, Panama or some of those countries primarily to play golf.  The winds, the heat and the seasonal rains don't create the world class golf environment.  None of us can change that. 
I have liked every Gil Hanse course I have played.  I am quite sure he will do a great job on the Olympic venue but location ( land type, climate, rainfall, language, etc)  will be critical in whether it is a watershed moment or not.
If I was betting, I would think the Doral project could be a bigger watershed moment.  I don't think people realize how many South Americans associate golf with Doral.  We know that location will bring the people.  JMO
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #59 on: March 10, 2012, 11:24:44 AM »
Ian, TD and others,
You guys have stated so many really good points here and hopefully these things continue to evolve. 
I have read Tipping Point and Outliers and agree with the correlations being made.  But I think there is another issue mentioned in Outliers that will have significant affect on future golf design.  That issue is location.  I don't know that minimalism is the right word for me yet because so often I will see a project I really like and it has a "minimalist defined" look however it took a tremendous amount of earth moving to achieve. And as we look back one of our biggest problems in golf over the last 30 years is location, whether it be bad land ( would not allow efficient construction) or demographics.  I hope TD doesn't mind this example but I would assume the Rawls course would be a good example for this website.  I'm sure it's a good course with good strategies , shaping etc but I am assuming, emphasize assuming, it was a large dirt move and it is not the greatest location for golf and so I never hear it mentioned here. 
We are all after what this site calls a "minimalist look" but there will continue to be be instances where that look will require non minimalist actions. 
So I still say there are places where golf just isn't meant to be and no matter what is done the location is going to keep it that way.  I've worked in Central America for about 15 years and I appreciate the work but the fact is people will never go to Costa Rica, Panama or some of those countries primarily to play golf.  The winds, the heat and the seasonal rains don't create the world class golf environment.  None of us can change that. 
I have liked every Gil Hanse course I have played.  I am quite sure he will do a great job on the Olympic venue but location ( land type, climate, rainfall, language, etc)  will be critical in whether it is a watershed moment or not.
If I was betting, I would think the Doral project could be a bigger watershed moment.  I don't think people realize how many South Americans associate golf with Doral.  We know that location will bring the people.  JMO

Mike:

Ten years ago I would have argued about the importance of Location, but no longer.  Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes were outliers in that respect, which managed to succeed in spite of such remote locations.  Barnbougle, too -- that business model just wouldn't work in the US, where the flights from Melbourne and Sydney to Launceston would be $500 r/t instead of $200, like they are from Chicago to Traverse City.

Location even doomed High Pointe, it's just on the wrong side of town, and a bit too far out of town to be a truly successful public course for the locals.  That 25-mile radius all the old feasibility studies used to draw was just wrong.  Not all circles are created equal.

I agree with you there are many places where the climate is just not conducive to great golf.  Playing conditions are one thing; comfortable weather for being outdoors for four hours is another.  I briefly considered proposing a nine-hole course with alternate tees for the Olympics -- with a field of sixty players, it would have worked just fine for them to go around twice in one day, and it sure as hell would have been a lot more sustainable.  But, the RFP insisted on 18 holes, plus an optional three-hole practice course.  I'm curious -- do people generally want to play 18 holes down there in Costa Rica, or would they be happier being outside for two hours at a time, instead of four?

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Watershed Moment in GCA?
« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2012, 02:40:19 PM »

Mike:

Ten years ago I would have argued about the importance of Location, but no longer.  Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes were outliers in that respect, which managed to succeed in spite of such remote locations.  Barnbougle, too -- that business model just wouldn't work in the US, where the flights from Melbourne and Sydney to Launceston would be $500 r/t instead of $200, like they are from Chicago to Traverse City.

Location even doomed High Pointe, it's just on the wrong side of town, and a bit too far out of town to be a truly successful public course for the locals.  That 25-mile radius all the old feasibility studies used to draw was just wrong.  Not all circles are created equal.

I agree with you there are many places where the climate is just not conducive to great golf.  Playing conditions are one thing; comfortable weather for being outdoors for four hours is another.  I briefly considered proposing a nine-hole course with alternate tees for the Olympics -- with a field of sixty players, it would have worked just fine for them to go around twice in one day, and it sure as hell would have been a lot more sustainable.  But, the RFP insisted on 18 holes, plus an optional three-hole practice course.  I'm curious -- do people generally want to play 18 holes down there in Costa Rica, or would they be happier being outside for two hours at a time, instead of four?

Tom,
I think Bandon had a couple of location factors in it's favor: soils, topography and climate.  There are just some really beautiful spots in the world that might have topography or ocean but no climate or soils etc.   Does that make sense?
As for Costa Rica:  people usually play early morning around 7am or in the late afternoon.  During the rainy season it varies.  The temps will usually be around 85-90 and become hotter once the sun is overhead but the wind helps greatly.   I think the most irritating factor for many are the winds.  They can blow all day at 45-50 sometimes.  Soils can also be an issue. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back