You have been pretty nasty to recent UK architects. Why?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

There is widespread criticism of Martin Hawtree for his proposed work at the Old Course before it has been completed. His role in the Trump Scotland course has been criticised negatively for every reason from association with Trump to every aspect of design.

On the whole, this site has a general dislike of Donald Steel and everything he has done (not least a disdain which spells his name incorrectly).

Would you have preferred it that Rees Jones got the remodelling job at St Andrews, or Fazio had won the contract to develop the site north of Aberdeen?

I am beginning to get the feel that there are 1,000 people out there who feel they could do it better than the two or three who are actually able to maintain a golf course designer's practice.

Before you criticise (especially without playing), declare your credentials for making your disparaging remarks.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
In fairness I think most people have the view that isn't the person who is doing the work but rather that the work was considered and is now being implemented at all. The press release went out on Friday and they have already ripped up around the Road Hole bunker on the Monday. Now that is sneaky.

[Alex Miller]

This seems pretty unfair. Hasn't DMK been praised quite a bit, and deservedly so?

Also agree with Neil's point.

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

On the contrary, I think it is the apologists, the polite, and the inactive such as yourself that have some explaining to do.  

In Australia 10 years ago, Tony Cashmore had several consulting jobs on sandbelt courses.  People with an interest in golf course architecture were very vocal in their criticism of his poor work and he no longer has any consulting jobs on Australia's better courses.  

Sorry to go over old ground but maybe if the English posters on this site had been more vocal of Hawtree's work over the last 10 years, The Old Course wouldn't be in the pickle it is in now.  

And if you think that you need credentials to tell that Hawtree's re-design work is horrible then I don't know what to say.  It takes no degree in golf course architecture to work out that if a course has 18 greens that are round or oval in shape and an architect re-designs two of them - one in theshape of a kidney bean and the other in the shape of an hourglass - then he has no respect for the existing golf course.  This isn't rocket science level of stuff, you are qualified to make this observation. 

[Sean_A]

While I don't think Hawtree is the greatest archie out there, I do think he gets an undeserved wrap from this site and much of the time folks don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't have clue about the remit, budgets, no go issues etc.  

It would seem (I haven't seen the course) from the comments of many that Trump Aberdeen is a home run.  Isn't this the first time Hawtree had a great site to work on in trying to create something of his own?  He has also been involved in countless fairly small projects or projects on land that is very mediocre.

Then there is the criticism of not fitting his work into the existing course.  To me, this is entirely a matter of opinion.  Taking Birkdale's par 5 17th for example.  It is the most interesting green on the course, yet folks curse it because the green doesn't fit the other 17.  I say so what?  If we listened to nay sayers on this issue North Berwick's 16th green wouldn't exist.  Huntercombe's 4th wouldn't exist.  Pennard's 7th wouldn't exist.  The list goes on of great greens that folks seemingly don't care for because they don't "fit".  To me this is a poor excuse for eliminating daring architecture. 

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Ciao  

[David_Elvins]

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Sean,

You run with the line a lot but:

1. I have visited 7 clubs with redesign work by Hawtree and at 6 of them, the work not in keeping with the rest of the course.  The idea that the committee and budget are to blame EVERY TIME is stretching the laws of probability.  Poor architects use the committee and the restrictions of the job as an excuse OFTEN. 

2. Few committees micromanage things such as green shape and contouring around greens - an area that he does poorly and the aea he is being asked to work on at The Old Course.   

[David Davis]

While Trump may well be a home run don't forget it was not a renovation and the shaper might just have a lot to do with it (in fact I know it for sure), there is far too many examples of poor renovation work from Hawtree. I personally am not familiar with all his work, however, here in NL the work done at De Pan a classic heathland course really and truly is poor and uncharacteristic. I can almost guarantee that if I walked anyone on this site through the course and asked you after which greens didn't fit you could see it only having seen it once.

Does that scare me? Yes. Does the fact that he's going to do renovation work at Kennemer another great links course in NL scare me. Absolutely! These are two of my favorite courses in the country I live in, not my home courses and I would wish far better for them.

[Ben Sims]

Let's all be honest and call this what it is, a business move.  Martin Hawtree gets to put his name on arguably the best known golf course on the planet.  He gets to do this not long after he finished building what his client calls "the greatest golf course in the world."  Is there any way that this isn't a great way to promote his name, especially outside the business?

I don't know him or the discussions behind closed doors.  I've never seen any of his work.  But as noted above, releasing the news on a Friday (historically the best day to release news and minimize blowback) that the most revered golf course on earth is getting renovated is suspect enough.  That the work is beginning within 72 hours of releasing the news is even more suspect.

I think this whole thing is a farce.  And I can't think of any single reason why The Old Course needs working on.  TOC just isn't like the rest, even the most venerable of the old guard.  It is above that.

[Mark Pritchett]

On the whole, this site has a general dislike of Donald Steel and everything he has done (not least a disdain which spells his name incorrectly).

I really enjoyed Primland and hope to see some more of Mr. Steel's work. 

[Brent Hutto]

So is it fair to speculate that any architect associated with the making of noticeable changes to a famous course will be disparaged by the most vocal contributors to this forum?

The general impression I get is that renovations in the sense of frank changes are basically considered hack work. Acceptable employment for an architect would be either designing ones own course from scratch (although then an argument will be advanced that the quality of the course is entirely due to the contractor or Caterpillar operator) or searching up documention to prove that one is undoing previous changes to the course.

It does seem in all fairness that our little group might consider making allowances for cases in which the owner of a golf course are absolutely going to make changes no matter whether we like it or not. In such situations, surely there's valid critical commentary possible on the merits of the resulting features. Instead we just dismiss it as crap before even seeing it.

Is it not possible that an architect hired to change such-and-such greens at The Old Course might do a better or worse job with those changes? Or is the only Treehouse-approved response to such a remit an outright refusal to participate in such sacrilege?

[Scott Warren]

Dave,

2. Few committees micromanage things such as green shape and contouring around greens - an area that he does poorly and the aea he is being asked to work on at The Old Course.

One of the most ham-fisted things I have ever seen on a golf course was Hawtree's redesigned 6th green at Royal Melbourne East.

150m away sits the subtle, effective, quite natural and understated 5th green - a fine example of what the two courses at Royal Melbourne possess for greens.

With that in full sight of where he was working on the 6th there was a busy, contrived and visually jarring mess.

That the same firm/person is entrusted with making sympathetic changes to the Road Hole and High (In) [aka the Eden] on The Old Course is staggering.

I also don't accept Sean's line that an architect who carries out poor work that happens to be what a club has asked of him is without blame.

A golf course architect is a businessman, but he is also a craftsman who - if he elects to carry out shameful work so as to earn some coin - should have to live with the consequences of his business decisions.

[Paul_Turner]

Mark

Tom Fazio and Rees Jones have come under far more criticism through the years on GCA than Martin Hawtree .   There is no anti-UK architect bias and any architect would have been lambasted here for altering the Old Course.

I've criticized Hawtree a lot because he's redone so many Colt courses in the past 5-10 years with variable results.  And I disliked the way Lahinch was apparently promoted as an authentic Mackenzie restoration when it was nothing of the sort.

And it's a poor argument to keep blaming the members/clients for poor decisions at various clubs when the one constant is the architect.

Steel was rightly criticized for his clumsy work on the Eden which went through with hardly a grumble in the golfing world back in the 90s.

[Sean Walsh]

Brent,

This situation is a little different.  First of all a vague description of changes appears in the press on a Friday and then on Monday of the next week work has commenced.  No consultation (that I have heard of, and I presume if there had been this discussion group has enough ears to the ground that we would have heard of it), no detailed plans, no serious explanation of why these changes are needed.

This would be bad enough on a historically significant Members or private course but in this case it is on a course owned by the good folk of St Andrews.  Surely those people that are members of the local golf clubs and hold a links pass should be entitled to some opportunity for input in regard to changes at their own course.

If the build up to all of this hadn't been so clandestine we would be arguing specifics of the changes rather than vague generalisations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I hear you.

I look at things a little differently.

Martin Hawtree didn't simply make an inadvertant turn into the driveway of these clubs, he was invited in.

Which means that the club had a purpose before Martin Hawtree or any other architect set foot on the property.

It's the clubs which have an agenda.
A predetermined plan to alter the course.
They may not know or have the specifics detailed, but, they've decided what they want to do with their course.

Martin Hawtree or any other architect is merely the instrument, the professional instrument for that club to carry out that predetermined mission, in generala or specifically.

[David_Elvins]

Which means that the club had a purpose before Martin Hawtree or any other architect set foot on the property.
It's the clubs which have an agenda.
A predetermined plan to alter the course.
They may not know or have the specifics detailed, but, they've decided what they want to do with their course.

Pat,

If a club has an agenda to "solve a boundary issue" and uses an architect that is an "expert on the course's original architect" and he builds a new green that has ZERO resemblence to either the other greens on the course or the work of the original architect, then this poor work reflects mostly on the architect, not the club.

Likewise if a club has an agenda to improve safety, lengthen a course, etc etc.  None of these agendas inhibit an architect from actually doing some decent work

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If a club has an agenda to "solve a boundary issue" and uses an architect that is an "expert on the course's original architect" and he builds a new green that has ZERO resemblence to either the other greens on the course or the work of the original architect, then this poor work reflects mostly on the architect, not the club.

David, you must not have much experience at the Green Committee or Board level at clubs.

Do you think that a club invites an architect in, defines the mission, then gives the architect Carte Blanche in terms of artistic license with no oversight ?  ?  ?
That the club doesn't require the architect to submit plans and cost estimates ?

That the architect just goes ahead and does whatever he pleases and the club just pays the bills that roll in ?

C'mon, you know that the club HAS to approve the architect's recommendations and that the club has to get approval to fund the project.

The architect is merely the professional instrument for the club's work

Likewise if a club has an agenda to improve safety, lengthen a course, etc etc.  None of these agendas inhibit an architect from actually doing some decent work

ONLY AFTER the club approves the plans and costs.
NOTHING gets done without prior plan and budget approval.

In the ultimate, the club, not hired vendors, are the custodians of the the golf course.

[Adam Lawrence]

Then there is the criticism of not fitting his work into the existing course.  To me, this is entirely a matter of opinion.  Taking Birkdale's par 5 17th for example.  It is the most interesting green on the course, yet folks curse it because the green doesn't fit the other 17.  I say so what?  If we listened to nay sayers on this issue North Berwick's 16th green wouldn't exist.  Huntercombe's 4th wouldn't exist.  Pennard's 7th wouldn't exist.  The list goes on of great greens that folks seemingly don't care for because they don't "fit".  To me this is a poor excuse for eliminating daring architecture. 
  

The problem with this view (which I share) is that Martin himself thinks Birkdale's 17th is OTT and a mistake and is proposing to rebuild it! Personally I like the green and think it shows that most of the other greens on the course are a wee bit dull.

[David_Elvins]

David, you must not have much experience at the Green Committee or Board level at clubs.

Pat,

I have had first hand involvement in the re-design process at more than 1/2 a dozen of Australia's better clubs.  I understand the process.  

C'mon, you know that the club HAS to approve the architect's recommendations and that the club has to get approval to fund the project.

The problem Pat, is the gap between what appears on a plan and what gets implemented on the ground.  A plan can look fantastic, a golf course architect can win a committee over by getting them to close their eyes and imagethe smell of freshly cut grass, but at the end of the day, the committee doesn't know what they have until it is built.  And the better the golf course, the greater the amount of subtleties required in the design and the less relevance a plan has.  

In the ultimate, the club, not hired vendors, are the custodians of the the golf course.

Of course Pat, I agree with you on that.  It is the membership of a club that determines how good their course is in the long run, not the architect.  But that does not mean we cannot attribute re-design work to an architect and judge the quality of his work as well.  

[Sean_A]

David

I think where we differ is you presumably categorize style as part of competent architecture.  To me, style has little to do with competence and more to do with personal opinion.  Competence to me is about the function of a hole; the nuts and bolts, not how it looks (within reason of course).

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

David

I think where we differ is you presumably categorize style as part of competent architecture.  To me, style has little to do with competence and more to do with personal opinion.  Competence to me is about the function of a hole; the nuts and bolts, not how it looks (within reason of course).

Ciao

Sean,

I enjoy your point of view and understand where you are coming from.  But I would love you to go and play more courses such as Swinley Forrest or Royal Melbourne that has a coherent, elegant style from start to finish and see if you think it adds anything to the experience. 

Besides, architecture by definition has to have a visual artistic component that is independent of function.  If you want to discount this visual component you are not getting or studying the full architectural experience. 

[Sean_A]

David

I think where we differ is you presumably categorize style as part of competent architecture.  To me, style has little to do with competence and more to do with personal opinion.  Competence to me is about the function of a hole; the nuts and bolts, not how it looks (within reason of course).

Ciao

Sean,

I enjoy your point of view and understand where you are coming from.  But I would love you to go and play more courses such as Swinley Forrest or Royal Melbourne that has a coherent, elegant style from start to finish and see if you think it adds anything to the experience. 

Besides, architecture by definition has to have a visual artistic component that is independent of function.  If you want to discount this visual component you are not getting or studying the full architectural experience. 

David

I am all for a coherent, elegant style, its just that my opinion of what that is may differ from yours etc etc.  I like a few out there holes on every course - something folks believe is controversial.   

Its quite rare to find a GB&I course of note which doesn't have some jarring aesthetic aspect in the main because they have been tinkered with endlessly or were even built with visual problems.  Funny you raise Swinley as an example.  While I don't mind the placement of the new bunkers on 18, the look is quite poor imo.  The pond on the par 5 too is very aesthetically dubious.   

The last non-home course of note I played which scored high on aesthetics was Sunny Old.  Even at Sunny Old there are spots which make me cringe, but I can live with it if I believe the architecture is sound.  As on Swinley's 18th, I can only presume others think these spots look good.  Its not as if Sunny doesn't have the money to put things right.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

David

I am all for a coherent, elegant style, its just that my opinion of what that is may differ from yours etc etc.  I like a few out there holes on every course - something folks believe is controversial.   

If you don't like the look of Swinley 18 then I think your judgement is sound.  It does stick out like a saw thumb.  I am not a huge fan of the Hawtree bunkers at Sunningdale either but agree that the architecture is generally sound. 
[/quote]

But at the end of the day, we are talking about the top 50 or so courses in the universe and they should be judged against perfection, not what common folk like us would be able to endure playing for the rest of our lives. 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Then there is the criticism of not fitting his work into the existing course.  To me, this is entirely a matter of opinion.  Taking Birkdale's par 5 17th for example.  It is the most interesting green on the course, yet folks curse it because the green doesn't fit the other 17.  I say so what?  If we listened to nay sayers on this issue North Berwick's 16th green wouldn't exist.  Huntercombe's 4th wouldn't exist.  Pennard's 7th wouldn't exist.  The list goes on of great greens that folks seemingly don't care for because they don't "fit".  To me this is a poor excuse for eliminating daring architecture. 
  

The problem with this view (which I share) is that Martin himself thinks Birkdale's 17th is OTT and a mistake and is proposing to rebuild it! Personally I like the green and think it shows that most of the other greens on the course are a wee bit dull.

The 17th green is a bit more racy that the others, but as Adam wrote, they are all a bit dull (all rebuilt by Hawtree incidentally). I found it difficult, especially with the front pin position, but it was playable and not too jarring in my opinion. If I hadn't heard about it before the Open, I don't think I would have viewed it as being out of sync with the other 17 greens.

Here's what Hawtree wrote himself: "There are issues which need addressing. What was built is not what I'd originally conceived. I didn't really want the spectator mounds; the R&A did, and the club found some of the contouring a bit too 'sporting'".

Should he have stood his ground and walked away? Personally, I think he should have held firm; it doesn't look too good for his CV to have to redo work a few years later, when he knew the initial works were flawed.

[Sean_A]

David

I am all for a coherent, elegant style, its just that my opinion of what that is may differ from yours etc etc.  I like a few out there holes on every course - something folks believe is controversial.   

If you don't like the look of Swinley 18 then I think your judgement is sound.  It does stick out like a saw thumb.  I am not a huge fan of the Hawtree bunkers at Sunningdale either but agree that the architecture is generally sound. 

But at the end of the day, we are talking about the top 50 or so courses in the universe and they should be judged against perfection, not what common folk like us would be able to endure playing for the rest of our lives. 
[/quote]

David

Well, at least thats two of us that think my judgement is sound.  Can you speak on my behalf to my wife? 

Brian

This is likely where were depart from others.  I don't feel that strongly about any architecture.  It is readily apparent that many do and are willing to bash others in voicing those opinions.  I don't mind mind a good kicking if the evidence is presented fairly and knowledgably.  Usually, this isn't the case and its more a matter of opinion or trial by hearsay.  The kickers usually don't have any say so they kick harder.   

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

The R&A have a few architects in their membership, not sure about Martin Hawtree but Donald Steele and Martin Ebert are certainly members.