New Technologies vs Utilitarianism

[Don_Mahaffey]

Utilitarianism (noun) – the belief that the value of an action or an object lies in its usefulness.

In golf, we are always awash with the latest greatest new technology. This year’s irons or drivers are better then last years because of some new technological advancement.
Golf course management tools like mowers and irrigation components are always sold as  better because of the development of new technologies.

There is a thread here on the front page somewhere that asks the question whether golf architecture is art or science. I believe great golf course architecture is art supported by science. I believe the creative aspect, the artistic aspect, should be what drives much of design, but that it has to be underpinned by science. 
It’s the science that I sometimes struggle with, or maybe not just the science but the entire non-artistic (I didn’t say non-creative because I think we can find very creative solutions to non-artistic problems) segment of the construction and maintenance required to showcase the art.

I think for new technology to have value, it needs to not only be innovative, but also have value innovation. It needs to be more USEFUL then what it hopes to replace. It needs to be utilitarian. Too often we accept new products which boast of new technology or innovation without asking is they are more utilitarian then what we presently have. We should be asking if these mowers, irrigation components, fertilizers, seeds…etc are actually better then what we have before we just accept that what is the latest is also the greatest. This idea would seem to be common sense, a practical approach, but I find it to be not all that common at all.
When Jobs and Wozniak developed the first Apple computer, they didn’t use new technology, the used existing technology and developed a more utilitarian machine. They were not the first to develop a PC, they just put it together in a more utilitarian way, they made it more useful.

I am in the formative stages of an irrigation study where I believe I will prove, at least to myself and others with an open mind, that we have reached a point with overhead irrigation where more is not necessarily better if we use uniformity in the rootzone (not the surface) to determine the utility of an irrigation system.
I believe golf course management needs value innovation and utility. Golf needs creative ways of using existing technology to create products that are more useful. 

[RJ_Daley]

I am in the formative stages of an irrigation study where I believe I will prove, at least to myself and others with an open mind, that we have reached a point with overhead irrigation where more is not necessarily better if we use uniformity in the rootzone (not the surface) to determine the utility of an irrigation system.

So Don, does this mean more scientific investigation of soil amending materials and how they can assist the water retention and nutrient uptake, and at a lower cost than a costly irrigation system with oodles of controls and sprinkler head variations?  What defines usefulness?  Is it an aspect that bottom lines the utility of the innovation as most cost effective?  Or, is it ease of doing something, not necessarily less costly, but easier to work with, safer, more environmentally friendly, etc?

In GCA, is the utilitarian aspect that of science to move more earth and materials and shape them, and faster.  Or, the art of seeing how one can use what is there to move and shape less, even if a slower process to create?  In this case, art and craft, which includes knowlege of the medium in which one architect is working (soil-climate-geography) as oposed to another architect who is a techie, knowledgeable in all things currently possible with machinery and engineering structure seems to me to be the definition of art or science and the utility of which approach.

Of course, the actual answer is probably the third architect that is both and artistic creative person, and has deep knowledge of the capabilities of the science and technology available.

[Jason Topp]

I look forward to hearing about the results of your study.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I have asked myself for the last few years if we would have all of these new technologies if it were not for the RE industry taking golf courses around the early 70's and using them to create increased lot value.  I say this because the game of golf itself could not have afforded most of these advancements if it were not subsidized by the lot sales.  Even today, so many of the management companies you see are just operating for owners under the pretense of  "we can lose you less money than you can" .  As you know, with the free enterprise system, eventually an enterprise has to perform on it's own or it makes no sense.  And that is the case for approximately 11000 of our golf courses in this country.  Most of the advancements I have seen in mowers, irrigation, fertilizers etc have been good for the manufacturer and have created conditions that could only be maintained by subsidizing said conditions with lot sales and if you did not keep these conditions then the development down the street would blow you away.  And the same for private clubs except private clubs work under the concept of increase the dues to meet the expense.  An entire generation of supts has been trained under these conditions and honestly don't think it can be any other way. 
Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.  Associations are trying to convince clubs and owners that the 80's and 90's were the norm and we are headed back to that.  Club employees are trying to convince clubs that they need more budget for better conditions so that they can look good in the eyes of the next club up the ladder when they interview.  We will not see much change with the higher end private clubs not attached to RE nor the resort ventures but owners of the other 11,000 are getting more involved and calling BS on a lot of this.

[Tom_Doak]

Don,
I have asked myself for the last few years if we would have all of these new technologies if it were not for the RE industry taking golf courses around the early 70's and using them to create increased lot value.  I say this because the game of golf itself could not have afforded most of these advancements if it were not subsidized by the lot sales.  Even today, so many of the management companies you see are just operating for owners under the pretense of  "we can lose you less money than you can" .  As you know, with the free enterprise system, eventually an enterprise has to perform on it's own or it makes no sense.  And that is the case for approximately 11000 of our golf courses in this country.  Most of the advancements I have seen in mowers, irrigation, fertilizers etc have been good for the manufacturer and have created conditions that could only be maintained by subsidizing said conditions with lot sales and if you did not keep these conditions then the development down the street would blow you away.  And the same for private clubs except private clubs work under the concept of increase the dues to meet the expense.  An entire generation of supts has been trained under these conditions and honestly don't think it can be any other way.  
Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.  Associations are trying to convince clubs and owners that the 80's and 90's were the norm and we are headed back to that.  Club employees are trying to convince clubs that they need more budget for better conditions so that they can look good in the eyes of the next club up the ladder when they interview.  We will not see much change with the higher end private clubs not attached to RE nor the resort ventures but owners of the other 11,000 are getting more involved and calling BS on a lot of this.

Amen to that.

"Technology" is usually about selling stuff to people.  Golf club members are the perfect demographic for selling stuff people don't need, because they are the ones who can afford it and they love to be seen as ahead of their friends.

[Don_Mahaffey]

So Don, does this mean more scientific investigation of soil amending materials and how they can assist the water retention and nutrient uptake, and at a lower cost than a costly irrigation system with oodles of controls and sprinkler head variations?  What defines usefulness?  Is it an aspect that bottom lines the utility of the innovation as most cost effective?  Or, is it ease of doing something, not necessarily less costly, but easier to work with, safer, more environmentally friendly, etc?

RJ, while I do think we should always commit to R & D as new innovations will be developed that prove to be very useful, to answer your first question bluntly, no I don't think it is solely about researching new ideas. What I see in industry circles is an ideal that if you design and install the Cadillac of golf irrigation systems, then you will have better conditions, and possibly less maintenance. Except, I don't think it works like that. Unless you want a poa farm (sadly that is what many want) then the greatest irrigation system that can be controlled and managed to paint the perfect light application of water on the turf will not guarantee anything if you don't do all the basics along with it. It doesn't really replace anything, or do more, then a well designed system that is 30-40% less expensive. What it does guarantee is more to buy, install, and look after. Now, that statement will be countered by many, but bring me the proof. If you want good conditions and healthy turf not in need of constant chemical remedies, then you need roots, and  healthy plants have roots in the rootzone, not on the surface. Whatever you do thru cultural practices like cultivation and/or aerification, irrigation management, nutrient management, soil amendments, use of wetting/penetrating agents, to produce healthy roots and healthy golf turf is what matters. A $2M system doesn't reduce your need to do all the other tasks required anymore then if you installed a 900K system. And I also challenge the argument that you use less water or energy with the Cadillac system. As an industry, I believe that in most cases, we are going beyond what is really required to produce fine golf turf, because we bypass the basics thinking new technology has replaced the need for certain practices and I don't believe that's the case. I know many will argue with me here, but lets just assume I'm at least partly correct, then the question has to be, why are we doing it?  

In GCA, is the utilitarian aspect that of science to move more earth and materials and shape them, and faster.  Or, the art of seeing how one can use what is there to move and shape less, even if a slower process to create?  In this case, art and craft, which includes knowlege of the medium in which one architect is working (soil-climate-geography) as opposed to another architect who is a techie, knowledgeable in all things currently possible with machinery and engineering structure seems to me to be the definition of art or science and the utility of which approach.

Of course, the actual answer is probably the third architect that is both and artistic creative person, and has deep knowledge of the capabilities of the science and technology available.

My post is not really about how an architect thinks or works, although I believe you are correct in that the best posses a deep knowledge of both subjects. I've said it before, but I believe the routing of Dismal River II by Tom Doak should be studied by all interested in how to produce great golf with a minimum of construction resources. I think it is easy to think of the word utilitarian and think plain or uninspired, only driven by practical use. Yet DRII is not only beautiful and great golf, the design is also utilitarian. TD took what was there and routed something that made the rest of the process fall into place. If we are going to use the word utilitarian to describe a routing, this is it.

[RJ_Daley]

Don, no doubt that DRII is a fine example of many of these traits of using creatively and efficiently, what is there.  But let's face it, by comparison, there was a hell of a lot there to work with or able to tread lightly on, compared to most properties presented.  I'd like to see Rock Creek because that one might actually be more utilitarian, from what photos I've seen.  BallyNeal and DRII, Pac Dunes, Old Mac etc, are a hell of a lot more capable of propelling the architect to the pantheon, than say the land at Rawls course.  Would it be putting you on the spot to say if the Rawls course is utilitarian, if viewed in context that there was nothing there to work with, and what was coaxed out to that flat earth?

I think of a course like Rustic Canyon as pretty darn utilitarian, green carpeted driving range and all!    The routing is efficient, works lightly on the land that was there, uses drainage through the property that couldn't be altered much, and has had to work around and respond to the wash-outs over the years.  I'm a sucker for Wild Horse as you know.  No one can tell me that ain't utilitarian to the ultimate.  So is Procter and Axelands Bayside for that matter.  Although a couple holes are so utilitarian, they confound....     Front 9 is utilitarian, no  doubt in my mind.  Working as minimally as possible with the cavernous washes on the back nine is utilitarian, IMHO.  Most of it works pretty well, even if sometimes a bit exasperating.  Most like the 15th was shoehorned into the land in a too utilitarian way, IMO. 

What do you think of some of those mentioned as fitting your utilitarian definition, including the maintenance regimes, if you are familiar with them?

[Don_Mahaffey]

RJ,
I've walked or played every course you mentioned except for Bayside.
As for DRII, I don't think it's nearly as easy or obvious as you make it out to be. Its not like Tom had 10,000 acres, a helicopter, and a month to find the perfect land. The section of land was chosen for him (even if across the road was not part of the original parcel). In fact, I'd say it might have been easier to route both RC and WH if minimal construction costs were the goal. And while minimal costs are nice, I think good golf is always the first goal and if it can't be done on a certain site for the resources available, then I'd like to think most architects would suggest another site, recommend finding more resources, or walk away.

I think WH is a great example of a high quality golf course that serves it's purpose well. The people in Gothenburg have themselves not only an excellent golf course, but also one that they can afford to care for because a utilitarian attitude seemed to have been involved. In fact, the irrigation system at WH was my model (at least the head spacing) as I began the work on the irrigation design at DRII.

[Chris Johnston]

"The section of land was chosen for him (even if across the road was not part of the original parcel)."

Hope that was a compliment    Pretty darned good site but crossing the road was masterful.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Hi CJ,
Yes its great land, and I didn't mean it in any way, just that the areas for the course was pre-determined because DRC was already there. You know how I feel about the course, but I think too often its just assumed that because you're in a region that can produce good golf that it an automatic that anybody could find and build a world class course.

[Chris Johnston]

Don:

I agree.  I was just teasing ya.

Tom and team did an outstanding job on a cool piece of ground.  Your team too!  I couldn't be more happy with a course that is unique, even for here.  And I think the irrigation and grassing concepts we used were outstanding.  I can't wait for Spring!

CJ

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - in all these years, I've only taken 2 gca.com related trips; my first was to meet Joe Hancock and to see the course he owned and managed, specifically how over the years he'd weaned this basic public course off too much water and achieved the hardiest and healthiest turf I'd ever seen. Joe did that because he wanted to, and because he knew how to.  Your ideas, similarly, are sound and important and workable; please just keep doing what you're doing. When the time comes that others (maybe the entire industry) want to or maybe have to do it as well, your work will prove invaluable.

Peter

[Lyne Morrison]

Don – enjoy your posts.

An excerpt from some reading I have been doing which may be of interest.

Two points of view on Architecture

Architecture is an exercise in truth. A proper building (- or golf course) is responsible to universal knowledge and is wholly honest in the expression of its functions and materials.

Architecture is an exercise in narrative. Architecture is a vehicle for the telling of stories, a canvas for relaying societal myths, a stage for the theater of everyday life.

cheers, Lyne

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi Lyne - good to see you posting. And such a good post: encapsulating in a few words what many of us tried to say in thousands in a related/recent thread. Truth and Narrative are very powerful concepts, and for me lead to many thoughts, e.g. art without truth is the work of dilettantes (no matter how professional they may be); and a course that doesn't invite the participation of the golfer is not a stage for us but an expensive advertisement for the architect's ego.

Peter

[Don_Mahaffey]

Lynn,
It can be both, no?

Care to share what you are reading?

[Doug Siebert]

I completely agree.  I've posted before how I think that technological changes that made equipment cheaper or more consistent (i.e. changes such as hickory -> steel, forged -> cast, or wound balls to solid center) are good.  The changes I don't think we really need are those that are only to seek to improve playing characteristics without regard to cost (i.e. titanium heads, multilayer balls)

Unfortunately this would be difficult to write into the rule book, but I think it offers a good guide on what direction to take if golf ever became serious about "rollbacks" in equipment.

[Lyne Morrison]

Don – yes.

For me both modes of engagement are crucial to understanding and creating quality architecture.

Two course elements driven by technology that impact creativity and play on my mind.
1.  The bunker rake/sand pro and its influence on shape, maintenance and course character
2.  The usga green (for all its merits) - the associated expense of development is simply unmanageable for many clubs

Any thoughts on the above?
Cheers

PS -The book I was browsing:
101 Things I Learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick

[Mike Nuzzo]

Don
I have a copy of 101 things -- I'll let you borrow it
Mike

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter,

‘An expensive advertisement for the architect’s ego’ – on occasion perhaps, but worth keeping in mind that architects can be easy targets for criticism particularly on a forum such as this.

Course design is a multi-layered process that has to be addressed on its own terms. On existing works for example there are emotional ties held by members and the whims of committees to accommodate - superintendents have their own needs and expectations. It may not always be the case that the architect can manifest his or her true vision as they respond to the specific needs of the project team.

I think the challenge lies in separating the individual needs from the goal of the project, and that involves setting the ego aside – forget about what you want the course to be,  instead ask – what does the course want to be?

Well we have drifted from irrigation and bunker rakes – I trust Don can cope : )
Cheers, Lyne

[Sven Nilsen]

Don:

Was going to start a new thread on the principle of economy, which I think is linked to your thoughts on utilitarianism.  Instead, I'll leave these words here to see if they add to the conversation.

From Vitruvius' fundamental principles on architecture:

"Economy denotes the proper management of materials and of site, as well as a thrifty balancing cost and common sense in the construction of works. This will be observed if, in the first place, the architect does not demand things which cannot be found or made ready without great expense. For example: it is not everywhere that there is plenty of pitsand, rubble, fir, clear fir, and marble, since they are produced in different places and to assemble them is difficult and costly. Where there is no pitsand, we must use kinds washed up by rivers or by the sea; the lack of fir and clear fir may be evaded by using cypress, poplar, elm, or pine; and other problems we must solve in similiar ways."

[RJ_Daley]

Sven, thanks for setting me off on a bit of reading about Vitruvius.  I knew I had heard of him while listening to one of those walking guides at some Roman structure- I think it was at the Pantheon.  And, I didn't put it together about the Vitruvian Man of Da Vinci's until I read the entry in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius

Perhaps Don will enjoy following the links since Vitruvius obviously hits on all the points made by the folks on this thread.

And, could such a concept be developed like a "Design Quality Indicator" as a took kit for evaluating golf course archetecture on a more "utilitarian" basis, rather than a marketing driven system used by 'magazine rating'?  While I've always been anti-rating by the current magazine systems, because I'd favor some sort of narrative based on grouping great and mediocre courses in category like the "Michelin" stars system with accompanying narratives on the reasons for calling a course superior, good, etc.  Even that doesn't get to the utilitarian aspect of the golf course design, like a 'design quality indicator' might; if the criteria of such a took kit used concerned economy, function, creativity, naturally in place siting, use of existing resources, etc., were a system developed by the true GCA design and construction professionals, and their managers (supers) then finally users (golfers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Quality_Indicator

[Tags:]

Tags: