Are you ready for a really controversial thread ?

[Jim Colton]

C'mon Pat, the whole appeal of the project and probably the only reason that Tom and C&C got involved is because of the giant, wild and haphazard dunescape that had been left by the mining operation. These par 3's look like something you'd find at Lost Farm (minus the carry). Who in their right mind would level it to look like the rest of the area, which has to be one of the most unexciting areas of the country? That project would fail miserably, with or without us loyal Doak/C&C lapdogs.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think Streamsong would have been well received had we never even know who designed/ built the golf courses. And I don't see how that theory is any more far fetched then Pat's theory that we would be critical if someone else did the work.

The reception The Prairie Club received on this site may beg you wrong.  I only refer to how the courses were "received" in the very early stages of development such as Streamsong is receiving now.  It's like you don't love architecture if you don't get to Tampa.

No way this group would be going in the numbers they are and paying these huge sums if nondescript architects were used.  Personally I am both shocked and impressed at the number of people interested in paying these prices.  I mean, we have a guy who wanted to share a $42 room along an interstate littered with strip clubs and abandoned manufacturing captaining a team and paying full rack for the pleasure.  I never thought I would see the day.  The reviews have not been that good.  It has to be the architects reputation.

[jeffwarne]

I think Streamsong would have been well received had we never even know who designed/ built the golf courses. And I don't see how that theory is any more far fetched then Pat's theory that we would be critical if someone else did the work.

The reception The Prairie Club received on this site may beg you wrong.  I only refer to how the courses were "received" in the very early stages of development such as Streamsong is receiving now.  It's like you don't love architecture if you don't get to Tampa.

No way this group would be going in the numbers they are and paying these huge sums if nondescript architects were used.  Personally I am both shocked and impressed at the number of people interested in paying these prices.  I mean, we have a guy who wanted to share a $42 room along an interstate littered with strip clubs and abandoned manufacturing captaining a team and paying full rack for the pleasure.  I never thought I would see the day.  The reviews have not been that good.  It has to be the architects reputation.

If The Prairie Club was 75 degrees in January, and I could fly Southwest nonstop an hour from the course , I'd make the trip.......

[Adam Clayman]

Obviously  Pat has seen every single mountain, dune, and/or feature on the planet, to know there is NOTHING in NATURE that closely resembles those features. Pat also incorrectly assumes all us morons have seen the 10 hole course at PV. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Obviously  Pat has seen every single mountain, dune, and/or feature on the planet, to know there is NOTHING in NATURE that closely resembles those features. Pat also incorrectly assumes all us morons have seen the 10 hole course at PV. 

Adam,

In that area of central Florida there are no mountains, dunes and/or pronounced features.

Have you ever been to that area of Florida ?

[John Ezekowitz]

According to Pat, features made by heavy equipment operators are not natural. I guess the quarry at Merion is "unnatural" and should have been filled in and restored to its "natural" state. Remember that quarrying at the time of the construction of Merion was roughly equivalent in terms of its "heavy equipment needs" as phosphate mining is today.

[archie_struthers]

 

Don, nothing could be further from my mind  than knocking down the existing features and then staring from scratch.  However , I m afraid Pat is correct that Rees wouldn't get a pass for the work .  It looks real interesting and reviews from many are quite good.  Can't say Rees is  anywhere near the top of my list when it come s to architects, but he deserves a fair shake in review of his work.  

My point was that every situation is different and a good architect works with the land and the budget to make it work. Also , they need to be able to conform to the owners desires without giving up their design beliefs.  Actually that question begs a new thread . Believe me , it's a lot more work to build a Twisted Dune than recreate a hole at Greate Bay , but both are intellectually and artistically challenging . Just different .

[jeffwarne]

Don, nothing could be further from my mind  than knocking down the existing features and then staring from scratch.  However , I m afraid Pat is correct that Rees wouldn't get a pass for the work .  It looks real interesting and reviews from many are quite good.  Can't say Rees is  anywhere near the top of my list when it come s to architects, but he deserves a fair shake in review of his work.  

My point was that every situation is different and a good architect works with the land and the budget to make it work. Also , they need to be able to conform to the owners desires without giving up their design beliefs.  Actually that question begs a new thread . Believe me , it's a lot more work to build a Twisted Dune than recreate a hole at Greate Bay , but both are intellectually and artistically challenging . Just different .

I think that if a Signature architect had designed SS, and the other 17 holes were the same as they are, that they'd get more than a pass, they might actually get some domestic work again.
But if they didn't get many people to make the trek, that would be because of all the Shite they'd produced prior, and to me that would be perfectly fair-and the owner's fault for failing to consider the effect of hiring an architect that had drawing power.
God knows that for years the current GCA faves had their share of watching signature firms getting prime sites and projects because of their names and daddy's names
It cuts both ways.

It seems really silly to me to be discussing one hole, in a spectacular ,unique land form, and wondering why if we would criticize another architect if he did that. It's irrelevant.


i would argue that there are dunes and moundtains all over that part fo Florida. I saw plenty when I was driving to Streamsong.
Does it matter if they're 40,000, 100, or 20 years old? They're there, and the architects chose to incorporate some of them into their design.
Some are not as they are too severe.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, Yes  I was just there. It's immaterial to me whether those dunes were manufactured. For all intent and purposes they were natural to the site the architects were given.

It's a reoccurring motif throughout the complex and therefore much more accepting to even the snootier purist.

Switching gears..... 

I'm not a fan of the name of the course. IMO, Mosaic, would've been much better as it not only describes what each architectural team did, it flows off the tounge better.

[Joe Bausch]

According to Pat, features made by heavy equipment operators are not natural. I guess the quarry at Merion is "unnatural" and should have been filled in and restored to its "natural" state. Remember that quarrying at the time of the construction of Merion was roughly equivalent in terms of its "heavy equipment needs" as phosphate mining is today.

From TPaul:

John:
 
Don't laugh---there actually was a prominent member of Merion in 1910 who suggested the club should not buy and build where the East Course is because it would be prohibitively expensive to fill in the quarry on #16, #17, #18.

[Frank M]

Natural definition -  Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

Are people trying to say humankind did not create this landscape?

I think many are confusing untouched with natural. Sure, the architects left the landscapes as untouched as possible, but a minimal amount of those landscapes were natural.

[Jud_T]

Frank,

Noone's saying the site is natural or untouched throughout human evolution by man.  But the "mounds" in question were not created for golf, are not new, have certainly been affected by nature for the past 20 (?) years and have rather been reinterpreted for golf.  What the hell that has to do with Rees Jones I have no idea whatsoever.  I'm going to refill my Xanax prescription for my next forced march around Cog Hill #4.

[archie_struthers]

 


Jim C , the "lapdog" reference is really good. Seems like Mucci turned a teapot into a tempest .  I'm quite sure he will like Streamsong, if he hasn't played it already. However , he also knows that Coore/ Crenshaw and  Tom D get a little more latitude here. When people start asking if he and I want to knock down the mounds because they aren't natural it's time to take a walk around your chair and take a deep breath.

The question remains, would Rees get the same positive review if he did it ?   That's all ! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

C'mon Pat, the whole appeal of the project and probably the only reason that Tom and C&C got involved is because of the giant, wild and haphazard dunescape that had been left by the mining operation.

I think money had something to do with the decision.

These par 3's look like something you'd find at Lost Farm (minus the carry).

Who in their right mind would level it to look like the rest of the area, which has to be one of the most unexciting areas of the country?

Didn't Tom Doak have an even more unexciting piece of land down in Texas ?
Did he move any dirt ?

The notion that the site was perfect at is, is...........dare I say it ?  Moronic.

Do you think that no dirt was moved ?

That project would fail miserably, with or without us loyal Doak/C&C lapdogs.

Jim, I think you're selling yourself and your peers short,............you're beyond "lapdogs", I was thinking "butt boys"

[Don_Mahaffey]

hey Patrick, if a different golf architecture firm had done the new 12 at Garden City, would it still be as good?
I think you were bragging about the new green not long ago.
Was the work good? Or is your opinion based on who did the work? 

[Greg Tallman]

The point is rather simple...

Why can one guy take a drastically altered landscape, lay a golf course upon it, and be lauded as a great designer of natural golf while another takes a non-descript piece of land, drastically alters it specifically for golf, and is blasted for creating manufactured garbage?

Setting aside our perceptions of the talents of each individual as well as their supposed design philosophies this is a valid question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently spent 4 days at Streamsong and played both courses. I think there will be a lot of people (non-GCAers) who will play out there and not know the architects. And I think most of those players are going to like the courses. They are very, very good, and to think people think that only because they might know who designed/built them is a severe reach. The bottom line is the courses are excellent.

Don,

This thread has NOTHING to do with the quality of the courses !
It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the hole pictured

I don't know why anyone could think that, unless............................... they're morons

As far as your mounds theory, its just that a theory.

Most theories start as ...............theories

The land forms shown in the photo are most definitely not natural, and no one thinks they are.

Not true, some of the "morons" the Doak "butt boys" think they're natural

But they were existing land forms the architects used to come up with some very cool golf.

I don't disagree, and said so, I like the look of the hole, but, that's not what the thead is about.

What you call mounds, is actually a very large land form that I would call a lot more of a ridge then a mound.

A "ridge" ?  
In all probability it's piled spoil.

And while not natural, it does have the benefit of many years of natural forces influencing how it looks.

I don't know, maybe.
But, the look is very sharp.

The mounds I see criticized, and the mounds I personally do not like, are symmetrical, smoothed off, all similar in height, style, and size.

But, Nicklaus wasn't criticized for introducing them at Loxahatchee, was he ?

The land forms at Streamsong are dramatic, wild, edgy, severe, totally random.

But, that wasn't by nature's hand.
What difference does it make if the mounds were constructed by the Operating Engineers of Local 520 or Tom Doak, other than the money necessary to remediate them ?

You love to get on people who make comments about courses they've never seen.

Don, you're starting to sound like one of those morons, I'm not critiquing the course or how it plays.
What part of that don't you understand ?
I'm stating that the mounds as pictured, would be received differently, had Rees designed, left or constructed them

I suggest you go see Streamsong before you take another bite out of someone who has been there and who has played on, around, and thru those very cool land forms.

Don, you've just transitioned to the "moron" category.
It's NOT about how cool or uncool the mounds look.  I happen to like them and have said so on more than one occassion.
Please, have someone with a degree of reading comprehension revisit my posts with you.

You've allowed you burning desire to prove me wrong override your ability to read and think straight.

So, let me repeat, it's not about how the mounds look in terms of architectural quality.

Let me know when that dawns on you.

So far, only Archie Struthers "GETS IT"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Yes  I was just there. It's immaterial to me whether those dunes were manufactured.
For all intent and purposes they were natural to the site the architects were given.

A D-6, D-8 or D-9 can change that in a jiff

It's a reoccurring motif throughout the complex and therefore much more accepting to even the snootier purist.

But, if that's the case, as Archie says, then, you can't be critical of an architect who moves dirt and creates features.
And this site has been notorious for championing the "minimalist" theme and berating the manufactured theme.

Switching gears..... 

I'm not a fan of the name of the course. IMO, Mosaic, would've been much better as it not only describes what each architectural team did, it flows off the tounge better.

Don't know the reason for the name or who selected it, but, I would have thought that "Mosaic" would have been better as it could have been a form of "branding" and advertising.

My read on it is that perhaps the corporate execs who decided to embark on a reclamation project, vis a vis golf courses, at the time the decision was made, never envisioned the success of the project

[Patrick_Mucci]

According to Pat, features made by heavy equipment operators are not natural.


John, let me rephrase that for you.
John Ezekowitz thinks that features made/constructed by heavy equipment are natural.

Ergo, an architect, employing a heavy equipment operator, creates natural landforms.

I guess the quarry at Merion is "unnatural" and should have been filled in and restored to its "natural" state.

Surely, you understand the difference between construction and excavation.

Remember that quarrying at the time of the construction of Merion was roughly equivalent in terms of its "heavy equipment needs" as phosphate mining is today.

Not true.
Quarrying in the 1800's was accomplished through dynamiting, not heavy equipment operators.
Perhaps you're thinking of logging.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The point is rather simple...

Why can one guy take a drastically altered landscape, lay a golf course upon it, and be lauded as a great designer of natural golf while another takes a non-descript piece of land, drastically alters it specifically for golf, and is blasted for creating manufactured garbage?

Setting aside our perceptions of the talents of each individual as well as their supposed design philosophies this is a valid question.

Greg,

Like Archie Struthers, you've hit the nail on the head.

NOW, TWO PARTICIPANTS "GET IT"

[Patrick_Mucci]

hey Patrick, if a different golf architecture firm had done the new 12 at Garden City, would it still be as good?
I think you were bragging about the new green not long ago.
Was the work good? Or is your opinion based on who did the work? 

Don,

Have you seen and played the green in existance from the 1960's to 2012 ?

Would you equate a restoration, a faithful restoration, with an original creation ?

The effort to RESTORE the 12th hole is a vast improvement over what was there previously.

Is it an "IDEAL" restoration ?  NO, but then again, you can only restore that which you can maintain.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat, I've never seen the green. I have no idea what went on there. But I know you really liked the work that was done, or at least I believe you wrote a thread to that effect.
My question to you is, did you like the outcome because of what was done, or because of who did it?

My guess is you liked it because of the work. You would not have raved about the project like you did had it turned out poorly.

The fact is some are doing better work then others, and often it really is that simple, no matter how political some try to make it.

[Ben Sims]

I've just waded through the 7 pages of this thread.  It reminds me of my two day wade/hike through the Zion Narrows.  Only the water of thread is muddier than that river we walked in and the rock walls I stared at seem to have more intellect than the original poster.  

The point that should be made is this.  Rees didn't build this hole.  Nor has he consistently demonstrated the capacity to build holes with this much character.  What he has done is in the past is put a smiley face bunker grouping on one of the most picturesque par threes in the Met, maybe America (the 16th at Sleepy Hollow).  His past work clearly shows that there is negative bias against his golf courses on this website. In my mind, he's earned it.

Conversely, no doubt there is also positive bias towards Renaissance's work on this website.   I think they've earned that bias as well based on their past work.  I haven't seen this hole in person.  Pretty much my entire friends group in golf has however.  I trust their opinion that it plays well and meshes with the existing (though not natural) landforms that were present at the time of commissioning.  

Dealing in what ifs and hypotheticals can only serve so much in the way of analysis.  In the end, I think Rees wouldn't have built this hole in the manner that it has been built at Streamsong.

Lastly, it strikes me as telling that our illustrious Patrick would put Don Mahaffey in the "moron" category.  If indeed he think Don belongs in that group, it looks like the pot calling the kettle black.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think that if a Signature architect had designed SS, and the other 17 holes were the same as they are, that they'd get more than a pass, they might actually get some domestic work again.

But if they didn't get many people to make the trek, that would be because of all the Shite they'd produced prior, and to me that would be perfectly fair-and the owner's fault for failing to consider the effect of hiring an architect that had drawing power.

God knows that for years the current GCA faves had their share of watching signature firms getting prime sites and projects because of their names and daddy's names
It cuts both ways.

Jeff, so you're stating that Mike Keiser made a huge mistake in hiring David Kidd ?  ?  ?

It seems really silly to me to be discussing one hole, in a spectacular ,unique land form, and wondering why if we would criticize another architect if he did that. It's irrelevant.

Ahhh, but, we're not discussing one hole.  We're not discussing that par 3.  The discussion is centered on the artificial mounding and is relevant despite your attempt to dismiss it.

i would argue that there are dunes and moundtains all over that part fo Florida.

Which part of Florida specifically ?
How do you account for the miles of views uninterupted by any landform.

I saw plenty when I was driving to Streamsong.

How many miles from Streamsong ?


Does it matter if they're 40,000, 100, or 20 years old?

Yes, it matters when they're man made.

They're there, and the architects chose to incorporate some of them into their design.


So, the entire site was left untouched by machinery ?
Or, was it altered ?
And, if it was altered, that means that the architect decided what stayed as found and what was altered, right ?

Some are not as they are too severe.

"Too Severe"  That's part of the point.

When are mounds "Too Severe" ?

Mounds often serve as acoustical and visual buffers.

Why are they OK when one architect employs them and not OK when another architect employs them.

Tom Doak raved about Shadow Creek when it opened.
Is there another course with more mounding ?

[Jud_T]

I'm stating that the mounds as pictured, would be received differently, had Rees designed, left or constructed them

OK.  Tom didn't design or construct the mounds, so can we stop comparing them to mounds that were designed or constructed by a GCA in the process of designing a golf course?  If Rees had left them, what would he be criticized for...leaving them?  Now if you're asking if the course would have as much buzz as it does now if Rees had designed it, I grant you that it probably wouldn't.  When I play one of his courses that I really like, that is designed with the average golfer in mind instead of just low handicaps and tour players, that is as fun as it is penal, then maybe I'll get a semi-chub to travel to nowhere Florida to play one of his courses.  Would it have been ranked lower if Rees had designed it?  Well the course isn't ranked yet and initial indications are that it may be in the top 100 of some lists but perhaps in the lower half, so who knows?  If you're intimating that there's a large contingent of Doak and C&C butt-boys here, well stop the presses (FYI- Lincoln was shot).  When I play one of their courses that I really don't like, that isn't designed with the average golfer in mind and which is more penal than fun, perhaps I'll get off the bandwagon.  Otherwise this is the biggest waste of 7 pages in recent memory.  Can we at least veer off into a political discussion or an anal retentive analysis of the soils at Streamsong going back to the Paleolithic Age?