Are we living in conservative times (gca-wise)?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think of the 1950s as a button-down conservative era in America (at least, that's the story that's come down to us in popular histories). And yet in terms of golf course architecture, it seemed to be a time when the new and the latest was much prized and valued -- never before had the ideas and courses of the golden agers fallen so out of fashion/favour, and rarely had there been such an explosion of new courses (most in the Trent Jones mold) being built. And then I think of the Reagan-era 1980s, another period of 'conservatism' in America, but yet again in terms of gca, it was a period dominated by the new and latest (let's say, this time mostly in the J Nicklaus mold). And then came this latest period in gca, and a site like gca.com, and the resurgence and rediscovery of all the was great and good and interesting and fun in the ethos and style of the golden age -- and yet, this turning back to the past has occurred during a long period that I doubt will be seen (in years to come, in popular histories) as a conservative time in America.

So, my question: sociologically (for lack of a better word), what explains/what are the reasons that gca has turned back to 'traditional values'  in such a dramatic way, and why now?

Peter

[Mike_Young]

PETER,
I think much of the work that is discussed on this site as being the new "golden age" stuff is work that was done on exceptional land that was meant for golf.  Most of the work of the last 25 years was built not for golf but for location and was built on land that would not have been considered in the last Golden Age.  So much of the development needed to be in areas that would attract a specific market for first homes or second homes that golf was secondary and had to be sculpted to fit a golf course instead of a golf course fitting it.

Therefore I don't see gca going to traditional values unless the land allows it.  But so often the prime land that allows such is not in a feasible location.

[Jason Thurman]

Grassroots movements are popular everywhere now. The Tea Party is an example on one side of the aisle. On the other side is the localvore, organic, green energy movement. Post-modern pretension in 2013 is all about finding authentic, simple sources of truth.

My neighborhood is an urban village and hipster enclave that is probably the most liberal and alternative-lifestyle friendly community in my city. Along with similar areas in the region, it's experienced a major rebirth in the last ten years. People appreciate its original and intact architecture, its walkable layout, the green space surrounding it, and it's odd culture in ways they didn't 20 years ago. As a result, it's turned into a vibrant community full of local food suppliers and homespun businesses serving different interests. The one corporate building on the main strip sticks out like a sore thumb and is a laughingstock for most of the neighborhood the way that awful replicas of the 17th at Sawgrass are around here. It's a community that reflects classic values of knowing your neighbors and choosing where to spend your money, but adapts them to a modern worldview that welcomes all creeds and persons.

Likewise, a bunch of gun-toting, beard wearing backwoods rednecks from Louisiana never would've been celebrities in the mid 90s. The country took itself too seriously. Today, we appreciate their homespun values, clean-earth and sustainable eating, grit, and warmth. They're a reflection of who we all want to be - fun and loving and governed by a code and imperfect and ethical.

The thing that keeps post-modern golf architecture from appealing to my neighbors and the people who watch Duck Dynasty is simply a lack of publicity. The average citizen still thinks golf is for rich white dudes on manicured lawns. I have an arborist neighbor who never even realized people could walk golf courses, and wanted to play again as soon as he heard of that novel concept. If the average non-golfer knew about places like the Nebraska Sandhills or the Oregon coast, he might just get interested for a moment. Unfortunately, he likely wouldn't have anywhere near him where he could experience similarly gritty, sustainable, homespun, and nature-embracing golf.

I guess golf's "retro-values" movement isn't as strong outside the walls of this forum as we'd like it to be.

[Paul Gray]

As ever, P, a thought provoking thread.

Having spent many an hour considering societal influences on architecture, I believe, respectfully, that you are placing emphasise on the wrong factors. The 50's and the 80's, conservative though the family model may have been, were both periods where economics shaped society.

Now consider those periods economically. Post war western society, and the Reagan and Thatcher administrations in the 80's, were all about sweeping change. Classic models were rejected as a brash consumerist doctrine became fashionable. New was good and old was bad. Bigger was most certainly better. Man was in charge of the environment now and nature was a relic of the past.

Just my considered perspective.

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure social reasons have as much to do with the shifting approaches as much as economics.

The golden age architects expressed optimism that as earth moving equipment modernized the golf courses that would result would similarly improve.  I think cost and technology dictated a more restrained approach to the issue rather than any societal effect.

From the 50's forward - land cost became a bigger restraint on course construction than earthmoving.  The architects of the 50's carried out the hopes of the golden age architects but in the process forgot some of the fundamental concepts that make the golden age courses a delight to play. 

It has taken a long time to return to those principles but I have a hard time equating the change to societal norms instead of just a school of architects that have built some good courses and really improved some old ones.




   

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure the 4th green at Lost Dunes or the 14th at Bandon Trails should be characterized as conservative.  Rather I think of the cookie-cutter design of some of the name firms of the pre-2000 era as conservative. 

[Steve Kline]

Some random thoughts regarding this topic.

Since the early 70s, America has been fueled by the rapid increase in the money supply from the Federal Reserve. Take a look at GDP, consumer spending (particularly durable goods), industrial production, etc. and all of this data rises inexorably with the rapid increase in money and debt. This led to bigger and bolder is better in the 1980s, the me generation, the mega corporation and mega farming with its standardization to remove cost and maximize profit. I think golf course architecture reflected all of that. Of course this was also the time of the massive housing bubble and real estate boom.

At some point we started to see a backlash to all of this. Many are moving to organic farming. Many are moving towards buying from local farmers. People are beginning to grow weary of the increasing invasion of technology. There is a desire to return to "simpler" times that were more natural, more sustainable in all areas of life. Perhaps that is being reflected in the architecture and maintenance practices now.

[Alex Miller]

We are in a Renaissance. Tom Doak definitely named his firm appropriately IMO.

It's an appreciation for what once was great, and in many ways courses today are trying to expand upon what architects in the golden age did WITH better technology and FOR better technology.

So assuming you agree with this premise, was the Renaissance conservative? It was based on a golden age (Roman and Greek antiquity), but definitely progressed from the Dark Ages in a similar way that GCA has emerged from housing development courses and RTJ penal architecture. Ok, I'm very tempted to continue and draw some ridiculous parallels, but does someone want to tell me I'm wrong first? 

[Garland Bayley]

RTJ courses are for the well to do (golf skill wise).
Golden era course were inclusive of the poor (golf skill wise).

Me thinks you got it backwards.

[Matthew Rose]

I think you could make a case for GCA as a parallel to politics, and perhaps other things like fashion and pop culture, in that everything often tends to rebel or refute what came immediately before it, and then a counter-rebellion will inevitably follow some time later... sometimes in that counter-rebellion you will see old ideas with new twists.

If the RTJ assembly-line was a direct dismissal of golden age ideas, then you have Pete Dye deliberately trying to be the anti-RTJ... which is an irony in itself because I think his original TPC probably (unintentionally) created a lot of the 80s excesses.

C&C and Doak are in many ways a counter-reaction to that.

But I also think they try for a timeless appeal. That's the one thing about most 50s and 60s courses is that they tend to date pretty badly.

[David Cronheim]

But I also think they try for a timeless appeal. That's the one thing about most 50s and 60s courses is that they tend to date pretty badly.

Matt, I agree with you 100%. If I had to sum it up succinctly, it's that Golden Age courses seem to get better with time, while some of the flashier stuff built in the 80's gets worse. Many Fazio designs start in the Top 100 then quickly fade. C&C and Doak's work, in my opinion, is good because it's not totally appreciable on the first play. There's a lot of nuance.

[Brent Hutto]

By "we" do you mean Costa Rica or China?

Because "we" around here aren't building enough golf courses for any sort of trend to be discernible. Except the trend not to build new golf courses.