Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?

[BCowan]

Jeff,


   That was a good analogy with music except Kieser kinda of did things different then the script.  More like let's say the grateful dead who made their money touring vs enriching the record company.  It was about the experience.  I think if SV was his first project it would of taken him longer due to not being on the water like u said.  Since he is branded it should do just fine. Plus I think he has a membership element?  Many great sized markets real close to SV. 

[George Pazin]

I think what Mike is suggesting is how exciting would it be if someone took a completely different approach at Sand Valley and put something different side by side with the other courses. The comparison would be engaging ... and it just might open up some new ideas on architecture.

And all I'm asking is some sort of hint or inkling of what that difference might be. When you consider the amount of resources - land, money, not least of all time - is that an unreasonable request? Would you expect any developer or investor to just say, have at it?

[George Pazin]

Furthermore, I'd bet a lot of money that Ben and Bill and Tom and Gil and whoever likely feel that they DO do things differently, but most of us simply don't notice it.


You (Ian) and Mike Young would probably recognize the differences, but I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of even the golf architecture obsessed posters on here would completely miss it.


Please, Mike, Mike, Ian, or anyone else who longs for something different, explain even just a tiny amount what "different" means to you in this case.


Just a hint.


Pretty please. With sugar on top.


I don't think it's an unreasonable request. I'd submit it is far more reasonable than "I'd like to see something different, something breaking the mold", but maybe that's just me...

[Tom_Doak]

I think what Mike is suggesting is how exciting would it be if someone took a completely different approach at Sand Valley and put something different side by side with the other courses. The comparison would be engaging ... and it just might open up some new ideas on architecture.

And all I'm asking is some sort of hint or inkling of what that difference might be. When you consider the amount of resources - land, money, not least of all time - is that an unreasonable request? Would you expect any developer or investor to just say, have at it?

I think you all are missing something here.  The model for Sand Valley isn't Bill and Ben's model -- it's Mike Keiser's model.  He found them a big, open, sandy site and asked implicitly for the same sort of course that they were so successful building in Bandon and Nova Scotia and at Streamsong.  He hired David Kidd for the second course, once David had demonstrated at Gamble Sands that he was willing to build exactly the same kind of course that's been part of Mike's successful formula.


I could have suggested the concept of The Loop to Mike at Sand Valley instead of at Forest Dunes, but apart from it making more sense on the flatter site, I thought the concept was more likely to appeal to Lew Thompson, because he really wanted to do something different.  The question is whether Mike Keiser wants to do something really different ... or even if he should, considering how successful his formula has been.  If Mike isn't ready to break the mold, then he's not going to hire an architect who wants to.


There's a commercial aspect to all of this.  If you want to keep doing different things design-wise, then you're not a safe choice for many developers.  It's not like the music business at all, because the capital investment is so big.  It's more like making movies.  And you may have noticed that the theaters are full of disappointing sequels.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Your message can be interpreted a few ways, either pro same or pro different.......but movie makers obviously feel more comfy investing big bucks in a known commodity over a new plot or character.


The retail golfer also has a bigger investment than going to the movies, when going once per year to a nationally known resort. 


What I question is whether Sand Valley will get more of the national crowd in the summer, without the draw of water?  But, even if it doesn't, the buddies trip is more regional than most think, and Central Wisconsin is in the middle of the highest golf participation area of the US (MN, WI, IA, IL) so he will do fine, unless it, and WS and Erin Hills make just one too many golf resorts in WI.

[Mike Hendren]

Jeff, I don't think SV will be hampered financially by its inland location.  I can fly in and play same day and play and fly out same day  - that's very appealing. 

George, even though I signed out I feel like I owe you an answer.  I point to the 7th hole at Pacific Dunes, ironically an inland hole on a course renowned and named for its spectacular ocean front setting.  I think it's the best hole on the entire property and as good as any two shotter in America - i.e., it's truly gushworthy (to me).  It's "something different" or a juxtaposition hole if you will.  It is treed and if I recall correctly has actual fairway lines befitting a more traditional hole.  It's a right hook slipped in between a series of left jabs.  That makes it all the more special in my opinion - a bit of an unexpected surprise.

I can't recall "something different" at SV.  That's really all I'm saying. 

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Please, Mike, Mike, Ian, or anyone else who longs for something different, explain even just a tiny amount what "different" means to you in this case.

George:


How about this?  I just got back from Woodhall Spa, which is renowned for its deep, gnarly bunkers, which have a different feel to them than anything I've seen in America.  But they aren't flashy to the eye, like the bunkers at Sand Valley or most other modern courses.  Also, Woodhall Spa isn't so wide, and it's got a lot of fairways on par-4's and 5's that are interrupted by heather and/or cross-bunkers ... kind of like the 7th at Pacific Dunes, actually


Anyway, that would certainly be something different, as I see things.  Nevertheless, if I built it, I suspect people would just see it as more of the same, because it's sandy and whatever.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sometimes it's fun (though not usually edifying) to put the matter too bluntly, in much too starkly black and white terms. So here goes:


If minimalism is at least in part about utilizing a site's natural features to their (uniquely) best and maximal degree, and if the history of course architecture has taught us that there are no hard and fast rules underpinning this particular art-craft, then how can it possibly be that golf courses in several very different places end up looking so strikingly similar, and that any such clear cut and exacting 'formula' could be the reason/driving force behind the creation of great golf?


Answer: minimalism has lost its true and essential spirit/raison d'etre and hard and fast rules work just fine as long as we happen to agree with them.


I started a thread quite a while ago that was almost universally disliked, misunderstood and/or reviled: it was called "we're living in conservative times".  Does anyone now better understand what I was getting at?

[George Pazin]

Thanks Mike and Tom for the answers.


Still awaiting Mike and Ian.

Nevertheless, if I built it, I suspect people would just see it as more of the same, because it's sandy and whatever.

That's kinda my point.

[Ian Andrew]

Just for clarity:

1. I'm not suggesting any of the architects to change - don't care whether they do or don't
2. I'm certainly not asking Mike to change - don't care if he does or does not.
3. Don't care if others copy his formula or select the same architects.
4. I think Mike H is entitled to have his opinion.

Ian

[George Pazin]

Here's an example from my own (somewhat pitiful) t shirt business:


I do most of the designing for us, and it's boilerplate stuff - arch a name above and below and basketball, etc. But there was a brief time when we employed a friend who was between jobs, and was/is a fantastically talented guy (maybe the most talented person I've ever met, name is Mark Spaeder, google him if you need art/animation/design/web work). I had a client come in and say he wanted t's for his football team that won their local division. I told Mark black and gold on a grey t, have at it.


Mark put together this phenomenal design, way better than anything I could ever do. The guy came in to look at it. He looked, paused, said, I like where you're going... Can you delete the crown? Center the words over a football? Change the text to such and such?


When all was said and done, the shirt went from being unique and original to being a grey t shirt with a name arched over a football and "Championship Season" underneath.


I made a conscious decision that day to never offer anyone anything unusual unless they specifically requested it. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that is what Bill and Ben and Tom and Gil and whoever are doing. I believe they are simply building the best possible course given the land they have, utilizing their principles combined with experience. But I think the most golf critics don't understand the distinction, not can they see the differences in the final product.


My apologies if that comes across harsh, it is not intended as such. Just reality.

[Joe Zucker]

Sometimes it's fun (though not usually edifying) to put the matter too bluntly, in much too starkly black and white terms. So here goes:


If minimalism is at least in part about utilizing a site's natural features to their (uniquely) best and maximal degree, and if the history of course architecture has taught us that there are no hard and fast rules underpinning this particular art-craft, then how can it possibly be that golf courses in several very different places end up looking so strikingly similar, and that any such clear cut and exacting 'formula' could be the reason/driving force behind the creation of great golf?


Answer: minimalism has lost its true and essential spirit/raison d'etre and hard and fast rules work just fine as long as we happen to agree with them.


I started a thread quite a while ago that was almost universally disliked, misunderstood and/or reviled: it was called "we're living in conservative times".  Does anyone now better understand what I was getting at?

Peter, is it possible that the nature of the sites are similar so the end result looks similar?  I've only seen a handful of the great moderns, but if minimalism is applied on sites that are similar it would make sense that the courses would have a common look.  I suppose a test of this would be applying minimalism to a different (i.e non sandy) site and seeing if it looks the same.


Many of the minimalist architects have built on non-sandy sites, so I guess the question is do they look alike?  I would say they do have a lot in common and the minimalism look comes from partly from the land and partly from the style of the architect.  Perhaps that is a long way of saying that I think I agree with you.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not really concerned whether anyone changes or not.  I sort of think all of this stuff evolves and may be changing even when we don't notice it at the time.  I do think some very good strategic and dramatic design could be done if we were not so in love with bunkers.  If I had any changing to do it would be along those lines.  It might not photograph as well and the writers might not be able to easily hype it but it could be a change.  Bunkers are overrated and costly both initially and to maintain.

[Tom_Doak]

I made a conscious decision that day to never offer anyone anything unusual unless they specifically requested it. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that is what Bill and Ben and Tom and Gil and whoever are doing. I believe they are simply building the best possible course given the land they have, utilizing their principles combined with experience. But I think the most golf critics don't understand the distinction, not can they see the differences in the final product.

George:  Well stated.  And like you do, we in golf design do have customers / clients, and it behooves us to be sure they're okay with it when we start building something that might be different than what they expect. 


I like to have the client around a lot for the first 4-5 holes of construction, so he can see what we're up to and have a chance to weigh in if he's not comfortable with it.  I can't remember the last time a client was really not okay with what we were doing -- perhaps that's a sign that I'm not taking enough chances, but I think I take more than most designers do.


The thing I've been thinking about for the last few years is that there are not many architects in position to really take chances.  Many are afraid that one well-publicized mistake could be their last new project ever.  I'm one of the few* that's in position to be daring, and I want to make the most of that ... but I just have to find some more clients who want to go there, too, and it's proving harder than I imagined it would be.




* Ironically, one of the only other architects I know who thinks this way is Jack Nicklaus.  He has done so many courses that I think he's a bit bored with the same old thing, and he's made plenty of attempts to try something really different.

[George Pazin]

Just for clarity:

1. I'm not suggesting any of the architects to change - don't care whether they do or don't
2. I'm certainly not asking Mike to change - don't care if he does or does not.
3. Don't care if others copy his formula or select the same architects.
4. I think Mike H is entitled to have his opinion.

Ian

Ian, you are one of my all time favorite posters on here, so it pains me a bit to say, I think you completely missed my point(s). I'm not saying Mike doesn't have a right to an opinion, nor am I saying you shouldn't seek variety. I'm simply asking for some sort of clue as to what you might see as different on any given site.


I think different exists even where most don't see it. Going back to my consistent usage of Oakmont (my apologies, it's one of the few courses I know that others know as well), I see a downhill approach to a green falling away on a long-ish 1st hole, a short but not really driveable par 4 with a diabolical green 2nd, a hilltop, almost crownlike green on a fairly long par 4 3rd, etc. Most people just see narrow fairways, thick rough, deep bunkers, and the fastest greens in the world. And I'm not saying either view is right or wrong, just different.

[George Pazin]

I'm not really concerned whether anyone changes or not.  I sort of think all of this stuff evolves and may be changing even when we don't notice it at the time.  I do think some very good strategic and dramatic design could be done if we were not so in love with bunkers.  If I had any changing to do it would be along those lines.  It might not photograph as well and the writers might not be able to easily hype it but it could be a change.  Bunkers are overrated and costly both initially and to maintain.

Good answer, thanks.

[Joe Hancock]

The thread didn't start out as a topic on design, but it sure has developed into an interesting and educational thread. Thanks.

I think often of how to mix it up, so to speak, but the site really does dictate so many aspects of the design, it's tough to have an idea without a site.

[Ian Andrew]

George,

Pete Dye said if he was going to make a name for himself in this business, he should just do the opposite of whatever Trent Jones was doing. There's no point in trying to one up Bill or Tom, because: a) you're unlikely to and b) even if you do a good job, you'll be seen as ripping off their ideas by many

So do the opposite - go Costanza - or at least do something clearly different.
Style is a great starting point - but so is scale.
Bunker patterns are another - or are their more non bunker options available now?

You could even be far more audacious with what you build - there's always Maximalism - whether Lido or Yale as a borrow
I'm stunned nobody hasn't gone super-neoclassical and built something right out of the late 1800's

One of my greatest golfing experiences was Royal North Devon - talk about picking your own path ...


But as it has been mentioned before, you can't preplan any of this because in the end the site will tell you what to do.

There are always options ... that's why we visit so many places to find ideas ... so can put our own unique spin on things when given that opportunity. What there isn't is opportunities ...

[Peter Pallotta]

But that's just the point, Ian: the site ISN'T telling C&C what to do anymore, the FORMULA is...or so it seems.

[George Pazin]

But that's just the point, Ian: the site ISN'T telling C&C what to do anymore, the FORMULA is...or so it seems.

And what makes you say that?

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

I guess I see it differently than you.

I think owner and architect are on the same page.
It's one of golf's great collaborations.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian, George - yes, just my opinion. I would feel foolish to pretend that my opinion is of equal worth/value to those of the professionals on this board, or even to those of the many well-travelled golfers here. But it would be a fake modesty and false humility to pretend that I don't believe what my eyes are telling me, or that I don't think the formula (which DMK has so clearly described) is not a dominate driver of the final product.
Best wishes to you both

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Opinions are good.
My choice of words should have been more passive ... so I changed it.

Happy holidays to you and your family.

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:


Does it change things if you think of the formula driving where they decide to build their courses?


Once you commit to a certain type of land, hasn't the "style" already been dictated?


Sven

[Jason Thurman]

But that's just the point, Ian: the site ISN'T telling C&C what to do anymore, the FORMULA is...or so it seems.

I don't agree with this at all. The way I've always explained Coore and Crenshaw's style to those unfamiliar with their work is that, for better or worse, they take exactly what the site gives. I've always suspected that this feeling had to do with Bill Coore's routing style and the idea that he routes by walking the property, almost blindly, letting the land lead him down paths that feel intuitive until eventually a vision of the routing comes into his uniquely gifted mind. I've probably completely romanticized the actual process he follows, but that's basically how I've always interpreted it. No one builds courses where the walk feels more intuitive, or where the holes fit the land they're on quite as well as Coore and Crenshaw. The downside is that sometimes the most intuitive routing produces long runs of holes that feel just a bit too repetitious, but the walk always feels like it explores the property in just the right way.


Going back to my friend Mike Hendren's post that really got this thread rolling after 10 or so pages, this is almost the opposite of the feeling that I get at Lawsonia. The routing there feels a lot less "natural" to me, starting with the first tee shot, then the odd way that the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 8th holes seem to burrow as far into the corners of the property as possible before reversing course like a Roomba working its way around the corners of a room, or the way the 11th just juts out almost randomly into the middle of a field before the hairpin turn that takes us back out 13 before we start doing the Roomba thing again as 15 and 16 almost belligerently insist on turning right and smashing up against the treeline instead of just taking the obvious path in front of them. If Lawsonia was still a dairy farm instead of a golf course, the cows would never walk the property quite the way that Langford routed it. And while holes like 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16-18 seem to fit the land they're on like a glove in almost the way a C&C hole does, holes like 1, 6, 7, 12, and 15 seem to totally ignore the conventions of what an architect would intuitively build on the land they occupy. And maybe that sounds like a bad thing, but it's one of my favorite things about the course. It has a delightful audacity and, while not particularly difficult, it presents an awful lot of uncomfortable shots in part because it does the unexpected or unintuitive so frequently. It's not dissimilar to Crystal Downs in that way.


I haven't played Sand Valley, but I have admired the intuitiveness of Coore and Crenshaw's work while also wishing it wasn't always quite so perfectly married to that intuitiveness. I like to think maybe I understand some of what Mike might have been getting at originally, but then again, it's also possible that I'm just feeling the effects of the season of Love Actually, eggnog, and "Son, step away from the keyboard" again.