Fashion in golf course architecture

[Martin Lehmann]

Golf course architecture to me seems to be much more fashion-conscious than architects or other people in the golf industry are willing to admit. Imitation of styles and copycat behavior are pretty widespread. In that sense, golf course architecture is not different from other forms of design and architecture. It always surprises me, that there isn't much debate on styles and trends in golf course architecture (except for the repeated old stories about The Golden Age and never ending congratulatory statement on the great names from the past). Why is that?

[Sean_A]

Martin

I do think there is a lot of discussion about bunkering looking the same for many courses and at best maybe only a few styles completely dominate the architecture landscape. 

To a very large degree, archies delivery what golfers expect a course should look like...no matter the type of terrain or turf.  Its financially risky to well and truly let it all hang out.  Tobacco Road is an often used example of a polarizing course...that said, I have never heard of the place being in financial straits. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Golf course architecture to me seems to be much more fashion-conscious than architects or other people in the golf industry are willing to admit. Imitation of styles and copycat behavior are pretty widespread. In that sense, golf course architecture is not different from other forms of design and architecture. It always surprises me, that there isn't much debate on styles and trends in golf course architecture (except for the repeated old stories about The Golden Age and never ending congratulatory statement on the great names from the past). Why is that?

Martin:

I'm not sure if this was true in the 1920's, but it sure is today, because we have our fashion magazines to go alongside. 

When Mr. Dye's work started to make waves in the 1980's with his long, flat, grass-faced bunkers [an imitation of Langford's and Raynor's work], Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills were among the many others who switched to copy-cat the same style.*

The when I got so sick of that to go in the opposite direction and imitate George Thomas' and Alister MacKenzie's bunker styles, it took a while longer, but now tons of architects are doing the same.

* And look at all the guys who built island greens!

But what's to debate about it?  It happens because everybody thinks they have to follow what's trendy in order to get attention.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, It had to be true in the 20's because of the mostly ignored Behr warnings about designing for the "Whims of the day".

 The El Champeon in Howey-in-the-hills Fl. (1926) is a great example of how early Island greens were used. EastMoreland too.

Martin, from my limited exposure, those that start many, if not most, golf course projects, are basically clueless about the finer points, and are therefore more susceptible to current trends.  I suspect Tom has much more experience with that.

[Martin Lehmann]

Golf course architecture to me seems to be much more fashion-conscious than architects or other people in the golf industry are willing to admit. Imitation of styles and copycat behavior are pretty widespread. In that sense, golf course architecture is not different from other forms of design and architecture. It always surprises me, that there isn't much debate on styles and trends in golf course architecture (except for the repeated old stories about The Golden Age and never ending congratulatory statement on the great names from the past). Why is that?

Martin:

I'm not sure if this was true in the 1920's, but it sure is today, because we have our fashion magazines to go alongside. 

When Mr. Dye's work started to make waves in the 1980's with his long, flat, grass-faced bunkers [an imitation of Langford's and Raynor's work], Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills were among the many others who switched to copy-cat the same style.*

The when I got so sick of that to go in the opposite direction and imitate George Thomas' and Alister MacKenzie's bunker styles, it took a while longer, but now tons of architects are doing the same.

* And look at all the guys who built island greens!

But what's to debate about it?  It happens because everybody thinks they have to follow what's trendy in order to get attention.

Tom,

Couldn't it be interesting to have a debate on the fact that trends are followed so blindly? And on the fact that so many courses are build subservient to the wishes of unknowing project developers?

Another interesting topic to have a debate on, could be the widespread conservatism in golf course architecture, the constant return to old styles and concepts, the lack of real innovations and the effects this has on the future of the game.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Couldn't it be interesting to have a debate on the fact that trends are followed so blindly? And on the fact that so many courses are build subservient to the wishes of unknowing project developers?

Another interesting topic to have a debate on, could be the widespread conservatism in golf course architecture, the constant return to old styles and concepts, the lack of real innovations and the effects this has on the future of the game.

Martin:

I've got my little bucket list of different things I want to build over the next 10-20 years ... I just have to find clients who are willing to embrace some of them.  For example, I would love to build a par-68 course in the U.S.A., but I have yet to meet a client who wanted me to give it a go.  However, I wasn't sure I would ever get to build a reversible course either, and I'm working on crossing that off my list this summer.

In general, architects get more and more conservative about their own status and reputation, just as they acquire a reputation strong enough to allow them to push for things that are out of the box.  [They also get greedy and start building five courses at a time, instead of one or two, which increases the odds that they'll stick with what got them to that point.]  I think it's more likely that some 25-year-old will produce the innovation you seek ... but he or she will be staking their whole career on it, so I hope you are ready to offer your support when they try. 

[Randy Thompson]

I think it's more likely that some 25-year-old will produce the innovation you seek ...
 Tom,
I am not to sure about that statement. I think you may have the world record for first solo design at such a young age and not sure if the project was completed or even started when you were 25. You also need to consider that your break through came at a time when the US was producing 350 new courses a year and I seriously doubt if we will live to see new course openings ever reach even 50% of that number! If one finishes college at 22 and decides to work for a signature firm, he most likely will be stuck behind a drafting table at 25 and should count his blessing if he get any actual field time. If he is fortunate enough to get the field time, I don´t see Mr Signature giving him the freedom for new and innovative out of the box concepts for the reasons you listed in your above post. However, nothing is imposible and if the young whipper snappers gets around all these hurdles and manages to produce something that really works out of the box, Mr Signature will take full credit and the kid will have a hard time trying to sell future clientele thst they were his concepts and he has plenty more where they came from and all are going to work and be well recieved. History tells us few get the oportunity for a solo design before 35 and considering the current market, breaking in before 40, will be quite an accomplishment.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's more likely that some 25-year-old will produce the innovation you seek ...
 Tom,
I am not to sure about that statement. I think you may have the world record for first solo design at such a young age and not sure if the project was completed or even started when you were 25. You also need to consider that your break through came at a time when the US was producing 350 new courses a year and I seriously doubt if we will live to see new course openings ever reach even 50% of that number! If one finishes college at 22 and decides to work for a signature firm, he most likely will be stuck behind a drafting table at 25 and should count his blessing if he get any actual field time. If he is fortunate enough to get the field time, I don´t see Mr Signature giving him the freedom for new and innovative out of the box concepts for the reasons you listed in your above post. However, nothing is imposible and if the young whipper snappers gets around all these hurdles and manages to produce something that really works out of the box, Mr Signature will take full credit and the kid will have a hard time trying to sell future clientele thst they were his concepts and he has plenty more where they came from and all are going to work and be well recieved. History tells us few get the oportunity for a solo design before 35 and considering the current market, breaking in before 40, will be quite an accomplishment.

Randy:

I meant someone who is 25 today, whatever age they will be when they get their chance ... however the younger they get out on their own the more likely they'll be to build something bold.

I was 25 when I got hired to build High Pointe, and 28 when it opened.  I had no wife or family and I did not think I had anything at risk in trying to do something different.  I've had at least three or four young people who worked for me who could take it in a new direction, if they could get a chance, but you are right, it's tough to get the chance. 

One of these days I might just retire and become their agent.

[Jim Hoak]

Isn't this part of the old debate of whether golf course architecture is art or science?  History says that MacKenzie and Hunter called Raynor "the Engineer," and it was not said in a favorable way.

[Randy Thompson]

One of these days I might just retire and become their agent.
Tom,
Now, that might work, someone of your prestige and status could sell them a lot better than they could sell themselves. I would say my overall sales skills are close to an 8 on a scale of one to ten. However, when I have to sell myself that 8 drops to a 4. If things turn around it could be a very viable alternative. Why turn down ten good projects a year in order to remain in your confort zone of accepting one to two course per year and there is not a lot of attraction to accepting more than this and killing yourself traveling and possibly put at risk the quality of your future finished projects. However, complete retirement would be difficult also because the work is so fullfilling, I think a combination of part time agent and doing one project every two years for example is a nice balance for the fast approaching senior years! Are you testing the market with the new project near your home that will be designed by your associates??

[Martin Lehmann]

Tom,

Couldn't it be interesting to have a debate on the fact that trends are followed so blindly? And on the fact that so many courses are build subservient to the wishes of unknowing project developers?

Another interesting topic to have a debate on, could be the widespread conservatism in golf course architecture, the constant return to old styles and concepts, the lack of real innovations and the effects this has on the future of the game.

Martin:

I've got my little bucket list of different things I want to build over the next 10-20 years ... I just have to find clients who are willing to embrace some of them.  For example, I would love to build a par-68 course in the U.S.A., but I have yet to meet a client who wanted me to give it a go.  However, I wasn't sure I would ever get to build a reversible course either, and I'm working on crossing that off my list this summer.

In general, architects get more and more conservative about their own status and reputation, just as they acquire a reputation strong enough to allow them to push for things that are out of the box.  [They also get greedy and start building five courses at a time, instead of one or two, which increases the odds that they'll stick with what got them to that point.]  I think it's more likely that some 25-year-old will produce the innovation you seek ... but he or she will be staking their whole career on it, so I hope you are ready to offer your support when they try. 

Tom,

I'm not sure if I understand you right, but there seems to be a kind of prisoners dilemma between clients and architects resulting in conservatism and resistance to innovation (the courses clients expect versus the architects need to make a living).

This is probably true, but I have a slightly different view. I took up golf in The Netherlands during my days at high school. But I didn't fall in love with the game until I made a trip to Scotland in an old VW Beetle when I was a law student. In those days I didn't have the money to play the famous courses, so I played the low-end ones and munis that can be found everywhere in that part of the world. Simple and elegant tracks that are good enough to test all parts of your game. In those days (the early 80s) golf was starting to boom in Holland. With the Scottish experience in mind, I thought that it would be great to have similar courses in my country too. Simple lay-outs, easy to build and maintain, of good quality and with all elements to make them challenging. I made a first plan that consisted of a compact routing (most parts in Holland are flat and new courses were built on old farm land), tees, greens and hazards in geometrical forms, that could be applied in a simple toolbox manner. Since I'm not a golf course architect (and I’m still not) I approached a Dutch architect who was very successful during that time. I explained my plan and the concept of a golf course that first and foremost is a sports field (!). I wasn't taken seriously and he showed me the door.

It's almost 40 years later and nothing has changed. People still want to have golf courses that look like Augusta National, St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Pebble Beach et cetera. And architects keep building these monumental, cathedral like golf courses. Some are lucky enough to get the opportunity, sites and budgets to make courses that have these monumental, cathedral qualities, but most are not and end up building poor replicas.

I visited Florida some weeks ago and played Streamsong. It was absolutely fabulous and was impressed by both courses. After we finished playing, we had diner in the excellent restaurant, surrounded by middle aged, white men carrying all credit cards you can imagine (just like us). Although I was having a great time, I thought that this opulent luxury can’t be the future of the game of golf and my mind wandered to my forty years old golf course concept and the way it was ridiculed by that Dutch golf architect.

[jeffwarne]

Most architects are understandably afraid to innovate or deviate from current fads(Castle Course)
As soon as Kidd became fashionable(Gamble Sands) he was right back in the fold

[David Davis]

Martin,

It's an interesting topic but I really wonder if it has anything to do with the architect if not only a little.

I can't think of a course that has been financed and designed by an architect in the modern era, one where carte blanche was given because all the risk was in his/her own hands.

That means that until one of the owners/investment groups behind such new projects loses their mind (so to speak) and wants to take a huge risk it's not likely that this will happen.

Given we have already ridiculed many obscure projects, strange bunker shaping and un-practical routings on GCA and of course we are an extremely open-minded and easy going group it would seem not extremely likely that this will be done quickly by one of the treehouse members. But then again that depends on how extreme you are thinking about.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure if I understand you right, but there seems to be a kind of prisoners dilemma between clients and architects resulting in conservatism and resistance to innovation (the courses clients expect versus the architects need to make a living).

This is probably true, but I have a slightly different view. I took up golf in The Netherlands during my days at high school. But I didn't fall in love with the game until I made a trip to Scotland in an old VW Beetle when I was a law student. In those days I didn't have the money to play the famous courses, so I played the low-end ones and munis that can be found everywhere in that part of the world. Simple and elegant tracks that are good enough to test all parts of your game. In those days (the early 80s) golf was starting to boom in Holland. With the Scottish experience in mind, I thought that it would be great to have similar courses in my country too. Simple lay-outs, easy to build and maintain, of good quality and with all elements to make them challenging. I made a first plan that consisted of a compact routing (most parts in Holland are flat and new courses were built on old farm land), tees, greens and hazards in geometrical forms, that could be applied in a simple toolbox manner.

Martin:

How is your idea any different than what Seth Raynor did?  It's not the current style, but you're saying your style would be very repetitive.  It would either fail, or be copied by others.

I am not saying there is a "prisoner's dilemma," or at least I've never felt trapped into doing something in particular.  [However it was very hard to explain to a couple of clients why I wouldn't be building something just like the last course I'd done, that they liked so much.]  The reason for all the repetition you cite is simply a business decision to repeat something that's been successful, overruling an artistic decision to try something else.

As Jeff points out indirectly above, it's also true that if you build something different, you have to nail your new style right out of the box, or you'll be crucified for deviating from the norm.  And it's more difficult than you suggest to do something that no one has ever done before.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
Does this make you the crucifier of Kidd? Did he try something new and inventive but not nail it?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Does this make you the crucifier of Kidd? Did he try something new and inventive but not nail it?

I'm not sure if David was trying something new and inventive or not ... he has lately described it as following the trend of building difficult courses and "rejective" greens.  Anyway, it wasn't well received, and not just by me.  My review came several years after the course opened, and I didn't write anything that several people hadn't said to me first.   But I'm sure some perceive it as being all about me.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
I have never been, I was more wondering if you perceived that he had tried something new and it did not work. I assume that artists have a higher tolerance for failure if they believe the other artist has made an attempt at innovation.

[Sean_A]

Most architects are understandably afraid to innovate or deviate from current fads(Castle Course)
As soon as Kidd became fashionable(Gamble Sands) he was right back in the fold

Despite the panning and fat 0, Kidd got a lot more right than wrong at Castle Course.  He just took the difficult green concept a notch too far given the typical weather of the area.  I think this was a strange design decision given the ample space provided off the tee.  From my perspective, much of the problem could have been solved with good drainage and an easing of the green fronts down a bit so the ground game could be employed.  I still think there is hope for the Castle if someone would take the bull by the horns.

Ciao

[Martin Lehmann]

Maybe I didn’t make myself very clear, which is quite possible since English isn’t my mother tongue.

As much as I like and admire the great courses of the past and some of the ones that have been built more recently (like the Streamsong courses), I am worried that these courses, and especially the weak replicas, are not contributing much to a healthy future of golf.  Conservatism (in the negative European meaning of the word as resistance against change, innovation and development) is hindering young people and people from various cultural backgrounds to enter the world of golf and to take up this wonderful sport. In my view that is a pity and something that should be taken seriously by those who want to see golf advancing.

Golf course design plays an important role in this. And I believe that new and groundbreaking concepts are needed. Attractive little courses, with a low level of entry, appealing to young people and people from other sporting backgrounds. A bit like the fun parks for snowboards and freestyle skiers you’ll find nowadays in skiing resorts (even the old ‘classy’ ones like Zermatt, Lech and Verbier). Golf courses that are a modern version of the low profile courses in Scotland, I mentioned before.

I know that this sounds revolutionary and might even offend lovers of great, traditional golf course architecture (and believe me, I’m one of them). The expensive, cathedral like courses, where golf is celebrated and where the architects are worshipped, are great, but only for a small group of people. I would like to see the introduction of simple, low-cost courses, well enough designed, build and maintained that they are truly challenging, ask for the best of golfing skills, demand all shots in the bag and first and foremost are fun to play.

Obviously project developers, club owners, golf federations, et cetera should take the lead in such development, but architects can play their part too.

[Brent Hutto]

Martin,

If one were to build and operate a "simple and elegant" unconventional golf course on 120 acres of land in such-and-such a location, how much cheaper would that need to be in order to create opportunities for underserved potential golfers as compared to a "conservative" conventional golf course on the same 120 acres in the same location?

Once you've acquired the land, the permits to build the course, constructed the course and are operating and maintaining it on a daily basis my guess is about 90% of the total cost is fixed and you're only fiddling around with the other 10% of the cost by simplifying or minimizing the construction and maintenance cost.

I would also speculate that for golf to be as widely accessible as you're hoping for, some way would have to be found to make land acquisition and construction maybe 50% as expensive while also drastically reducing ongoing upkeep costs. The type of thing you're envisioning might (potentially) make a big difference in upkeep but it's not going to affect land acquisition, permitting, financing and so forth at all.

[Randy Thompson]

Maybe I didn’t make myself very clear, which is quite possible since English isn’t my mother tongue.

As much as I like and admire the great courses of the past and some of the ones that have been built more recently (like the Streamsong courses), I am worried that these courses, and especially the weak replicas, are not contributing much to a healthy future of golf.  Conservatism (in the negative European meaning of the word as resistance against change, innovation and development) is hindering young people and people from various cultural backgrounds to enter the world of golf and to take up this wonderful sport. In my view that is a pity and something that should be taken seriously by those who want to see golf advancing.

Golf course design plays an important role in this. And I believe that new and groundbreaking concepts are needed. Attractive little courses, with a low level of entry, appealing to young people and people from other sporting backgrounds. A bit like the fun parks for snowboards and freestyle skiers you’ll find nowadays in skiing resorts (even the old ‘classy’ ones like Zermatt, Lech and Verbier). Golf courses that are a modern version of the low profile courses in Scotland, I mentioned before.

I know that this sounds revolutionary and might even offend lovers of great, traditional golf course architecture (and believe me, I’m one of them). The expensive, cathedral like courses, where golf is celebrated and where the architects are worshipped, are great, but only for a small group of people. I would like to see the introduction of simple, low-cost courses, well enough designed, build and maintained that they are truly challenging, ask for the best of golfing skills, demand all shots in the bag and first and foremost are fun to play.

Obviously project developers, club owners, golf federations, et cetera should take the lead in such development, but architects can play their part too.

Martin,
I am in complete agreement and I am heading in the direction you outlined. South America lacks golfers and this is the way to develope golfers.
I don´t agree with Brent on the cost differences, its much much more if one can select the correct property or get lucky and have a favorable property. Doing more with less may not be necessary in countries with millions of golfers but when you have limited golfers it is important. We are also dedicating more effort on the practice ranges. I have a project that is suppose to start in Oct but I have my doubts it will start that soon but our target is 500,000 to 600,000 dollars for the first nine holes with equipment and hopefully it will be able to be maintained with five persons during the high season and closed for the Winter. The Project is associated with a ski resort.

[Tom_Doak]

I'll agree and disagree.  In other markets people are more receptive to not having everything look perfect on opening day, and you can build a golf course for a hell of a lot less if you take that perspective.  In the U.S. that is much harder to do ... conventional wisdom is that first impressions are everything, and everyone from the architect to the consultants to the client is afraid that the course will be quickly dismissed unless it is built to the same standard as every other expensive new course.

Martin, yes, it's a conservative business [in the political sense of the word] ... most of the people who amass enough money to build a golf course [which is usually done as a hobby project] fit a fairly predictable profile.  That doesn't mean they are against innovation, but most of them are afraid of looking foolish to their friends.

I agree with your synopsis of what is needed, but I'm not sure where the developers are going to come from.  No matter what you spend on everything else, land is expensive, especially when it's close to the population center, and that's what drives everything else.  For the same reasons, nobody builds an 800-square-foot sustainable pocket house on a $2 million lot.  [In fact, often, you aren't even allowed to if you want to.]

[Peter Pallotta]

To Martin's other point (in the opening post): it does seem that the homogenization of the culture as a whole is reflected (to some degree) in gca, just as it is in most other regards. Doesn't it seem true that, 80 years ago, a typical town-square in upstate New York looked much different than the one in southern Texas, and the music heard in Chicago sounded much different than the music in the Appalachians, and a dinner out in New Orleans tasted much different than a dinner out in Boston, and the Pacific Northwest was one thing and the Eastern Seaboard another and So-Cal something else entirely and the Great Plains another. And actually, I think gca might be doing relatively well (compared to other aspects of cultural expression) in avoiding the forces of sameness do prevalent today. I mean, back then a Ross was a Ross and a Mackenzie a Mackenzie and a MacRaynor a MacRaynor and a Tillinghast a Tillinghast; and so today a Doak is a Doak and a Dye a Dye and a Brauer a Brauer and a Coore a Coore and a Nicklaus a Nicklaus. We just have to look a little harder to see the differences -- since machines and money tend to have an levelling/equalizing affect on the craft.

Peter   

[Jim Sherma]

All of this speaks to why so many of the Eisenhower/Palmer era public golfers were in a sense created by and sustained by municipal courses. There was never meaningful private investment in public golf going back to the era of the creation of Cobbs Creek, Van Cortlandt Park and George Wright. The emerging blue collar middle class had public venues to play on because tax dollars were used to supply them.

This is not to say that there was no privately funded development in public courses once the demand was there. As the areas they serviced have been built-in however the land under these courses are much more at risk to development than the land underneath the muni courses because of the privatized profit motive. I very much doubt that a public course like Galloping Hill in New Jersey would still be undeveloped if it was not part of the county park system. Based on a very small localized experience if there was not active blocking of rezoning these old line privately owned public courses they would be getting pinched at a higher rate. The CCFAD model did not require public money but has also proven to be less than sustainable.

[Brent Hutto]

I am fortunate to remain naive in matter of finance and real-estate development. But I can't for the life of me see land in an urban or close-in suburban area being purchased and developed into a golf course purely in order to extract $30 green fees from working-class golfers. I'm talking about USA here because it's all I know.

Surely there's additional money has to come from somebody, somewhere to turn 100+ acres of land into even the most rudimentary grounds for golf, no? I can't see how enough $30 green fees could ever accrue to pay a return on buying that land which is remotely comparable to sticking tract homes, strip shopping centers and/or apartments on it.

I still get the impression any design innovations are either roughly cost-neutral stylistic issues (frilly vs. clean edge bunker, geometric vs. free flowing shapes, etc.) or they represent cost savings of a few percent here or there at the margins in terms of the overall cost of a new course's creation.