[Tom_Doak]

Bunker is far less important than its given credit for strategically. But it's so easy to add more and more and think your creating more strategy ... when your not ... your just making things more obvious

Ian:


I often think about how few fairway bunkers there are at Crystal Downs.  The back nine, which is more Maxwell's, really has none other than the 15th hole, and my favorite 8th hole doesn't have one, either.  They just aren't necessary ... position on a particular side of the fairway is key to playing all of those holes, and position is well defended by the rough or by trees.  You can tell that MacKenzie was more involved with the first few holes, because there are more bunkers!

[Jeffrey Stein]

Tom / Ian , hello!  I've seen Crystal only twice, but both times impressed with the elegance of the presentation.  What do I know, but I don't think Crystal would be that much improved with more bunkering?


Do you reckon that Crystal is "stripped down to its architectural core"?


What if Mackenzie was there the whole time, would Crystal downs have been that much different from a bunkering point of view?[size=78%] [/size]

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeffrey - interesting that you and Tom mention Crystal Downs. I have only played it once, and while undoubtedly a great golf course, for me it had more "artifice" than art to it; in short, I don't think of it as "stripped down". Much like Augusta (the only other Dr Mac course I'm familiar with, but only through hundreds of television viewings), I found the "planning" of Dr Mac's work very evident there, very "conscious/self-conscious" for lack of a better term. Perhaps that is why my favourite holes at CD, besides the Par 5 8th -- which is the only Par 5 I've ever loved -- were the Par 3s: there was something remarkably understated and stripped-down about their design and presentation, i.e. they "work" and fulfill their purpose beautifully, but without -- as, for me, many of the famous Par 4s seem to do -- drawing attention to their architecture/strategy/choices. 

Earlier in the thread Tom mentioned The Loop -- and from photos and write ups, it seems a course that, in part because of its reversibility, has been stripped down to it essence, both in terms of its playability and with its aesthetics; I imagine that any "artifice" there, any strikingly-evident and obvious "design", would stand out like a sore thumb....if not from one direction than certainly from the other. 

I asked earlier if Ian had worked (while with Doug Carrick) on Ballantrae , a course north of Toronto that I played (many years ago) several times. On the one hand, you couldn't find a more quintessential housing/real estate course -- I imagine the routing was directly tied to/had to take into account that component; but on the other hand, I remember it as an excellent example of a particular kind of stripped down and low-to-the-ground and understated golf course...and I remember how much my friends and I (ranging from a 4 handicap to a 18) enjoyed it and found it playable and commented on the quality of the design, years before any of us really thought about architecture.  (Years later, it occurred to me that it was the closest I'd yet come to playing something akin to Garden City).  If Ian DID have something to do with the design, it shows that his appreciation for such apparent simplicity of intent and design is of long standing. 

Peter
   

[Sean_A]

I don't think of fewer bunkers as stripped down architecture.  I think fewer bunkers offers more of an opportunity for a better design if a more balanced tool bag features are used. 


Ciao

[Jaeger Kovich]

Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.


Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?


Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.

Jaeger--


What aspects of the "honest connection between the architecture and the landscape" are the ones that "evoke emotion," if not the way it looks to the third parties who experience it, and the resulting judgments? A golf course is a piece of visual art. The visuality (?) of it is necessary for the assessment of it.


Also, I'm not sure what implications are attached to your contention that Picasso and Braque (the intent behind Hendrix' clothes doesn't matter much, since his art was sound) were not "after an aesthetic." They painted "what they truly felt inside of them," okay, fine, so what? It's still the case that the people who look at their paintings can't help but regard them as entities in possession of some kind of aesthetic. Whether or not the artist intends to impose an aesthetic on the work, by virtue of being a visual artist, (s)he imposes an aesthetic on the work. No aesthetic, no visual art.

Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).


Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.


It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!


Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I don't think of fewer bunkers as stripped down architecture.   


Ciao

Totally agree.


When I think stripped down architecture the first place my mind goes is a man wandering around in nature with a club hitting a ball towards things his eye picks out. I start to think about when I used to grab a club and a ball and make up holes in the practice fields behind my dorm room at college. Hitting it through the goal posts towards a fence post beyond. Then back around around a tree to lacrosse net, etc. Friends joined, it became a game. Is that not the essence of golf?


The next example my mind goes to is the Sheep Ranch. Although I've never been there, I've stared at the sketch and article on Tom's wall for hours... The Loop looks exceptionally interesting to me.

[Mike_Young]

Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).


Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.


It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!


Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.

Jaeger you are on a roll don't stop    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

[Jeffrey Stein]

Peter,


I think Ian gets the credit for mentioning CD, just trying to go with the flow of the conversation...  Dr. Mackenzie often gets associated with flashy bunkering but CD is somewhat reserved and Jockey Club also did not strike me as overly bunkered (no chance to hide the artifice at Jockey).  However both courses demand thoughtful positioning.  I couldn't have exemplified two more topographically different courses, but both use a variety of ground contouring and bunkering to create interesting architecture (at Jockey many of the drainage swales which run across the fairways are used to create uneven lies on an otherwise flat property)


I tend to agree with Ian that bunkering makes strategy more obvious, but like Sean says, if used in conjunction with good ground game strategy, you will ineveitably come out with some really though provoking golf architecture.  The loop is evidence of that as well.


I've been regularly playing / maintaining a bunkerless course for the last month now.  Lots of intriguing ground contours to keep things interesting  and a good forward bounce allow the architecture to reveal itself through playing.  I think the course would improve with some bunkering but it really doesn't need any. 


This is the essential balance...  A flat course like Jockey Club or even a place like Bob O' Link needs artificial features (bunkering / push up greens) to keep things interesting.  If you have enough contour, a few bunkers here and there should be enough to grab your attention.

[Mike_Young]

If you strip a golf course down, the one thing it has to has to have is cups.  We can choose to mow a "green area" at a  lower height for putting and we can locate some tee areas to initiate the hole.  Rough is not needed and bunkers are not needed.  IMHO bunkers could be the first thing to go and rough second.   Why have we allowed the bunker to consume so much? 

[Tom_Doak]

If you strip a golf course down, the one thing it has to has to have is cups.  We can choose to mow a "green area" at a  lower height for putting and we can locate some tee areas to initiate the hole.  Rough is not needed and bunkers are not needed.  IMHO bunkers could be the first thing to go and rough second.   Why have we allowed the bunker to consume so much?

Mike:


I will quibble with your reduction here.  Rough is NOT needed ... but grass doesn't mow itself, so unless you have a bunch of animals grazing the field of play, it is the fairways that golfers add to the landscape, not the rough.


Interestingly, some of my favorite courses in the UK are still grazed, and some of my favorite sites that I've worked on [incl. Cape Kidnappers and St. Andrews Beach and Rock Creek and Dismal River] were open grazing land when we started.  It sucked when we had to take the cattle away, and all the rough started to assert itself. 


I remember spending a couple of days at The National GC [Australia] with Mike Clayton when the land for the two newer courses was all being grazed, and it was just spectacular ... much more beautiful than the corridors through the native rough there today.  It looked like the surface of the ocean, only green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While Mike Y is being somewhat facetious, we do have to define what "core" architecture is before deciding whether to strip down to it.  As I read this, it seems like an obtuse method of (again) celebrating minimalism and defending it as the only true path (much like some religions tout themselves)

I am more in the TEPaul "Big World" theory and believe now (as always) we are best off letting every architect and owner explore their own vision of architecture and await the results before we give it an automatic "thumbs down" based on preconceptions of any kind, not playing the course.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Jaeger you are on a roll don't stop    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

Hey Man, Don't drink the purple kool aid! [size=78%] [/size][/size][size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13tx3pFNjNI[/size]

[Tim Gavrich]

Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.


Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?


Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.

Jaeger--


What aspects of the "honest connection between the architecture and the landscape" are the ones that "evoke emotion," if not the way it looks to the third parties who experience it, and the resulting judgments? A golf course is a piece of visual art. The visuality (?) of it is necessary for the assessment of it.


Also, I'm not sure what implications are attached to your contention that Picasso and Braque (the intent behind Hendrix' clothes doesn't matter much, since his art was sound) were not "after an aesthetic." They painted "what they truly felt inside of them," okay, fine, so what? It's still the case that the people who look at their paintings can't help but regard them as entities in possession of some kind of aesthetic. Whether or not the artist intends to impose an aesthetic on the work, by virtue of being a visual artist, (s)he imposes an aesthetic on the work. No aesthetic, no visual art.

Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).


Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.


It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!


Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.

Jaeger--


I think you're in error to discount the colors used in those paintings as an element of their greatness. Someone like Mark Rothko would certainly take issue with your dismissal of that key element of painting (and his works are abstract in broadly similar ways as Picasso's), just like I'm taking issue with your dismissal of the fact that to the player, whether the architect imposed or channeled an aesthetic just doesn't matter, because how a stripped-down course looks is still how it looks. It's the experience of seeing and playing the course that "evokes emotion."


I'd be interested in reading the writings of golf course architects that speak directly to the conclusions you're arguing for. Which specific architects are/were demonstrably in dialogue with the likes of Picasso and Braque then, and chefs like Ferran Adria and Grant Achatz (whose molecular gastronomy movement is the culinary version of what you're applying to golf) now?

[Ian Andrew]

I asked earlier if Ian had worked (while with Doug Carrick) on Ballantrae , a course north of Toronto that I played (many years ago) several times. On the one hand, you couldn't find a more quintessential housing/real estate course -- I imagine the routing was directly tied to/had to take into account that component; but on the other hand, I remember it as an excellent example of a particular kind of stripped down and low-to-the-ground and understated golf course...and I remember how much my friends and I (ranging from a 4 handicap to a 18) enjoyed it and found it playable and commented on the quality of the design, years before any of us really thought about architecture.  (Years later, it occurred to me that it was the closest I'd yet come to playing something akin to Garden City).  If Ian DID have something to do with the design, it shows that his appreciation for such apparent simplicity of intent and design is of long standing. 
   

It is actually my work. It was done while working for him. He provided the initial routing/housing plan. I revised the plan as the development began to alter corridors. I was allowed to design and build the course on my own.

Doug changed the 11th after I left the firm (to yield more housing). That's not my hole of green.

The property had only four feet of elevation change and it was a single fall from west to east.

Glad you liked it, I think those greens are the best I ever produced.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Tim - It is always going to feel different to every individual. As long as they feel something, I suppose... What if you didn't play, and just walked around?


Good call on the chefs! I find many of those guys incredibly inspiring and analogous to this stripped down architecture concept that Ian started, and I have gone off the deep end with!


I'm not sure there is much written on the breaking down of gca in this context. Maybe if you look back into the writings by Thomas about the multi-purpose short course in a driving range concept he shared with Tillinghast, and was criticized at Riviera by MacKenzie. I don't recall much of what Simpson wrote to accompany the reversible course in his book... See what you can find on Urbina and Doak's basecamp golf idea maybe scattered in the deep reaches of this site!

[Tom_Doak]

When I was getting into the business thirty years ago, one of the biggest buzzwords was "definition".  Most architects felt like they had to "define" every shot with a target bunker through the fairway, or bunkers bracketing the greens, or trees, or mounding to visually contain the hole and not let you see another.  That was so different than the older courses that I'd seen, that it was the part I rebelled against when I started building things in my own version of minimalism.


Over time, we came to see that even the mowing lines were part of the modern trend toward formal "definition", and we began trying to blur those as well, just so they wouldn't stand out visually.  The majority of the "eye candy bunkers" that some criticize on my courses were actually placed for anti-visual purposes ... to break up a long mowing line on the outside of the hole and make it go away visually.  Eventually, we got down to just two cuts of grass at places like Sebonack and Streamsong and Dismal River, with the tees connected to the previous fairway in one big blob, as on an old drawing we'd seen of The Valley Club that still hangs on a wall in my office.



I suppose you can strip it down even more than that, but it's probably going to require sheep to do the job right.

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating to wonder how "definition" ever became a positive value in creating fields of play for an outdoor game, one with its playing so intimately tied to Nature and with its roots so firmly in the Scottish linksland.

Maybe there were just too many architects living in luxury gated communities back then, what with their razor-straight boulevards and sharply lined hedges, and with nary a leaf out of place. The keeping up with the Jones values of order, uniformity and sterile cleanliness transplanted to the natural world, and creating the aptly-named Country Clubs for a Day.

What a horror, when you really think of it -- the so-called "beautifying" of all things random and wild and crooked and imperfect.  At its worst, it feels like another example of colonization (of the near defenceless) by a smugly dominant culture.

[Steve Lang]

   Sometimes one mundane, but well placed bunker can present a test

[Drew Groeger]

Ian,
I'm a bit late to this but a very interesting topic and I enjoyed your mentioning the advent of modernist architecture to support your case, which I felt was very appropriate. Being an Architect myself (of buildings, not golf courses, sadly) and having studied at Mies van Rohe's school here in Chicago, some of these issues resonated with me:

You stated Modernism was "a reaction to a period of high ornamentation", which is true, specifically a reaction to the the Beaux-Arts style popular in Europe at the time. Beaux-Arts was a heavily ornamented, classical approach to architecture (think 19th century Paris, or most of Europe, lol). Modernism was also a reaction to the various political upheavals at the time, but very much a reaction to the industrial revolution, which brought many new building materials and construction methodologies into play (i.e. steel and glass). Modernism dealt with an analytical approach to function and an openness to innovation, as most modernists felt Beaux-Arts was "stuck" in a philosophy that no longer reflected the current times. Is GCA philosophy currently "stuck"? Or what is GCA reacting to to warrant a stripping down?

Also was your mention of ornamentation. Ornamentation and Decoration (not the same thing) can be huge trigger words for Modernists! I could wax philosophically on this but in short, I was taught or came to understand that decoration is bad (i.e. Post Modernist architecture, blech) and ornamentation CAN be good if it is used as a seed, where the essence of the underlying structure is brought to life, expressing a reasoned harmony of all parts within. Many Modernist Archy's would say there's no room for ornamentation in Modernist architecture but I would disagree. Can a similar argument be made in GCA?

And another quote:

"Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins." - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Modernism's no. 1 ODG) To me it's ALL about the word "carefully"!

What would the GCA equivalent be? Golf Course Architecture begins when ________" ?

[Tom_Doak]

"Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins." - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Modernism's no. 1 ODG) To me it's ALL about the word "carefully"!

What would the GCA equivalent be? Golf Course Architecture begins when ________" ?

Golf course architecture begins when you identify a point for a tee and a green.


However, most of these building architecture terms are used in different ways when applied to golf course architecture.  Minimalism in building architecture [as I understand it] is VERY different than how it's come to be applied to golf design.

[Sean_A]

When I was getting into the business thirty years ago, one of the biggest buzzwords was "definition".  Most architects felt like they had to "define" every shot with a target bunker through the fairway, or bunkers bracketing the greens, or trees, or mounding to visually contain the hole and not let you see another.  That was so different than the older courses that I'd seen, that it was the part I rebelled against when I started building things in my own version of minimalism.


Over time, we came to see that even the mowing lines were part of the modern trend toward formal "definition", and we began trying to blur those as well, just so they wouldn't stand out visually.  The majority of the "eye candy bunkers" that some criticize on my courses were actually placed for anti-visual purposes ... to break up a long mowing line on the outside of the hole and make it go away visually.  Eventually, we got down to just two cuts of grass at places like Sebonack and Streamsong and Dismal River, with the tees connected to the previous fairway in one big blob, as on an old drawing we'd seen of The Valley Club that still hangs on a wall in my office.

I suppose you can strip it down even more than that, but it's probably going to require sheep to do the job right.

I think there are different types of definition.  You seem to referring to playing corridor definition or as I call, road mapping.  I don't have much interest in that sort of thing.  These days I am noticing quite a bit of higher profiling of bunkers.  That is making bunkers more visible on the landscape.  I spose the thinking is if the bunker can be seen, why not make it properly visible? 

It is interesting that at times you prefer to place a bunker not because you think it helps the strategy of the hole, but to hide or break up long (and presumably unattractive) grassing lines.  I spose this is another instance of having to decide the best least attractive option.  This is one area where I think placing bunkers rather randomly, but in natural pockets/upslopes can go a long way to helping aesthetics.  Although, it can quickly become too much if the archie isn't careful.  I like this approach because there will be some bunkers which I never give any thought until that one weird weather day....

Ciao

[Giles Payne]

One of my favourite quotes on design is -


A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery


I think that this really expresses my views on the ornamentation of golf courses with features purely for eye candy. If we limit the use of bunkers or other features but place the ones that we use to maximum effect then I think that the end result is more satisfying.


I fully understand that the number required will very much depend on the land on which the course is built and its contours but still start from the principle that less is more.

[paul cowley]

I'm a little late coming here...but when comparing stripped down design styles that represent the most basic values of golf design...then the furniture design of the Mission/Arts and Crafts/Stickley movement come pretty close to a 'form follows function' philosophy that I try to apply to my own golf design. I still question myself at least twice when I have an urge to put in a bunker, and probably about 75% of the time I don't.


It's kind of like the old carpentry adage of 'measure twice, cut once'.


Tom D...I hope to see your work on the Loop sometime because that's a concept I've spent much idle mind time contemplating. I even like the idea of only seeing bunkers while playing in one direction, and none while playing in the other.

[Andrew Cunningham]

I didn't like The Loop.  The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes.  I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing.  Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design.  Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses.  Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work.  As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves.  And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable.  Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.

[BCrosby]

Tom D -


A minor historical note - Joshua Crane strongly advocated more definition on golf courses. He wanted to see clear rough lines and bunker/hazard edges.


Crane believed "definition" was one prerequisites of a "fair" golf hole.


[I've sometimes wondered if - perversely - Crane wasn't more influential on post WWII gca than the famous names from the Golden Age.]


Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()