[Tommy Williamsen]

      One of the things that many contemporary architects have in common is uncommon terrain and land. Some of the terrain for courses built in the last twenty-five years has been exceptional yet each architect uses the land differently. Some seem to work with severe sites and others stay clear of them. I often wonder what another architect would do with certain sites. What would TD have done at Vic National or Fazio at Streamsong. I don’t think that means that little earth has been moved but that a course fits the setting well. I could tell that JN moved a bunch of earth at Castle Pines, but It fit the mountainous terrain well.
The courses I picked were those that fit the land well from four very different architects. They are courses that I have played. 
 
C&C: Hidden Creek, Streamsong, Colorado GC, Chechessee Creek
Fazio: Victoria National, Black Diamond Quarry, Quarry at La Quinta, Wade Hampton
Doak: Ballyneal, Stone Eagle, The Loop, Sebonack
Nicklaus: Muirfield Village, Desert Mt (take you pick), Castle Pines, Colleton River
 
What courses do you think seem to fit seamlessly into the landscape?
 

[Wade Whitehead]

Fazio made the most of the land at Pine Barrens.

WW

[Tommy Williamsen]

Fazio made the most of the land at Pine Barrens.

WW

Fazio gets accused of manipulating the terrain but I find that some of what he does blends in well with the landscape.

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm such a fan of Bill Flynn of the Philadelphia School!  His courses fit seamlessly into the terrain so well. Grew up caddying at Woodcrest CC where the holes just ebb and flow. South Jersey tends to be really flat in general, but Woodcrest has a few little hills and valleys that Flynn used to give some variety and spice.


He might be the best there ever was at making a small site work. Merion stands out as his greatest achievement but Philly CC, Rolling Green and Lehigh really are quite good and his use of the land is exceptional.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy,
you've played all the courses you mention, and you're a good player - so to me you'd be the best person to answer a question that I have:
from the outside looking in, I've often thought that, even with very good courses (which all of these are), there are at least two different ways to use the terrain and fit the course seamlessly into the landscape... while also providing for an exceptional game of golf:
One way is to use the terrain and the natural features to seamlessly route a consistently flowing course that offers playability for all, even if that means leaving out (what would've been) one or two exceptionally intriguing/strategic and challenging golf holes and the 'shot tests' that go with them
Another way is to focus on having as many exceptionally intriguing/strategic and challenging golf holes and the 'shot tests' that go with them as possible, and to use the terrain with that focus primarily in mind, even if it means sacrificing/leaving out (what would've been) the most flowing of routings and the most consistently seamless use of natural features.
The ideal, it would seem to me, would be a course that balances those two goals/areas of focus.
So my question:
Of the courses you mentioned, which architect seems to you to have best used the terrain in such 'balance'?
Those are all top flight courses by leading architects, not a single one of which I've played -- so I'd much appreciate your POV on this.
Peter
   

[Ally Mcintosh]

I look at this a different way.


I like the post by Archie because it talks about the great courses on tight sites by William Flynn. There are two overarching types of routing puzzles:


The first is to find the best set of holes among a hundred on a wonderfully undulating, huge site.


The far more common (at least in GB&I prior to the new big money developments) is having such a tight site that it is an effort to fit in 18 holes at all, much less a driving range or practice facilities.


This second puzzle is the more intriguing for me. And there are most likely a few unheralded architects who were just as good (or better) at this as some of the household names.

[archie_struthers]

 


Ally thanks for the compliment. Flynn was a master at that challenge. Merion never seems small yet is less than 120 acres. Amazing use of layering to create a sense of space.


Flynn's course at Indian Creek in Miami Beach is totally manufactured yet you would be hard pressed to believe it. The holes seem to have been there forever, yet it's on a man made island!


Hope I get there again sometime soon

[Thomas Dai]

I have a high regard for James Braids courses and have often wondered, given that much of his work was on relatively unattractive/awkward/difficult sites, which other architects could have come up with something equal (or better) than what JB came up with. Indeed I wonder if some of JB’s commissions ended up with him because others had previously turned them down (ie they didn’t fancy the job)?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Ally thanks for the compliment. Flynn was a master at that challenge. Merion never seems small yet is less than 120 acres. Amazing use of layering to create a sense of space.


Flynn's course at Indian Creek in Miami Beach is totally manufactured yet you would be hard pressed to believe it. The holes seem to have been there forever, yet it's on a man made island!


Hope I get there again sometime soon

Archie:


I don't want to start a 30-page threadjack, but giving William Flynn the credit for the routing of Merion - either course - is questionable history at best.  He did make the changes to avoid hitting over Ardmore Ave in the 1920's - with Hugh Wilson's blessing.


And I agree with you that Indian Creek is amazing, but 90 years of landscaping maturity does help!

[Tom_Doak]

Indeed I wonder if some of JB’s commissions ended up with him because others had previously turned them down (ie they didn’t fancy the job)?
Atb

Interesting question, but you really ought to have at least one documented example so that's not pure speculation.  Of course St Enodoc did have previous routings, but none of them were by Colt or Simpson or MacKenzie.

[Tom_Doak]

As to the original post, I don't really know the answer, so I'm skeptical that you guys would.  It's just another way to make an evidence-free case for your favorites.


Many pundits and clients (because of the pundits) tend to typecast designers based on what they've done before, which then reinforces the stereotypes.  Dick Youngscap didn't hire Pete Dye for Sand Hills, so we never got to see (for better or worse) what Pete could do with that kind of site - to Bill Coore's benefit. I've had a lot of big and beautiful sites, so people forget how much golf I've gotten out of some tight spots.  And for that matter, it's not really fair to compare Flynn's routings to today's designs, because bigger safety margins would make most designers shy away from some of those jewel box routings.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside
But why do we tend to value so much an architect's ability to get the best/a very good course out of a small site?
I'd imagine the smaller the sight the more it 'tells' the architect how it needs to be routed.
It's easier to route -- for better or worse -- precisely because it *doesn't* offer many choices. No?
I mean: *I* couldn't route it, but I'm not an architect and couldn't route a course on a huge site either.
But if someone puts out a shingle, doesn't it make it clearer what he needs to do when the site is small?

[Tom_Doak]

Just an aside
But why do we tend to value so much an architect's ability to get the best/a very good course out of a small site?
I'd imagine the smaller the sight the more it 'tells' the architect how it needs to be routed.
It's easier to route -- for better or worse -- precisely because it *doesn't* offer many choices. No?
I mean: *I* couldn't route it, but I'm not an architect and couldn't route a course on a huge site either.

To some degree, yes.  I did the routing for Sebonack in a weekend, starting with the waterfront and working back inland.  With all the wetlands we had, there wasn't any leftover ground to use, so I thought most designers would have found something similar.  But Nicklaus and Fazio routings were not similar at all, because they anticipated moving dirt, so they ignored some of the cues that led me to my solution.


On the other hand, on a really small site, one or two clever earthmoving solutions may be the key to solving the most difficult corner, and unlocking a better overall routing.


A puzzle with 18 pieces has a mind-boggling number of potential solutions.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, T.
When I'm about to write the first line of a story, I have a wide array of places from which to start -- and then with each new/next line an almost infinite number of choices and different places to go.
And the decisions I make all along the way are what actually *make* the story; it emerges out of those decisions, the puzzle being assembled as I go, not re-assembled from a box to fit a pre-existing picture.
A short story may require in absolute terms less choices on my part than a novel does, but the process is the same.
So, to your earlier point: I suppose that's why we need to be skeptical about answering the original question, i.e. architect X makes one set of decisions and architect Y another set, but we can't really say the former made better choices than the latter:
Because it can be (and almost certainly is) true that they simply had in mind *different stories* they wanted to tell. 
P 

[Joe Hancock]

I’ve concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the routing of a golf course is reflective of the architects personality. Some will choose to go over rugged terrain (adventurous) while others will stay within valleys (cautious). Some may route around a small but weird landform (quirky) whereas others might flatten said landform to avoid criticism (insecure). You get the point, and maybe I’m off base....


The answer to the original question, however, lies within each golfers’ preferences at any given point of their understanding. For me, that’s a moving target, and I hope it continues to be.

[Thomas Dai]

Indeed I wonder if some of JB’s commissions ended up with him because others had previously turned them down (ie they didn’t fancy the job)?
Atb

Interesting question, but you really ought to have at least one documented example so that's not pure speculation.  Of course St Enodoc did have previous routings, but none of them were by Colt or Simpson or MacKenzie.

You need to have a look at Welshpool Tom.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


I think Tom’s last sentence is the key: “A puzzle with 18 pieces has a mind-boggling number of potential solutions”.


Let me put it this way: If I put up a tight site with specific brief for a new armchair architect competition, the difference in routing quality will have a much larger spread than a similar comp with a big, inviting site.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally-

I have to defer to you and Tom on that (I mean, of course I do!)
I think I can see your point and his, but intuitively it seems strange to me, i.e. that it would be harder for an armchair architect to find (and utilize in a quality way) the potential green sites and playing corridors on a small site than on a large one. But as I say, I trust that you both know what you're talking about!

And Joe - I think you hit on something true & important, which is another reason why my rankings/ratings are probably misguided, i.e. I think one course is much better than another course, but maybe what I'm actually seeing/saying is that I like one architect's personality better than another's.   

[Adrian_Stiff]

Me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thanks, T.
When I'm about to write the first line of a story, I have a wide array of places from which to start --

What if it was truly a dark and stormy night?


I'm kind of with Ally on this one. By and large, the big name architects of the modern era often get great sites, and can always get out of routing jams with earthwork.  TD may be less prone to it, but it's still an option.  Thus, I tend to think older architects would be the place to look, probably not the big names.  Besides Flynn, it's possible guys like Bill Diddell and Floyd Farley routed a bunch of courses on flat to gently rolling land while moving 50,000 CY of dirt and still coming up with 18 good golf holes (at least in framework, perhaps without bunkers, to be added later, etc.)


I have always generally figured (with exceptions, of course) that the total amount of bulk earthmoving is a pretty good indicator of how natural a routing is.   A few times, my mentor had a partially redo a routing because it fit the land so well we didn't have enough cut sources to build greens, tees, etc., and we needed to cut through a few hills.  Of course, being trained in the 1950's, it never occurred to them to build more natural, grade level greens to save fill.    (That said, we did spend a lot of time figuring out how to reduce fills.  Some architects just waste extra cuts if they have them, others put a note on the plan "Raise this area one foot from plan height to balance cut and fill" or something similar.


I have told the story before, but my jaw has been dropped twice by architects (who shall remain nameless) who simply felt any routing would have a few bad holes and it wasn't worth it to fix them (at least naturally!)  Perhaps another judgement factor would be how many iterations they make.  While a few routings come quickly (as TD notes with Sebonic) they usually don't and even then, a gca who tries multiple routings first, and then refines the best many times until perfect usually comes up with a pretty good one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally-

I think I can see your point and his, but intuitively it seems strange to me, i.e. that it would be harder for an armchair architect to find (and utilize in a quality way) the potential green sites and playing corridors on a small site than on a large one. But as I say, I trust that you both know what you're talking about!

Peter,


I think any gca will tell you the armchair guys rarely have a clue.  With this site and more books, yes, there are probably a few more that do now than in the past, but still......


On many projects, I have had someone on the owner's side come with their routing, only for me to hurt their feelings and not use them at all.  Of course, the knee bone connected to the thigh bone, and on average sites, once you throw out one of their hair brained holes, all the others kind of get washed away, too.


The worst seem to be the guys who like the down and up holes, 90 degree (and short) dogleg holes to get out of a jam, or uphill holes to a volcano green (which rarely work out as well as they think.) Others route the doglegs and tees from hilltop to hilltop, ignoring the 99% of golfers who won't get there, and resulting in a lot of blind shots, etc.  And the really bad routings come when a guy gets hung up on his one favorite hole, when in reality, not using it in favor of the betterment of the other 17 is the best solution. 


In short, a good routing is at a minimum of one that has 18 good holes (which I can define if you like) with only a minimum of those holes requiring artificial construction beyond building greens, tees and hazards.  After that, walkability, balance, etc. become further factors to evaluate.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally-

I have to defer to you and Tom on that (I mean, of course I do!)
I think I can see your point and his, but intuitively it seems strange to me, i.e. that it would be harder for an armchair architect to find (and utilize in a quality way) the potential green sites and playing corridors on a small site than on a large one. But as I say, I trust that you both know what you're talking about!

Peter,


It’s not about finding the potential green sites and playing corridors. It’s about fitting 18 holes on a site whilst maintaining safety distances, obtaining a certain minimum length (if prescribed as it invariably is) and using the natural land forms whilst doing so. You can end up tearing your hair out.


A large, beautiful site is a little more like a kid in a sweety shop. You’ll always find a good solution. Maybe only a few might find the great solutions.

[Kalen Braley]

My question would be, or perhaps more of a wish:

It'd be interesting to do a before and after topo map comparison of each courser and come up with a ball park estimate of how much dirt was moved. Pie in the sky stuff sure, but i still think it would be interesting. 

And if I had to guess Bill and Toms courses would likely show they moved far less dirt, but who knows..

[Tom_Doak]

We flew an as-built topo map of The Rawls Course as the final basis for paying the earthmoving contractor - I intend to print it in my routing book, alongside the original grading plan, to show how the landforms change for shaping.


That was one of maybe a half-dozen projects where I have moved significant amounts of earth.  On the other thirty, we might have had to dig an irrigation pond or make a fairway cut somewhere, but the total earthmoving is usually less than 50,000 cu yds.  It's very rare for me to bring any fill to a tee or green site, much less all of them, as Jeff implies most architects do.


That's partly about routing, and partly about stubbornness. 😉

[William_G]

I think it may more appropriate to say used not uses in the question as these days we have more equioment etc...


of course Doak may bet the best these days because he says so, LOL

C&C do a great job

always is what site do you have and what did you do with it

cheers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()