Defining "Dark Ages Architecture"

[Jim Sherma]

In the midst of a PM discussion I attempted to define what was meant when the term "dark ages architecture" is used. I know the time period generally refers to 1950's-70's. Some of the architects associated with the phrase are RTJ/Dick Wilson/William and David Gordon/Ed Ault/etc. Based on my personal experience the attributes that I came up with are here:

• 6800-7100 yard "championship" back tees
• [/size]Generally not built on very inspiring land[/color]
• [/size]9 hole loops returning to clubhouse[/color]
• [/size]Details, or lack thereof, with the intent of saving ongoing maintenance costs[/color]
• [/size]Runway style rectangular tees to ease mowing costs and to spread out wear[/color]
• [/size]Bunkers designed to allow for ease of sand-pro maintenance (Size and shape and access points - clean edges to minimize the need for regular hand raking)[/color]
• [/size]Consistent fairway widths based on throw of more basic irrigation systems (single row down center?)[/color]
• [/size]Generally large greens with multiple pinning areas to distribute wear[/color]
• [/size]Greens generally built up and having more than a single surface drainage direction[/color]
• [/size]Minimal micro-contours in fairways (due to re-purposed farm fields or conscious construction decisions?)
• [/size]Lack of sharp edges around greens to allow for ease of rider-mowing and eliminating the need for much is any hand mowing[/color]
• [/size]Little to no random bunker placement - fairway bunkers define fairway turning points and greenside bunkers close to the putting surface - this does not necessarily mean devoid of strategic interest or misplaced[/color]
• [/size]Land generally not overly blasted out and shaped to remove all blindness, especially off of the tee - full blindness generally avoided on approach shots[/color]
• [/size]Trees planted in rows that separate the playing corridors (this may or may not be a function of the architect's wishes)[/color]

[/size]It seems that a lot of these decisions were made with the intent to save money's on maintenance costs once the courses were operating. Obviously there are courses from this era that were better done than others either due to better land or higher budgets or some combination of the two. Other than the tree planting style I am not sure that any of these traits are inherently bad in and of themselves. The land choice was probably as much a function of available budgets and the sheer numbers of courses being built back then as opposed to any inherent lack of understanding that better land makes for better courses.


What am I missing here? How much did the post-war and post-depression desire for sustainable costs drive the architectural decisions that were made at the time? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is it only this website that calls that postwar era "The Dark Ages"?

Tom Simpson called the era 1885 - 1900 "The Dark Ages".

[Sean_A]

Jim

Like you seem to be suggesting, I am suspicious of broad stroke painting, especially if negative. However, a few thoughts came to mind.

1. I think of the so called dark ages as post WW2 through the 80s, which would include mass housing estate architecture.

2. I never thought of dark age architecture in terms of saving money.

3. I often associate at least a large percentage of this era with uninspired architecture, over watering and over feeding. I guess architecture as gardens is the best way I can explain it. The work is neither natural or creative. Cookie cutter design.

4. I associate dark age architecture with the rise if TV golf and big advertising... sort of paralleling American society.

Happy Hockey

[Peter Pallotta]

I hadn't thought of this before, but maybe the simplest 'explanation' for the so-called Dark Ages of golf course architecture is that the focus was placed almost entirely on increasing participation in the game instead of on enhancing the quality of the design.

There was a post-war economic boom, a sharp rise in the 'middle class', more disposal income than ever and that for more and more people, and so naturally a kind of democratization of the game developed -- and the sheer number of people newly taking up the game required new courses, lots of them: and courses that could be built fast and that served primarily not as examples of (rather elitist and almost precious) golden age principles & philosophies of gca but instead as practical realities for the consumer/end-user, the golfer.

It's the difference between the decadent Jazz Age and the sobriety and middle-class prosperity of the Eisenhower Era.


 

[Niall C]

Like Ally, I immediately thought of Simpsons definition. Never heard of the term to describe any other period. On that basis I'd suggest the term refers to primitive shaping and penal design.


Niall

[Bernie Bell]

It's described as the dark ages on the home page of this website.

[Ben Stephens]

I would call it 'New Brutalism' of Golf Course Architecture which is a similar time 50s 60s and 70s in UK Post War Architecture era where a lot of concrete buildings were built in a similar form.


RTJ created very difficult courses in that era and created 'monsters' for majors which were seen as brutal.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm guessing the brutal and penal courses are only a small part of the equation for this time period...the bigger part being as Pete pointed out where golf was quickly rolled out for the masses, template style, resulting in thousands of featureless, uninspired, and blah DS 1-2 courses.


P.S.  It'd be interesting to see data on how many courses existed in America at the end of WW2 vs how many in 1980...

[Tom_Doak]

To me, Jim nailed the era with his very first bullet point.  It was probably Mr. Jones who invented the catch-phrase of the "championship course" and made sure every new project aspired to be one, even if the vast majority would never host any big tournament.


I'm not aware of thousands of Doak Scale 1's and 2's being built in this period.  Perhaps this was the case in some western states where there was very little golf before 1945.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

According to this research paper, there was approx 8400 courses built in the US between 1945 and 1980. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034211?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

I think its fair to say that several thousands of these were DS 1s and 2s..

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

According to this research paper, there was approx 8400 courses built in the US between 1945 and 1980. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034211?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

I think its fair to say that several thousands of these were DS 1s and 2s..

Wow!  That is nearly 250 courses / year.


I stand corrected, you are probably right that many of them form the lower bounds of the Doak Scale.  Also, considering the time period, there must have been more than 5000 of them designed by architects who almost never get mentioned on this Discussion Group.

[Angela Moser]

In the midst of a PM discussion I attempted to define what was meant when the term "dark ages architecture" is used. I know the time period generally refers to 1950's-70's. Some of the architects associated with the phrase are RTJ/Dick Wilson/William and David Gordon/Ed Ault/etc. Based on my personal experience the attributes that I came up with are here:

• 6800-7100 yard "championship" back tees
• Generally not built on very inspiring land
• 9 hole loops returning to clubhouse
• Details, or lack thereof, with the intent of saving ongoing maintenance costs
• Runway style rectangular tees to ease mowing costs and to spread out wear
• Bunkers designed to allow for ease of sand-pro maintenance (Size and shape and access points - clean edges to minimize the need for regular hand raking)
• Consistent fairway widths based on throw of more basic irrigation systems (single row down center?)
• Generally large greens with multiple pinning areas to distribute wear
• Greens generally built up and having more than a single surface drainage direction
• Minimal micro-contours in fairways (due to re-purposed farm fields or conscious construction decisions?)
• Lack of sharp edges around greens to allow for ease of rider-mowing and eliminating the need for much is any hand mowing
• Little to no random bunker placement - fairway bunkers define fairway turning points and greenside bunkers close to the putting surface - this does not necessarily mean devoid of strategic interest or misplaced
• Land generally not overly blasted out and shaped to remove all blindness, especially off of the tee - full blindness generally avoided on approach shots
• Trees planted in rows that separate the playing corridors (this may or may not be a function of the architect's wishes)

It seems that a lot of these decisions were made with the intent to save money's on maintenance costs once the courses were operating. Obviously there are courses from this era that were better done than others either due to better land or higher budgets or some combination of the two. Other than the tree planting style I am not sure that any of these traits are inherently bad in and of themselves. The land choice was probably as much a function of available budgets and the sheer numbers of courses being built back then as opposed to any inherent lack of understanding that better land makes for better courses.


What am I missing here? How much did the post-war and post-depression desire for sustainable costs drive the architectural decisions that were made at the time? 

Jim: I read all of your bulletpoints and all of them seem to fit perfectly into the topics that are important for the greens chairman/greenkeeper over here in Germany...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,


I generally agree with most of your points, but its a broad topic and hard to generalize.


I will add that right after WWII, some architects wrote of wanting a completely new American style (like FLW, and who could blame them for wanting to sort of forget 20 years filled with the depression followed by WWII?)  Architecture and Industrial design were moving forward, not looking back, with streamline design of jets and passenger trains, Art Deco, etc.  The golf course architects wanted to do some of that as well.


And yes, form follows function, machine maintenance was coming into full force, so yes, broad slopes and simple shapes also facilitated maintenance. 


And real estate courses took care of the biggest distance issue in golf - the distance between front door and first tee.  The probably also killed off the idea of native grass areas, because that's not what homeowners wanted to look at.


And, yes, aesthetics remained important in golf design, but the real estate and other sites rarely afforded too much natural beauty.  So they sought to create it with tree planting, on top of that manicured grass outsiders wanted to look at, etc.


And, it was before USGA greens, so they could more easily afford larger greens that would now be the envy of most architects constrained by cost.  And, multiple tees, while not as well thought out as today, were certainly functional in getting more women in the game.


I do recall Dick Nugent warning me on my first day that all the great courses had been built, and what we needed now were playable ones, sort of lowering the design bar, although obviously RTJ and Wilson didn't think the same way.  They just equated hard with good.


But, in general, I have a more favorable take on that period than most here.  While it's easy to look back after a decade of great projects, it seems that their designs sort of had to happen the way they did.  They were probably right for the time.  And, they probably felt they were just as right that they found gca nirvana with their designs as anyone working today does. 



The only thing I know for sure is that most folks will look back at any era of design (including this one) and point out the flaws to explain why they are doing something different.  Its just human nature and pop culture.  I mean, we've already started to trash the 90's as misguided attempts to win awards and be too spectacular.  Surely, something new will drive design making those of us working now look a little silly to many.  Just my take.

[Tom_Doak]

I do recall Dick Nugent warning me on my first day that all the great courses had been built, and what we needed now were playable ones, sort of lowering the design bar, although obviously RTJ and Wilson didn't think the same way.  They just equated hard with good.

Wow, that's quite the pep talk.


When we were building Pacific Dunes, Mike Keiser came out to talk to our whole construction crew one day, by the 11th tee.  He wanted them all to know we were working on something special, and if we did a great job, it could last 500 years, like a cathedral.


I'm not sure where he got that, but it clearly wasn't from working with Dick Nugent on the Dunes Club!

[Peter Pallotta]

Goes to show that Intention is even more important than Talent, and the Will more important than the Intellect. You've got to aim for great work to have any chance of getting there.

[Mike_Young]

Not trying to stir JB but I see this period as the period when there was a concerted effort to promote the "architect" as a professional rather than a design/build type and the written record shows such.  A concerted effort was made the convince the client that more and more plans were needed.  So many of the past guys were coming form golf but during this period many came form other walks and really didn't know much of golf the game. 

[Greg Smith]

Jeff:

Frank Lloyd Wright was certainly the leading (American) architect/writer advocating for a "new American style" at the beginning of the post-war years.  However, a big chunk of his work and philosophizing was actually generated pre-war, during the period corresponding to the GCA Golden Age.  The reason we think of FLW as the most famous of the (American) POST-war architects is simply because he was -- still around, i.e. not dead yet! 

FLW went through a LOT of design/mood periods in his long life, just like Picasso or the Beatles.  The success of his awesome project for the Kaufmanns at "Fallingwater" (in 1938) breathed some new life into his career and launched him on a new design period in the 40s and 50s that included a lot of wonderful "low-lying" residential architecture (with its roots still in the Prairie School), and a bunch of utopian thought projects about the re-shaping of American society through design.  He got really popular again, and for good reasons.

Well, if there was one mindset America was ready for immediately during the post-war reconstructive period, it was a bunch of rapid copying of something good and interesting, thinking more must be better.  In the case of FLW, that meant that all his low-lying Usonian houses got copied into the ubiquitous 1950s ranch house that spread all across America.  FLW's utopia-speak got copied very quickly by urban planners into concepts such as the Greenbelt. 

But neither the ranch-houses or the suburban greenbelts had the soul and attention to detail of FLW's work -- the copying was all too rapid, expanding way too fast, and structured around maximizing use of resources (i.e. expediency).

This is the same type of thinking that infected almost all other American design during this historical period, including GCA.  The 1950s in particular started a very black period in GENERAL American design -- it was a time where patently  false imitations were in vogue.

The grand exception to this was automotive design, and I suppose you could say aviation design as well.  For cars, the 1950s and 1960s were a grand golden era of innovations and forms -- just think of all the awesome classics from that time.  However, the Golden Age of auto design got hacked to a stop by the 1970s oil crisis in much the same way that the Golden Age of GCA got hacked off by the events of 1929.

[MCirba]

I think of it more in terms of supplying a demand.


Guys like Geoffrey Cornish, Ed Ault, William & David Gordon et.al. built a slew of highly functional golf courses for the growing game and by and large each created many more golf courses than the Golden Age Masters we all revere.


I think Jim's bullet points above are spot on and economy and maintainability took precedence.


I wonder what things would look like today if demand was once again creating 300 new golf course opportunities per year?

[Kalen Braley]

Mike Young,

From 1950 to 1969 they were popping em out at a rate of 278 courses per year(on average)...which seems staggering.  Can you imagine how many less to non-experienced guys were hanging out a shingle to get in on that action??

I have some graphics i'll post up a bit later from that article that shows the when, where, and how many from 3 time periods:
1920-1949, 1950-1969, 1970-2000

[JMEvensky]

Greg Smith,if we're playing What's My Line, I'm guessing you're an architect.

[Bernie Bell]

"For a good many years, much of golf architecture in this country has suffered from a 'finality complex.'  That complex was that the zenith of GCA had been reached in Scotland and everything we did had to be an imitation of their courses . . . I think its high time we stopped imitating the old traditions in golf design and build courses that will satisfy our player demand, our pocketbooks, our maintenance machinery and our peculiar American climatic and topographical conditions."  Attributed to RB Harris in 1940s (in an earlier thread on this site).

[Bernie Bell]

“Let's employ competent help, pay them well, furnish them with good tools and plenty of modern equipment to work with. Redesign our golf layouts so as to eliminate hand labor as much as possible.  Under the heavy player traffic of today, routine maintenance chores need to be done and out of the way before golfers arrive to play. Labor performances and operational tasks need to be streamlined; this calls for qualified help and sufficient machinery if the required job is to be efficiently accomplished.”
[/size]Newsletter of MidAtlantic GCSA, Sept 25, 1966.

[Greg Smith]

JMEvensky:

Actually I am an oncology nurse (bone marrow transplant).  Been in that profession for 15 years now.  But... in a way you are right.  My original college degree back in the 80s was in fact architecture. 

Stupid of me to get a degree in REGULAR architecture -- should have gone to landscape architecture, seeing how I'd been reading/thinking about GCA since age 10.  But back then the idea of actually, really setting out on the road to become a professional golf architect was a non-starter.  Wouldn't have even considered it was something workable. 

[Kalen Braley]

1920-1949 - Avg. 90 new courses per year




1950-1969 - Avg. 278 new courses per year





1970 -2000 - Avg. 245 new courses per year

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks very much for that, Kalen -- fascinating and very clear 'snapshots' of the industry, and its history. 

The only thing you forgot to add was the 'pay-off stat':

2000-2020: Average of only 10 courses a year -- but every one of them has made it into GOLF's Top 100 list!