Pushing the "envelope" in architecture

[archie_struthers]

 


Good stuff here all! Thanks for sharing. It's much different actually building the holes than envisioning them. No matter what the engineering plans may say my experience is that you need to watch the drainage, best time during or right after a storm for me. So it really fun to see the fruition of your design look as you hoped it would.


Joe Bausch took such great pictures of Running Deer. I knew Ed Carman a bit, more from hearsay than personally and I'm pretty sure that he was not one to veer from his plan. But I just wonder how much if any influence Kevin Wagger had on the greens as they are really wild and crazy in many spots. But I do know Ed Carman spent untold hours thinking about the greens. I'm going to reach out to Kevin and find him ASAP.


Many haven't seen Running Deer as it is really in a word bucolic in Southwest NJ. It's far from the maddening crowd to say the least!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Another "Nugentism" that I clearly recall was that older clients don't hire younger architects.  I think he underestimated the sea change of acceptance baby boomers brought, much different than old school thinking when it was believed that older meant experienced and wise, rather than now (where it is easy to be seen as over the hill.)  I was actually surprised by the acceptance I got starting my firm at the ripe old age of 29. 


I never went on long golf trips with potential clients, but do agree that establishing a synergistic relationship with the key guy(s) makes a project a lot better personally, and usually makes for the best designs.

[Tom_Doak]

I never went on long golf trips with potential clients, but do agree that establishing a synergistic relationship with the key guy(s) makes a project a lot better personally, and usually makes for the best designs.

That's actually the only long golf trip I've been on with a client, now that you mention it.  I have always been surprised how little clients tend to engage us, or go see our other courses before making a choice.


One thing I did understand from the start was that the more fun we had building the course, the more fun it would be to play.  I've just learned that bringing the client into the loop is an important piece of that.  For half or more of our clients, the motivation for the project is really just to create something worthwhile, rather than money -- so they should have fun during the process, too, instead of just once it's done.  What I originally saw as Pete Dye "arguing" with clients at Long Cove was more a matter of keeping them engaged -- while making his boundaries clear at the same time.

[Jay Mickle]

Joe,


How do you make photos clickable to a larger size?

[Mark_Fine]

I apologize for not reading all the posts so this may have been covered but how are we defining "pushing the envelope"?  Desmond Muirhead might have been the one architect who thought most outside the box.  Some of his designs were totally unique "from an artistic standpoint" but the fundamental principles of "golf" were still there.  What are true examples of Pushing the Envelope?  I know one regulation course that was built with wall to wall artificial grass.  That is probably pushing the envelope.  I can't think of much else at this point.

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,


How do you make photos clickable to a larger size?

Click "quote" for one of my posts with clickable photos.  Then click on the icon of the arrow with the red brackets around it.  That will take my post down to the bare basics and you can study how to use the img tags to make a post clickable.

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like there was a pretty significant push in the envelope when the Haskell replaced the guttie. Shouldn't there be a place at the current pushing the envelope discussion table for equipment/ball rollback? It might even be the key aspect that ultimately unlocks many different doors.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Seems like there was a pretty significant push in the envelope when the Haskell replaced the guttie. Shouldn't there be a place at the current pushing the envelope discussion table for equipment/ball rollback? It might even be the key aspect that ultimately unlocks many different doors.
atb

I am resigned to the fact that as long as we allow capitalism to control golf, a rollback is just as doomed as the idea of conservation.  In capitalism, all the incentives are aligned with doing MORE, not LESS.  They are always "pushing the envelope," but it's not always a good result for people at large.  [Such as, say, the US Postal Service.]

[Kalen Braley]

Tom D,


I would modify that a bit.  Its about trying to do More for Less, which in reality turns out to be doing Less for less in my view...at least that's what I see a lot of in my field.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D,


I would modify that a bit.  Its about trying to do More for Less, which in reality turns out to be doing Less for less in my view...at least that's what I see a lot of in my field.

Kalen:


I'm not smart enough to understand that.  You can explain if you want.


As to golf, my point was that golf manufacturers will never be rewarded for making equipment that goes less far.  They will be rewarded for making equipment that goes as far as the equipment rules allow.  And just as in government, the money made by those companies is spent in part to lobby successfully not to change the equipment rules in place.


As a designer, it's somewhat different.  If I can find a way to build a golf course that everyone likes, but is smaller than the norm and costs less to build and maintain, I stand to profit from that.  [Or, at least, my client profits; I have to negotiate to be rewarded for it.]  But it's a tough sell, because all the other companies in golf are out there hawking the message that bigger is better.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

In my field, Software Development in Technology for lack of a better term, companies have been outsourcing for decades to build the next gen products for less.  But more often than not, they get what they're paying for...an inferior product that costs less...initially.

And they eventually accrue so much Technical Debt they often have to scrap it and start over.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt

[Jeff_Brauer]

Off the top of my head, its probable that the next out of box thing is building golf courses much faster, to save cost, speed up revenue streams, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Off the top of my head, its probable that the next out of box thing is building golf courses much faster, to save cost, speed up revenue streams, etc.

I've been thinking it will be building it more LOCALLY - instead of a having a team of guys fly in from America [or Nebraska].  It's really not a cost thing -- a client spending $20m for a "great" course won't push back too much against another $200k in expenses to bring in the A Team -- but all of a sudden, other countries are going to be pushing back on it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Jeff --

it strikes me that it may well be both: faster, yet with smaller crews and predominantly local architects & hires.
From what I can tell/have read here over the years, both of you know how to do that and have proven you can do it successfully.

What may slow down, I suppose, at least in the short term, is the renovation-restoration industry, i.e. will any club coming out of this want any part of their course 'shut down' even for a day? Members will no doubt be busy making up for lost time.     
 

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I hope you are wrong because if the restoration/renovation business slows down there will be nothing left for the FAR majority of architects to do because there won’t be many new courses being built at least not in the US. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
the good news is there's very little chance or reason to think I'd be right about anything here on gca.com! And I too hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the many good people in the industry.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, Jeff --

it strikes me that it may well be both: faster, yet with smaller crews and predominantly local architects & hires.
From what I can tell/have read here over the years, both of you know how to do that and have proven you can do it successfully.

What may slow down, I suppose, at least in the short term, is the renovation-restoration industry, i.e. will any club coming out of this want any part of their course 'shut down' even for a day? Members will no doubt be busy making up for lost time.     

FWIW, I know of several projects which have continued to move forward in the face of this . . . but I guess most of them were already fully committed before things started shutting down.  And we have had two or three inquiries out of the blue recently.  Developers are optimists!


But, I do think you're right, that a lot of the old money clubs will sit on their hands now, unless they think they can get a bargain on rebuilding things and they are already overdue for the work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I did a long term master plan for a 97 year old developer.  Now, that's an optimist!

[Blake Conant]

I've been thinking it will be building it more LOCALLY - instead of a having a team of guys fly in from America [or Nebraska].

I feel personally attacked...


In reality I hope you’re right. It’s fun to work on renovations where you identify one or two guys on the supers’ crew who are more than capable of helping with construction. They have a knack for design or composition or finish work or whatever it may be and you quickly commandeer them to help on the project.


But if working a bit more locally becomes a thing, does time become a bigger consideration? A benefit of bringing in the A-team is talent and efficiency.  Are clients willing to wait an extra year to open in order to train up the local guys and get things right? Does the project move a little slower?


Another way i see the envelope being pushed is evaporating green space in urban areas. How does golf stay accessible and affordable when urban greenspace keeps rising in value? Does golf get smaller? Does it co-exist with something else? Can you design the course to function as something else in non-peak hours? Maximizing space and being efficient with urban space is more important than ever. How does golf fit in so it doesn’t get left behind?

[Sean_A]

I think the tlillusion of simplicity trend will continue. Talk of no cards (or simple cards), removing course furniture, bunker reduction etc point toward a more simple game, but is that the case? Less inputs, higher green and fairway cuts, possibly looking for shared use public golf and possibly a much more concentrated effort to design for women strike me as more to the heart of the matter.  Of course, designing for women is code for designing for 75 % of golfers.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Another way i see the envelope being pushed is evaporating green space in urban areas. How does golf stay accessible and affordable when urban greenspace keeps rising in value? Does golf get smaller? Does it co-exist with something else? Can you design the course to function as something else in non-peak hours? Maximizing space and being efficient with urban space is more important than ever. How does golf fit in so it doesn’t get left behind?

Which kind of links in with the point I was attempting to make in my reply above.
There was a very good Podcast with Ian Andrew recently who talked about many aspects of the game including safety and insurance in relation to width and the dispersion of shots. The 'envelope the ball travels' if you like, especially when hit by long hitting but wild golfing bucks. Worth a listen - https://good-good.fireside.fm/29
Remember the incident at the Paris Ryder Cup when a lady lost an eye? Is there a golf version of Ralph Nader lurking in the shadows ready to pop out and ..........?
atb

[Tim Gallant]

Lots of great discussion here. A few points/questions:

Ian - you mention the following 'The success lies in the foundation underneath the aesthetics that this site spends far too much time talking about.'

I wanted to see if there were topics around what you're talking about that haven't maybe been talked about, or haven't been talked about enough?

Tom D, you mention 'Ultimately, what holds back golf course design the most is the conservatism of clients, due to the economics of the business.  But the lack of decent criticism is surely also a factor.'

In terms of that lack of decent criticism, I was wondering where this would/should come from? In my mind, it's tricky because if it comes from someone in the industry like yourself, it can come across that you have ulterior motives. And yet, I don't know many, if any, that aren't in the industry that are qualified enough to realistically know the difference between good and great. And if they do, they likely don't have the influence to make it count. Tricky!

Blake and Thomas, I think the Bad Little 9 (although I haven't played it) seems like it pushes the box out there pretty far from other short courses we've seen...or any course for that matter.

I do agree that creativity can come from constraints that a project has, rather than just having a free run to do whatever it is that one wants. But I feel for most architects as I think it can be challenging to get a creative idea over the line. Just taking of an industry I know, it seems like London and New York Creative Marketing Agencies always get the best jobs, not because they are any more or less creative than a Manchester agency, but because the perception is, that even if it's a wild idea, because it's London, it's a safe bet. Even if the idea doesn't work out, it's easier to say 'well we did everything we could' than if it doesn't work out and the company took a flier on a small agency in Bristol.

The other interesting aspect to me is the briefing stage of the project, which some have touched on in this thread, and in other discussions. But I feel it's a real skill to understand what the challenge is, and create a solution that fits. Far too often in my field, clients come with solutions rather than challenges. They'll say 'We need a new website', without setting the context for why a new website is so important. They've handcuffed the company from the start, where there may be more creative ways to achieve what they want without a website (as a simple example). I wonder if GCA is the same: 'I want a Top 100 course'; 'I want the most difficult course'. Those seem like solutions in a way. The crux for me is understanding why they want a Top 100 course. Is it for prestige? Is it because they don't think they can survive if it isn't a Top 100 course? The Loop is a great example that Tom talks about in that the challenge was 'How do we ensure people stay on site longer', rather than 'We need a second world-class golf course'. How many architects do enough digging to truly understand what the challenge is? Just curious - I have no idea!

To answer the question IMHO, I truly believe we are in a stage where experience and authenticity are king. Making courses that can be played multiple ways, and making it feel unique and like a true experience is interesting to me. Take Sweeten's Cove for example. I love their new model of only selling Day Passes on weekends. It allows the flexibility and freedom to provide a unique experience that couldn't otherwise be achieved. It allows them to limit the amount of people on the course and set holes up in ways that couldn't be achieved through a traditional method of play. Maybe you create your own routing (like the old Sheep Ranch). That feels more authentic, adventurous, than how we know golf now - one tee box going to one green. Go.

[Tom_Doak]

I've been thinking it will be building it more LOCALLY - instead of a having a team of guys fly in from America [or Nebraska].

I feel personally attacked...

I was actually referring to Landscapes Unlimited, not to you 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D, you mention 'Ultimately, what holds back golf course design the most is the conservatism of clients, due to the economics of the business.  But the lack of decent criticism is surely also a factor.'

In terms of that lack of decent criticism, I was wondering where this would/should come from? In my mind, it's tricky because if it comes from someone in the industry like yourself, it can come across that you have ulterior motives. And yet, I don't know many, if any, that aren't in the industry that are qualified enough to realistically know the difference between good and great. And if they do, they likely don't have the influence to make it count. Tricky!

-

The other interesting aspect to me is the briefing stage of the project, which some have touched on in this thread, and in other discussions. But I feel it's a real skill to understand what the challenge is, and create a solution that fits. Far too often in my field, clients come with solutions rather than challenges. They'll say 'We need a new website', without setting the context for why a new website is so important. They've handcuffed the company from the start, where there may be more creative ways to achieve what they want without a website (as a simple example). I wonder if GCA is the same: 'I want a Top 100 course'; 'I want the most difficult course'. Those seem like solutions in a way. The crux for me is understanding why they want a Top 100 course. Is it for prestige? Is it because they don't think they can survive if it isn't a Top 100 course? The Loop is a great example that Tom talks about in that the challenge was 'How do we ensure people stay on site longer', rather than 'We need a second world-class golf course'. How many architects do enough digging to truly understand what the challenge is? Just curious - I have no idea!

Tim:


I agree that there are inherent problems with Criticism. 


Our fearless leader Mr. Morrissett is a fine critic when he wants to be, but he has avoided all but the mildest of negative comments in public.  And just as with Clients, you can be sure that Publishers are conservative about such things and stifle the conversation.


Maybe I will write you a long note later about "ulterior motives".  I still have trouble understanding why Geoff Shackelford commenting on Gil Hanse's work is not questioned that way, but my reviews are.  When I wrote a very nice review of Gamble Sands, it got zero press attention, as opposed to my review of The Castle Course.



The briefing stage of the project is so important.  You are right that most clients don't express their desires well, but most professionals don't ask the right questions of them, and don't listen well.  My experience is that if you give a client 15 minutes, they will say all the same stuff, but the first minute is very revealing about their real priorities.

The "top 100 course" goal is the equivalent of the old "championship course" thing.  It's shorthand for "I want attention," but you need to understand what the goal of that really is.

I've had good conversations with Stephen Goodwin and with Ben Cowan-Dewar about Mike Keiser's style in that.  It was clearly very important to him to build a highly ranked golf course, but he never directly referred to rankings in any of my interactions with him.  Whereas, Ric Kayne's mission from day one was a "top 50" course, which is insane on the face of it, but it did get across that he wasn't just talking about the top 100 half-heartedly like every other client, he really meant it!

Some of my most fun assignments were for the people that requested something else.  CommonGround wanted "the best $40 golf course they could get for the $4 million they'd raised".  Ballyneal wanted "the most fun we could give the members with another seven acres of turf".  Lew Thompson wanted people to stay over and play again the next day, as you said, but he also wanted "to wow people", which signaled to me that he might be ready for my concept.  [That, plus he did NOT mention rankings, which were the reason I didn't try to sell that concept to other clients.]

Building the second or third [or fourth] golf course for a project is also more freeing.  In those cases, sure, there is some intent for a ranking, but the focus is more on doing something different than the other course(s), but equally compelling.  Pacific Dunes was a riff on all the things that could make it different than Bandon Dunes [length, bunker style, intimacy].  My course at Dismal goes down to the river, because none of the other courses out there do.  And you know that our course at Sand Valley is going to be different than the first two.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back on a topic earlier in the thread, but I am transferring files to my new computer and came across one where a club I worked for in CA was suing an architect who did one green for them, saying the contours were too steep and they didn't get enough cup space.