Pushing the "envelope" in architecture

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Yet another reason to be on good terms with one's clients . . . especially if you like to build contour into greens   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well agreed, of course.  While I have only been sued by a supplier (twice!) for rejecting their dead sod, there have been a few design boo boos the a less classy client might sue for in my career.  If the relationship is good, they are less likely to sue, IMHO.  I also notice that underfunded clients make noise about "being made whole" when in reality, they were probably at fault in the first place.  Not that I could blame them for wanting to build a course, nor for hiring me.  But, when money runs out, people can turn on you, not wanting to blame themselves.


Back to that green, a nice relationship wouldn't have helped, as they sold the club, which does happen!


And lastly, it seems obvious you view some of the typical constraints differently than I do, and it probably helps you think more out of the box.  In my case, all it took was seeing one guy getting hit by a golf ball (and not even a lawsuit) was enough for me to think very carefully about hole spacing, overall safety, etc.  When I think through it, in the end, to me, no one tee, green, golf hole is probably worth unnecessarily putting even one golfer at more than random risk.


While I once joked that a gca will someday get sued by a gambler who lost a big bet on one of our designed holes, the green contour lawsuit seems to put the bar of what you can sue for to a higher level.  Don't like your design?  Sue!  Sort of like the old joke about hanging a picture of the architect in the clubhouse.....but only because they couldn't hang the architect.  Gallows humor, that joke.....

[Tom_Doak]

Now you have me curious - was that lawsuit about the green successful?  It seems like, between it having been open for a while, plus "buyer beware" for the second owner, it should have been easily dismissed, no?


Apart from getting hit in the back by Billy Casper at Westchester, when I was 11, my only brush with injury was when one if my associates hit one of our guests at the Renaissance Cup, walking off the next tee.  That has caused all of my team to think harder about awkward spots.


My most recent design in Australia has an issue now - the 18th tee is very much in play from people trying to drive the green at 17.  I did that routing out on site, rather than on paper, so I never realized how close it was.  My only solution was to tell them players should wave up anyone on the tee, after reachin the 17th green.  Hopefully it doesn't prevent me from working in Australia again - we were doing so well down there  🙃

[Jeff_Brauer]

A California lawsuit easily dismissed?  I have never heard of such a thing!

Haven't heard the result, but will keep you informed if anything happened.  Besides, club sold again, from developer, to club, to a well known management company.  At some point, not too far into the process, someone should realize that rebuilding the green will probably cost less than lawyers. 


That doesn't always settle down the lawsuit.  One of my projects got sideways and the city was suing the Contractor.  My suggestion of each paying half to sod the whole thing (eliminating profit for the Contractor and legal fees for the city) was rejected with the following logic - "We are out of golf course money, but we sill have funds left in our legal fund we can use!"


As you know, I take a pretty scientific approach, and now that there is more ball dispersion data available, it seems even more logical to plot the "safety cones" etc. than be anywhere near intuitive, but that is just my take.  I figure if I don't the lawyers will find and "expert witness" who will inform the judge and jury just how far apart stuff ought to be. And, it's not rocket science.  For all the math, I think we all know that feeling of hair standing up on the back of our necks when we see someone on the next hole.  If I feel that, I move the green or tee.


BTW, had a similar brush as a kid at the 1970 US Open.  Trevino advertised for Faultless golf balls, but rumor was he used Titleists.  He hit one in the rough near me, and I was determined to read the label, which of course, was facing straight down.  As I strained to see it, taking more time than I thought, Trevino was standing over me telling me to back up, because "A 7 iron your forehead is no kind of souvenir to take home from the US Open!"

[Joe Bausch]

Faultless for the name of a golf ball. Let that sink in kids!

[Ira Fishman]

Is there a post WWII course that is solid to very good that could be great or at least more distinctive if the architect had pushed the edge of the envelope?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Is there a post WWII course that is solid to very good that could be great or at least more distinctive if the architect had pushed the edge of the envelope?

Creativity knows no bounds.

[Peter Pallotta]

Does the theory that "The Old Course" is the answer to every question ever asked on gca.com remain unquestioned with this, a 'pushing the envelope' thread?


And if so: does it suggest that 'doing less' is as legitimate a way of pushing that envelope as doing more? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it was Ron Whitten who said everything in GCA is either a copy of or reaction to the Old Course.


So, for at least part of it, i.e., crossing fairways, OB as a strategic hazard, and no doglegs already pushed the "reaction" side of the envelope, right?


And, again, we tend to focus on only the high budget courses here that in fact can spend more money.  Most projects don't have enough money to spend and have quietly been doing less for decades.  Of course, more in the Floyd Farley type mode than bigger name architects like Doak, CC, etc. I think, if limitations foster creativity, i.e., necessity is the Mother of Invention, the big names became big names for a reason, i.e., they had the talent to do more with less.  Is better shaping combined with limited earthmoving pushing the envelope?  Probably!

[Ira Fishman]

Is there a post WWII course that is solid to very good that could be great or at least more distinctive if the architect had pushed the edge of the envelope?

Creativity knows no bounds.

Ok, let me try to be more specific. I have played three C&C courses. I think the green complexes at Streamsong Red push the edge of the envelope particularly the bunkering, mounding, and often awkward relationship to the fairway. With a few exceptions, I did not think Kapalua Plantation pushed on the creativity factor. Perhaps the natural beauty made it unnecessary. And Bandon Trails fits somewhere in between the two with deception being the strongest element.


I have only played a couple of Mr. Dye's courses, but River at Kohler definitely pushes the edge whereas River at Kingsmill although certainly not pedestrian seems more conventional.


The biggest contrast for me though might be among Old Mac, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns. The first makes an homage creative while the other two are thoughtful and beautiful,  but it strikes me that could be even better with some risk taking, particularly around the greens. I know that the developer did not want to do that, but still a bit of a shame.


Ira

[Tim Gallant]

I was doing a bit of reading this morning, and came across this quote, which is interesting in the context of this topic:


Roads, railways, sheds and  gardens may be thought unsatisfactory and unwelcome, yet they are often the essence of a course; take them away and the difference would at once be felt. They can give just the suggesting of the links as primarily a thing bound up with the life of the community. When a course is beyond the limits of outside interference the stamp of originality is apt to be lacking.
- HN Wethered & T Simpson


I especially love that last line, which relates to a topic that has been discussed more and more on podcasts and articles of late: sense of place. Thinking of a place like Winter Park, in which Mr. Johns on a recent podcast talked about tying-in 'community' into the design, is this something that can create originality if we believe that each place can be different and unique?


Is pushing the envelop ensuring that we incorporate more outside interference to create originality, even if these elements are artificial?

[archie_struthers]

 


Roads, railways, sheds and  gardens may be thought unsatisfactory and unwelcome, yet they are often the essence of a course; take them away and the difference would at once be felt. They can give just the suggesting of the links as primarily a thing bound up with the life of the community. When a course is beyond the limits of outside interference the stamp of originality is apt to be lacking.
- HN Wethered & T Simpson


Perhaps they are alluding in a backhanded way that the seamless incorporation of these elements, which are essential to movement around the property, is the key to tying it all together!

[Tom_Doak]

I was pretty surprised the day it dawned on me that The Old Course, Pebble, Cypress, Shinnecock and NGLA all have you play across a public road - four of them, twice!

[Mark Mammel]

Add Royal Dornoch to the list. The first shot goes over the beach road!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


Oddly, sense of place was the thing they taught me day one in landscape architecture school.  And we were taught the best way to achieve that was to leave as much of it as possible, which in the Simpson quote, would be railroad sheds, etc.  Not sure when the idea of building a standardized course came about, RTJ for sure, maybe Ross before that.


Some of that is practical.  For all the romance of hitting over the roads, railroad sheds (or now hotel) there is probably a few deaths of workers/hotel guests, or maybe even a lost ball (the Scots were always said to be especially frugal and golfers continue that trend today when it comes to golf balls) Maybe even a scuffed ball would convince someone to remove the hard surfaces, who knows.


RE: Winter Park - Played it, loved it, thought the that the new architecture was great, but don't understand what part makes you think it tied to the community through design?  Maybe that they put the original course right in the middle of things?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim,


Oddly, sense of place was the thing they taught me day one in landscape architecture school.  And we were taught the best way to achieve that was to leave as much of it as possible,

Yep.  I laughed when one of my colleagues presented this like a profound new thought.