The Next Generation

[Ally Mcintosh]

....smaller footprints and more fun...less land, less water, more sustainability, more accessibility and less time will be the mantra of the next 50yrs of golf.

With respect, I've been reading that since I got to this site 15 years ago, and what we've had instead is the complete opposite, one mammoth project after another. Maybe much more important than the next generation of architects will be the next generation of developers.
Peter
PS - also important will be the next generation of golfers, and of golf writers-bloggers-youtubers-and raters -- in short, someone, anyone, to stand up and promote/celebrate the vision you describe instead of the bloated excess we've had (with more land, and larger footprints, and remote locations).

There have likely been as many 9 hole/short courses/putting greens built in the past 10 or so years as bloated acreage types.

It would be interesting to compare the acreage of the recent bloated types with that of the 70s-90s courses.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s difficult for me to talk apples to apples because I don’t really know the typical examples of 70’s to 90’s US courses….


But I’ve got to think that the golf acreage of 70’s to 90’s courses was a lot smaller. In the UK, those courses were generally on 120 to 150 acres. In the US, was not the real estate model prevalent where the bloatedness came from selling houses rather than golf acreage?


All recent well publicised projects have been on pretty massive sites. Even the GB&I ones (though nothing like the size of the remote US ones) have increased more often to 250+ acres.


As for all the 9 hole courses and putting greens, they don’t really count. They are just add-ons to the mammoth developments Peter talks about in order to get folks to stay longer and spend more money.


And he’s spot-on about the golf writers and bloggers too.


Moving on, Don’s last post is also spot-on. Most people working in golf  course design or building are just happy to be making a living doing what they love. Most don’t care if they are one of the “next generation” or not. That is only ego and 90% luck. We’d be much better served if architects weren’t put on a pedestal. More talent would appear and be encouraged.


Jaeger’s post epitomises the attitude I’d like to see change, this one clique to rule them all. I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate: He was just championing someone he - and anyone I talk to - has huge faith in. It’s just that a lot of these folks move in the same circles so appear to open their mind to little else. I’m sure that is harsh. Hopefully just perception.


If social media and the internet and technology didn’t exist, Tom Doak & Bill Coore would be the only two architects from this age we’d be reading about in 100 years. They were clearly the visionaries that kicked off the current day movement. Tom would be far better known because he is so heavily published. There would be a few paragraphs and foot-notes on the best practitioners that followed but only those with a few new courses under their belts. You definitely don’t go in to this business to become “known”. The most successful “next generation” star will be the one who can sell themselves best. We just have to keep our fingers crossed that they have talent and can build great golf courses as well.

[Sean_A]

....smaller footprints and more fun...less land, less water, more sustainability, more accessibility and less time will be the mantra of the next 50yrs of golf.

With respect, I've been reading that since I got to this site 15 years ago, and what we've had instead is the complete opposite, one mammoth project after another. Maybe much more important than the next generation of architects will be the next generation of developers.
Peter
PS - also important will be the next generation of golfers, and of golf writers-bloggers-youtubers-and raters -- in short, someone, anyone, to stand up and promote/celebrate the vision you describe instead of the bloated excess we've had (with more land, and larger footprints, and remote locations).

There have likely been as many 9 hole/short courses/putting greens built in the past 10 or so years as bloated acreage types.

It would be interesting to compare the acreage of the recent bloated types with that of the 70s-90s courses.

Ciao

Sean,

It’s difficult for me to talk apples to apples because I don’t really know the typical examples of 70’s to 90’s US courses….

But I’ve got to think that the golf acreage of 70’s to 90’s courses was a lot smaller. In the UK, those courses were generally on 120 to 150 acres. In the US, was not the real estate model prevalent where the bloatedness came from selling houses rather than golf acreage?

All recent well publicised projects have been on pretty massive sites. Even the GB&I ones (though nothing like the size of the remote US ones) have increased more often to 250+ acres.

As for all the 9 hole courses and putting greens, they don’t really count. They are just add-ons to the mammoth developments Peter talks about in order to get folks to stay longer and spend more money.

And he’s spot-on about the golf writers and bloggers too.

Moving on, Don’s last post is also spot-on. Most people working in golf  course design or building are just happy to be making a living doing what they love. Most don’t care if they are one of the “next generation” or not. That is only ego and 90% luck. We’d be much better served if architects weren’t put on a pedestal. More talent would appear and be encouraged.

Jaeger’s post epitomises the attitude I’d like to see change, this one clique to rule them all. I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate. It’s just that a lot of these folks move in the same circles so appear to open their mind to little else. I’m sure that is harsh. Hopefully just perception.

If social media and the internet and technology didn’t exist, Tom Doak & Bill Coore would be the only two architects from this age we’d be reading about in 100 years. They were clearly the visionaries that kicked off the current day movement. Tom would be far better known because he is so heavily published. There would be a few paragraphs and foot-notes on the best practitioners that followed but only those with a few new courses under their belts. You definitely don’t go in to this business to become “known”. The most successful “next generation” star will be the one who can sell themselves best. We just have to keep our fingers crossed that they have talent and can build great golf courses as well.

Ally

I honestly don't know the acreage comparison between eras. I do know that generally anything less 125ish is pretty small and in some cases these smaller property courses are now considered to be a bit dangerous by some.

Are there really a lot of stand alone courses using fully 250 acres just for a course? It doesn't seem possible unless there are a lot of areas which really aren't part of the course. I am reminded of Cleeve Hill. Huge property which the course is routed over, but the course doesn't use a significant percentage of that land. I guess many cart courses are like this where canyons, mountains, wetlands etc are part of the property, but not really part of the course.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Depends how you want to define huge acreage (or bloated for that matter).


The modern day developments are on far bigger sites ($) and use far more fairway area ($) than their 70’ - 90’s counterparts. But as we know, a lot of these courses leave huge swathes of non-fairway areas untouched. So if we are talking about acreages in terms of “constructed area”, then there might not be much in it. For the style of course in the 80’s was shaping and working the entire site, including the roughs.


But I think Peter is just talking more about big developments. The scale and size of a Bandon Dunes or Streamsong or Sand Valley is off the charts compared to the 18 hole standalone courses that were getting built previously.


EDIT: Reading back on the specifics of your question, even St. Patricks (stand-alone 18) is on 300 acres.

[Sean_A]

Depends how you want to define huge acreage (or bloated for that matter).


The modern day developments are on far bigger sites ($) and use far more fairway area ($) than their 70’ - 90’s counterparts. But as we know, a lot of these courses leave huge swathes of non-fairway areas untouched. So if we are talking about acreages in terms of “constructed area”, then there might not be much in it. For the style of course in the 80’s was shaping and working the entire site, including the roughs.


But I think Peter is just talking more about big developments. The scale and size of a Bandon Dunes or Streamsong or Sand Valley is off the charts compared to the 18 hole standalone courses that were getting built previously.


EDIT: Reading back on the specifics of your question, even St. Patricks (stand-alone 18) is on 300 acres.

St Pat's can't possibly use 300 acres! My understanding is 60 acres of fairway is massive. Quad that for greens, corridor buffer, etc and it seems like 240 acres would be immense, especially if its a walking course. I figure there must some mixed usage of terms between property size, course size and constructed areas.

It stands to reason that resorts will be huge areas. So I am not sure it's an apples to apples situation to compare resort 18 holers to stand alone courses, especially if the 9 holers, short courses and putting greens "don't count" for some reason. To me, it's quite clear there is a trend toward these type of courses, but that doesn't mean there isn't a trend toward mega courses. There can and is likely to be several trends given the global aspect of design.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think we’re talking different things here. St. Pats uses almost every corner of a 300 acre site for the golf course…. UK golf courses in the 80’s were far more often on 150 acre sites….


Short course add-ons to mega-developments are very different to the kind of new direction Steve Lapper was promoting (admirably) but that Peter was slightly cynical about.


To Steve’s point, Augie Piza is out there trying to promote something new (or at least a twist on it). To Peter’s point, will the world listen?

[Steve Lapper]

....smaller footprints and more fun...less land, less water, more sustainability, more accessibility and less time will be the mantra of the next 50yrs of golf.

With respect, I've been reading that since I got to this site 15 years ago, and what we've had instead is the complete opposite, one mammoth project after another. Maybe much more important than the next generation of architects will be the next generation of developers.
Peter
PS - also important will be the next generation of golfers, and of golf writers-bloggers-youtubers-and raters -- in short, someone, anyone, to stand up and promote/celebrate the vision you describe instead of the bloated excess we've had (with more land, and larger footprints, and remote locations).

  Surely you ae right about the mammoth scale of many projects, yet even most of the principals involved in all of them would tell you potential sites for this kind of thing are slimming. Developers always dream big, yet most would also describe their expectations for a golf as changed as well. There are only a handful of Kaisers, Cowen-Dewers, Kohls who seek to deliver multi-course complexes. The Walraths, Azoffs, Schreibers et.al. will always sate their desires with higher-end single courses. That said, fewer unique new courses will be built than older courses restored. I suspect the ratio will be rather steep.


 My mention of Augustin Piza was done simply to illustrate what the next generation of golfers will come to expect from the next generation of architects. "Butterflys"of 4 six-hole loops and "Fire-pit"par-three courses on vastly smaller footprints aren't designs meant to address the old school demographic. No, they are meant to attract the Gen Y-to-Z-to Millennial demographics. Ultimately, I suspect this group will inevitably become as much the future of the game as the elite private club market. Golf architects will, like any other profession, follow the available work and seek to meet this demand.


Btw....To your(accurate) comment about the support of golf commentators, Augie's partner is Brandel Chamblee. Brandel is a big believer in finding ways to both address the women's market as well as a new generation of younger particpants..

[Kyle Harris]

The business requires VERY few "experts"

Every golf course built requires an expert after construction. It’s just the other name on the scorecard usually.

[Jeff Schley]

The business requires VERY few "experts"

Every golf course built requires an expert after construction. It’s just the other name on the scorecard usually.

But there is only one Kyle Harris, thus the quandary yes?

[Morgan Clawson]

Colton Craig - Park Mammoth, KY

[Tom_Doak]

Colton Craig - Park Mammoth, KY

Yes - but that's the danger in lists like this, since Brian Ross was also part of the design team - in fact I think it was really his project to start with and they partnered up, but I could have it the wrong way around, so don't shoot me.  Merely commenting here because it seems like for every person you put on this list, you're inevitably leaving another out, and oftentimes the deciding factor is which one is more aggressive about taking credit.

[Mike_Young]

The business requires VERY few "experts"

Every golf course built requires an expert after construction. It’s just the other name on the scorecard usually.

Kyle,You are correct.  the average ranked golf course would not have a chance with raters etc unless maintenance conditions were  good.  And with that said the supt is the most critical piece of the puzzle.  And EXPERT is often used too freely.  Have you ever heard the phrase "hiding behind a budget"?  Lot of architects and supts got to where they are due to budgets and not talent...JMO

[Kyle Harris]

The business requires VERY few "experts"

Every golf course built requires an expert after construction. It’s just the other name on the scorecard usually.

Kyle,You are correct.  the average ranked golf course would not have a chance with raters etc unless maintenance conditions were  good.  And with that said the supt is the most critical piece of the puzzle.  And EXPERT is often used too freely.  Have you ever heard the phrase "hiding behind a budget"?  Lot of architects and supts got to where they are due to budgets and not talent...JMO

Expertise comes in many forms and by many standards 


Someone, somewhere, needs to hold it all together… as you well know, my friend.

[Forrest Richardson]

It is an odd list. There are probably 30-40 interesting names out there doing thoughtful work. Maybe 50+

Tom says, “… considering that nine of the sixteen started with my company…” I’m wondering if Brett makes up the sixteen? Mark Fine and I gave Brett his first opportunity, so perhaps it’s only 15. Even so, Tom’s point is spot on.

[Chris Kane]

P.S. Another two names you missed were Mike Cocking and Ashley Mead, who were on site with Mike Clayton at St Andrews Beach and Barnbougle when they were young.  They seem to be making inroads in the USA now, which is unprecedented for an Australian designer.

Greg Norman has done alright! 

[Tom_Doak]

P.S. Another two names you missed were Mike Cocking and Ashley Mead, who were on site with Mike Clayton at St Andrews Beach and Barnbougle when they were young.  They seem to be making inroads in the USA now, which is unprecedented for an Australian designer.

Greg Norman has done alright! 

I thought Australians had renounced the Shark by now.  (Or he, them.)  But I guess I kind of discount Tour pros.

[Tom_Doak]

It is an odd list. There are probably 30-40 interesting names out there doing thoughtful work. Maybe 50+

Tom says, “… considering that nine of the sixteen started with my company…” I’m wondering if Brett makes up the sixteen? Mark Fine and I gave Brett his first opportunity, so perhaps it’s only 15. Even so, Tom’s point is spot on.

I did count Brett.  I thought his summer at Dismal River was his first job in the field - maybe just his first construction job?


Brett was there with Brian Slawnik for the first few holes of construction, along with Jeff Stein and Zach Varty.  The next summer, we had Blake and Clyde and Jaeger among the guys working on it, with Brian Schneider in charge.  We do know how to pick them!

[Tim Martin]

As prolific of a career as RTJ had did he ever do any work on an existing course that was an effort to restore the original design features? He had enough sway to put his own stamp on everything he touched by convincing the client that he knew better than the original architect. Reese wasn’t much different in that regard. This approach has certainly changed today and that’s not to say that there haven’t been some terrific renovations(Atlantic City CC, Pinehurst # 4 as examples) but for the most part the current group of guys realize that what was original in most cases is the way to go.

[Brett Hochstein]

It is an odd list. There are probably 30-40 interesting names out there doing thoughtful work. Maybe 50+

Tom says, “… considering that nine of the sixteen started with my company…” I’m wondering if Brett makes up the sixteen? Mark Fine and I gave Brett his first opportunity, so perhaps it’s only 15. Even so, Tom’s point is spot on.

I did count Brett.  I thought his summer at Dismal River was his first job in the field - maybe just his first construction job?


Brett was there with Brian Slawnik for the first few holes of construction, along with Jeff Stein and Zach Varty.  The next summer, we had Blake and Clyde and Jaeger among the guys working on it, with Brian Schneider in charge.  We do know how to pick them!

Both are probably interpretable to be true. 


Forrest indeed did help get me on the crew for his and Mark's project at Mira Vista (Berkeley CC) in 2011 just before heading to Dismal, but it was as a laborer for the contractor and thus limiting what I could really "contribute" to the project, even though there was still plenty of value in getting to understand first-hand the construction process.  Maybe more notable from that period is that Forrest allowed me to tag along for all his site visits and meetings as well as do research for the project at Cal's Bancroft Library.  I haven't really had anyone else give me that that type of experience in the 11 years since. 


Tom and Renaissance gave me the opportunity to shape and see how they run jobs, and that has been essential to everything I've done to this point and hope to do in the future.


Bottom line, I appreciate both of you for helping me out and giving me a chance, because after nearly 3 years of flailing about following a 2008 graduation, I was about ready to look for alternative careers, a sad reality I almost reluctantly had to face.  Thankfully, I now still get to throw around mud and sand for a living 

[Ira Fishman]

It strikes me that Ally is too modest to nominate himself so I will do so. I have not played his designs, but they get very strong reviews and he has some original designs on his CV.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

It strikes me that Ally is too modest to nominate himself so I will do so. I have not played his designs, but they get very strong reviews and he has some original designs on his CV.
Ira

Well done, Ira. Thoughtful and generous, as is Ally himself around here.

[Chris Kane]

I thought Australians had renounced the Shark by now.  (Or he, them.)  But I guess I kind of discount Tour pros.

As toxic as he is, sadly our government doesn't have the authority to revoke his citizenship and render him stateless.


That is a reasonable point about tour pros.

[Kalen Braley]

I thought Australians had renounced the Shark by now.  (Or he, them.)  But I guess I kind of discount Tour pros.

As toxic as he is, sadly our government doesn't have the authority to revoke his citizenship and render him stateless.

That is a reasonable point about tour pros.

Chris,

I've thought about this too from the perspective of the new Tour.  If I was a Tour Pro, I would certainly not be inclined to trust him in the least bit.  I wonder how much this is working against the new Tour in signing up players.

Perhaps they should have signed on Phil for Greg's job, hell he seems to be its biggest evangelizer at this point anyways...although seems like he's alienating a bunch too.

[Forrest Richardson]

Brett — You not only worked hard, but you contributed greatly. Mark and I were always grateful for your hands-on approach and staying on top of the details. Kye liked you as well.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ira, Peter, thanks for thinking of me. But I’m not sure I deserve to be on this list:
On the one hand, I’m no longer a spring chicken. On the other hand, I still balance two professions / vocations.


That said, given similar circumstances, I know I could design and implement courses as well as anyone else. And I know how to lead a project from many angles. So watch this space. I could yet be a breakout “star” in my late fifties!


A couple of guys that went through the EIGCA programme with me are doing pretty well for themselves and I expect you to continue to hear more about them:


Jeff Danner (Forrest’s new partner), Philip Spogard, Christian Althaus, Christian Lundin.


None of these guys sit in the field and shape themselves. But they are all around the 40 year old mark and run their own companies. They are designers who can lead. In that sense they are proven.

[Mike_Young]

DAN RATHER: "Do you like the way country music is going today?"

VINCE GILL: "I do. It's not my cup of tea, but I don't know if I was Merle Haggard's cup of tea when I first got going. And I don't know if Merle Haggard was Roy Acuff's cup of tea. I don't know if Roy Acuff was Jimmie Rodgers' cup of tea. You know what I'm saying? To me, to be "that" guy that looks back, you sound like a curmudgeon, you sound like you're bitter, you sound like all those things. I love seeing kids come along and being moved by what they're moved by. I don't care that they're not moved by the same things I am. I love seeing young people just out there doing what they love. There's not a rule book that says you have to like this, or it doesn't count or you're not as good. I'm not gonna be that guy. There's a lot of it I'm not crazy about but it's not personal. They don't have anybody cheering for them harder than I do."