The next generation of Architecture Nerds

[Tom_Doak]

It sounds as if you actually want more people to think independently about architecture and fewer to not follow those who claim to think.

Yes, and I second that sentiment.


When I did all my traveling in my 20's, the goal was not just to reinforce what everyone had already written about the great courses, but to find the places where I disagreed, and to find other courses which were under-appreciated.


But then, my purpose was to learn how to build great golf courses on my own, not how to attract followers on Instagram [or to fit into comment threads on their home pages].

[John Kavanaugh]

It's nice to be old enough to remember when old people said what they thought. #Meathead

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the next generation is alive and well. I think places like Sweetens and Sand Valley and Streamsong and Cabot and Bandon and other courses (more than just Keiser ones, ha ha) are creating interest and revival. I think younger people are looking as well at what's been done at Pine Needles/Mid-Pines/Southern Pines/#2 as well. I think younger people are looking at all of these things.

They're just not joining GCA to talk about it, or playing with a bunch of older people who want to discuss GCA.

I also think they're still in the minority, just like they were 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago. If anything, I think they're in a lesser minority, what with the ease of sharing information, photos, the sites like Andy's Fried Egg that can educate, etc.

Still, there are a lot of "why do you like this course over that one?" "Because it's in better condition, the greens are smooth and fast…". out there.

[MCirba]

As a boomer do you give them credit for sustainability?

Well, John...we sure as heck can't claim it.   More power to them.

[Mark Fedeli]

I'm not sure what anyone here expects. A lot of you have been thinking about architecture for decades and thus your appreciation of it has grown more varied and sophisticated. Give the younger generation a chance. Give them some time to develop their own complex opinions.


Right now they're just jazzed to have found this exciting new niche to obsess over. Width, templates, seaside links, etc. are all novel concepts compared to what the mainstream had been pushing on them previously. Their interest will evolve, just like yours did. Or maybe it won't! Maybe they just like the vibes at places like Sand Valley and Streamsong and that's absolutely brilliant too.


Unless you're just bummed that the underground has gone mainstream, which is perfectly acceptable.

[John Kavanaugh]

As a boomer do you give them credit for sustainability?

Well, John...we sure as heck can't claim it.   More power to them.

If you want to change a child’s mind just tell them you agree. If you want them to stop wearing jeans buy a pair of True Religions and wear them to the club. If you love trees cut them all down. If you hate slow play putt everything out. The kids will never know what hit them.

[Mark Fedeli]

In a recent round, I had a younger guy excitedly explain to me what a Biarritz green looked like.  Our mutual friend explained I was very familiar with the concept. 


I find that this sort of conversation happens all the time. 


When I started here, I rarely brought up GCA concepts to random playing partners because they had muted interest at best.  Now I probably fear too much enthusiasm.


It probably is good thing that next generation sites such as the Fried Egg and No Laying Up have brought GCA concepts up to a new audience.   I rarely hear anything I have not heard before and the ideas have lost some luster.

I feel like we're burying the lede here. Did he say the Biarritz was inspired by the Chasm hole or by a par-4 down on the beach?

[Kyle Harris]

As I said on Twitter:


We’ve gone from every par 3 with a diagonal bunker in front of being labeled “redan” to every par 3 with a diagonal bunker in front of it  being criticized for not being a redan.

[Jason Topp]

I'm not sure what anyone here expects. A lot of you have been thinking about architecture for decades and thus your appreciation of it has grown more varied and sophisticated. Give the younger generation a chance. Give them some time to develop their own complex opinions.


Right now they're just jazzed to have found this exciting new niche to obsess over. Width, templates, seaside links, etc. are all novel concepts compared to what the mainstream had been pushing on them previously. Their interest will evolve, just like yours did. Or maybe it won't! Maybe they just like the vibes at places like Sand Valley and Streamsong and that's absolutely brilliant too.


Unless you're just bummed that the underground has gone mainstream, which is perfectly acceptable.

I may not have conveyed the sentiment I was trying to convey.  I didn’t mean to take a shot at the next generation. I have recently noticed I am not a part of it.   

[Sean_A]

I'm not sure what anyone here expects. A lot of you have been thinking about architecture for decades and thus your appreciation of it has grown more varied and sophisticated. Give the younger generation a chance. Give them some time to develop their own complex opinions.

Right now they're just jazzed to have found this exciting new niche to obsess over. Width, templates, seaside links, etc. are all novel concepts compared to what the mainstream had been pushing on them previously. Their interest will evolve, just like yours did. Or maybe it won't! Maybe they just like the vibes at places like Sand Valley and Streamsong and that's absolutely brilliant too.

Unless you're just bummed that the underground has gone mainstream, which is perfectly acceptable.

I may not have conveyed the sentiment I was trying to convey.  I didn’t mean to take a shot at the next generation. I have recently noticed I am not a part of it.

+1...realized about five years ago.

Ciao

[Steve Lang]

   Who'll be the next Ran?  and where would the gca nerds go if gca.com disappeared?

As a certified 70 yr old Boomer, my gca interests were always related to understanding the views and playing better... in the present world of satellite and drone imagery, probably easier for folks to get captivated by the eye candy perspectives versus design strategies.

Never saw a sucker pin I didn't like! 

[Cal Carlisle]

I’d actually prefer less people to think about it, Ira…. It would be better all round if people just enjoyed (or didn’t) the courses they were playing without dissecting them through analysis.


It would actually free up architects to just build the best course rather than trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous and/or are impressed by certain features or nods to the past.

Ally,
Is that an actual thing? (Architects trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous)

When you say "those" are you referring to the owners of the golf course being constructed, or John Q. Public?

While this sounds good in theory, in practical practice it seems to have been the opposite with decades of mailed-in and mediocre DS 1-2s out here.

Maybe if golfers started giving a crap and being more thoughtful and played elsewhere, there would be better efforts...

Kalen,


Aren't the DS 1's and 2's already built, though? There are a lot of old timers that would rather chew open their own scrotum than pay more than $35 for a round of golf with a cart. Here in Cleveland most of the public golf is a DS 1-2. It's also pretty affordable relative to a lot of cities around the country. It serves a large segment of the golfing community.



 I'm guessing if everyone held to this ideal that "thou shalt not play 1's or 2's" it would be a fierce fight for a tee time on the few good public courses we have here. In an ideal world it wouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is. If only I was born in Scotland.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’d actually prefer less people to think about it, Ira…. It would be better all round if people just enjoyed (or didn’t) the courses they were playing without dissecting them through analysis.


It would actually free up architects to just build the best course rather than trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous and/or are impressed by certain features or nods to the past.

Ally,
Is that an actual thing? (Architects trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous)

When you say "those" are you referring to the owners of the golf course being constructed, or John Q. Public?

Cal,


If it wasn’t a thing, many architects wouldn’t be spending as much time dropping historical touch points in to their designs. It may be subconscious in some cases. Maybe everyone has just decided together that a Biarritz green is the pinnacle of design?


People “in the know” love to spot a recognised feature from the history of golf design. It - probably also subconsciously - makes them think more highly of a course.


(Bear in mind the above is all my speculation. I haven’t conducted a poll)

[Kalen Braley]

While this sounds good in theory, in practical practice it seems to have been the opposite with decades of mailed-in and mediocre DS 1-2s out here.

Maybe if golfers started giving a crap and being more thoughtful and played elsewhere, there would be better efforts...

Kalen,

Aren't the DS 1's and 2's already built, though? There are a lot of old timers that would rather chew open their own scrotum than pay more than $35 for a round of golf with a cart. Here in Cleveland most of the public golf is a DS 1-2. It's also pretty affordable relative to a lot of cities around the country. It serves a large segment of the golfing community.

 I'm guessing if everyone held to this ideal that "thou shalt not play 1's or 2's" it would be a fierce fight for a tee time on the few good public courses we have here. In an ideal world it wouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is. If only I was born in Scotland.

Cal the point is well taken, certainly understood the vast majority already exist.

Perhaps in Cleveland public golf is more limited, but in both Spokane and Northern Utah there are plenty of similar priced options that are accessed just as easily where some are DS 1-2s and others 3-4s.

Golf courses aren't static, and I still see time and time again where a city decides to spend $3 million on a golf course project and 90% of it go towards building a new McMansion clubhouse and putting in new cart paths (or similar). 

But some get it right on occasion too.  Liberty Lake muni was updated 10+ years ago and it went from a DS 2 to 3-3.5....several improved holes, greens, fairway configurations, bunkering, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

I’d actually prefer less people to think about it, Ira…. It would be better all round if people just enjoyed (or didn’t) the courses they were playing without dissecting them through analysis.


It would actually free up architects to just build the best course rather than trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous and/or are impressed by certain features or nods to the past.

Ally,
Is that an actual thing? (Architects trying to impress those that know enough to be dangerous)

When you say "those" are you referring to the owners of the golf course being constructed, or John Q. Public?

Cal,


If it wasn’t a thing, many architects wouldn’t be spending as much time dropping historical touch points in to their designs. It may be subconscious in some cases. Maybe everyone has just decided together that a Biarritz green is the pinnacle of design?


People “in the know” love to spot a recognised feature from the history of golf design. It - probably also subconsciously - makes them think more highly of a course.


(Bear in mind the above is all my speculation. I haven’t conducted a poll)

I think it's absolutely a thing. 


It is done mostly to impress golf writers and make it easier for them to promote the courses.  Which of these sounds easier to write? --


"The 10th green is unusual, with a deep depression running across the middle of the green, leaving hole locations at the front and back.  A hole location behind the swale would be very difficult to access unless the approach is played to run through the swale," or


"The 10th green is a Biarritz, modeled after the famous designs of Charles Blair Macdonald and his associates."


For the former, you're relying on the writer to have some ability to understand the playability of the hole and describe it well.  For the latter, you can rely on Wikipedia to make you look smart.

[Tom_Doak]

Aren't the DS 1's and 2's already built, though? There are a lot of old timers that would rather chew open their own scrotum than pay more than $35 for a round of golf with a cart. Here in Cleveland most of the public golf is a DS 1-2. It's also pretty affordable relative to a lot of cities around the country. It serves a large segment of the golfing community.

 I'm guessing if everyone held to this ideal that "thou shalt not play 1's or 2's" it would be a fierce fight for a tee time on the few good public courses we have here. In an ideal world it wouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is. If only I was born in Scotland.

Yes, nobody is really trying to build a 2, but there are lots of them around.  Even in Scotland, surprisingly.  They are fairly busy for the same reason the 2's here are busy -- they're cheap and handy, and lots of people like to drink beer while playing anyway.*


But there are also more 4's and 5's and 6's in Scotland than in most places in America.


* The actual definition of a 2 in The Confidential Guide is a quote from my late friend Dave Richards:  "Play it in a scramble; drink a lot of beer."

[John Kavanaugh]

I guess podified architectural nerds are not held to the same economy of words that our print stalwarts once were.


I personally prefer fewer words with the option to google.

[V_Halyard]

Couple of thoughts from one who deals with all media demographics, daily across multiple sports, music and film platforms.
 
- The "Links Lawyer" and the "Kid with the Drone" have burned appreciation of golf architecture into the lexicon of the common and younger golfer. That is a phenomenal feat.  That is akin delivering a cross-over music hit. (Tony Bennett winning a Grammy and an MTV Music award in the same year comes to mind. The New Top Gun is in there as well.)
Hipster golfers may be echoing things this group has debated for years, but the fact they are echoing them are cause for celebration.Their megaphones heard them here first. Remember we are still the folks trapped in the corner of the kitchen arguing about mow lines and double jeopardy trees. (Duncan, again, apologies for dragging kitchens into this)

- Close-in, low altitude aerial photography is not new. Prior to drones, we worked with cumbersome UAV Cameras that charged by the hour for almost 12 years in sports. Use of Consumer drones to visually tell gca stories on social media was creative, revolutionary, and pivotal to the current mass appreciation of good architecture, and exposure of bad.

- Another concern heard is the need to "Design for the Drone. That is two-sided. 
1- Without the drone, it is likely that there would be less demand for new and restored course work. The drone has expanded the appreciation of features by the masses in ways Eye-Level does not.  And most pro-photogs have used cranes and cherry pickers for decades to don't get hypnotized by any nonsense claiming "Eye-Level" Is the only way to visually and photographically capture the essence of a hole. That's bullshit. Don't type it.  The drone allows the consumer to better understand the scale of the architect's vision.

2- The most valid concern associated with "designing for drones" is maintenance, H/R Staffing and budgeting. The core visual element driving this is contrast. Bunkers, Waste areas, 'Fescue' (Any grass that looks gold - Sorry Kyle) are now part of the consumer palette. We vilify the over-watered and Mono-Verde. We celebrate the bouncy brown "Green and Gold" (Go Packers) bunkers and fairways. 
The more we do that, the more there is to maintain.   
That has driven in a shift in maintenance practices, expenses, and stressed staffing in an age where staffers are unicorns.
That is the real issue with every sexy design and one that is a valid and daily battle.
That is a monumentally valid line item of concern.

[V_Halyard]

I think the next generation is alive and well. I think places like Sweetens and Sand Valley and Streamsong and Cabot and Bandon and other courses (more than just Keiser ones, ha ha) are creating interest and revival. I think younger people are looking as well at what's been done at Pine Needles/Mid-Pines/Southern Pines/#2 as well. I think younger people are looking at all of these things.

They're just not joining GCA to talk about it, or playing with a bunch of older people who want to discuss GCA.

I also think they're still in the minority, just like they were 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago. If anything, I think they're in a lesser minority, what with the ease of sharing information, photos, the sites like Andy's Fried Egg that can educate, etc.

Still, there are a lot of "why do you like this course over that one?" "Because it's in better condition, the greens are smooth and fast…". out there.

Agree.  "Get off my lawn (Fairway)" is not a growth strategy.

[V_Halyard]

I guess podified architectural nerds are not held to the same economy of words that our print stalwarts once were.


I personally prefer fewer words with the option to google.

Yes that is a personal preference. That said, if they enjoy reading and listening in support of more play. For them,... They're right.

[Sean_A]

Couple of thoughts from one who deals with all media demographics, daily across multiple sports, music and film platforms.
 
- The "Links Lawyer" and the "Kid with the Drone" have burned appreciation of golf architecture into the lexicon of the common and younger golfer. That is a phenomenal feat.  That is akin delivering a cross-over music hit. (Tony Bennett winning a Grammy and an MTV Music award in the same year comes to mind. The New Top Gun is in there as well.)
Hipster golfers may be echoing things this group has debated for years, but the fact they are echoing them are cause for celebration.Their megaphones heard them here first. Remember we are still the folks trapped in the corner of the kitchen arguing about mow lines and double jeopardy trees. (Duncan, again, apologies for dragging kitchens into this)

- Close-in, low altitude aerial photography is not new. Prior to drones, we worked with cumbersome UAV Cameras that charged by the hour for almost 12 years in sports. Use of Consumer drones to visually tell gca stories on social media was creative, revolutionary, and pivotal to the current mass appreciation of good architecture, and exposure of bad.

- Another concern heard is the need to "Design for the Drone. That is two-sided. 
1- Without the drone, it is likely that there would be less demand for new and restored course work. The drone has expanded the appreciation of features by the masses in ways Eye-Level does not.  And most pro-photogs have used cranes and cherry pickers for decades to don't get hypnotized by any nonsense claiming "Eye-Level" Is the only way to visually and photographically capture the essence of a hole. That's bullshit. Don't type it.  The drone allows the consumer to better understand the scale of the architect's vision.

2- The most valid concern associated with "designing for drones" is maintenance, H/R Staffing and budgeting. The core visual element driving this is contrast. Bunkers, Waste areas, 'Fescue' (Any grass that looks gold - Sorry Kyle) are now part of the consumer palette. We vilify the over-watered and Mono-Verde. We celebrate the bouncy brown "Green and Gold" (Go Packers) bunkers and fairways. 
The more we do that, the more there is to maintain.   
That has driven in a shift in maintenance practices, expenses, and stressed staffing in an age where staffers are unicorns.
That is the real issue with every sexy design and one that is a valid and daily battle.
That is a monumentally valid line item of concern.

I think the issue, so far as I understand it, is more about designing to meet the local agronomic and natural environment. That approach, given the current fads for playability, photographic merit and texture, is much easier and more sensible to showcase in cool climate areas. Not all courses can look like a links, but it seems like that is the goal for most courses. These days I am more interested in a course looking, playing and existing like it belongs in its habitat so far as that is possible. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far. But, cheap and cheerful is OK as well. What I despise most is a parkland course dressed up as a garden. Yes, drone footage has been great for golf social media, but that remains a scratch on surface media much of the time. Its not an either/or proposition. In the right hands, all is good. Just as all types of architecture are good...in the right hands.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone with an opinion worth changing have the time to watch a drone video?

[Sean_A]

Does anyone with an opinion worth changing have the time to watch a drone video?

Generally, only for historical reasons.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I assume the people in back pulling the levers and pushing the buttons understand the need for marketing/advertising

So I would also assume they see the value in drone flyovers set to music, vs a slideshow deck of stills from ground level, especially considering the relatively low cost they can be made now.

[John Kavanaugh]

I assume the people in back pulling the levers and pushing the buttons understand the need for marketing/advertising

So I would also assume they see the value in drone flyovers set to music, vs a slideshow deck of stills from ground level, especially considering the relatively low cost they can be made now.

That’s to show your partner right before you write the check.