The Death of Minimalism

[John Kirk]

Hi Mike,


I suppose the architect has an important responsibility to route the course in a way that optimizes the land's potential.

I don't know.  I'm just shooting the breeze here, saying what I feel.  Each plot of pristine land may have a greater potential for golf course "uniqueness".

I have boldly taken the coveted 25th reply spot.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's worthwhile for me to make a case for minimalism, since the discussion is generally touting the highly engineered course.

The great minimalist course will always be superior to the engineering marvel.  The minimalist course requires better land, and superior land is more perfect than man's heavy hand.

A great piece of untouched golfing land has been molded by evolution and environment for a very long time.  The contours of the land have developed over thousands of years, and the things that live there are deeply connected to one another.  Nothing trumps that beauty.  You can engineer a course to make golf a delightful game, but it will never beat a minimally invasive course in an environment that makes sense.

I am with you, John. This is a well described couple of paragraphs.


I think the discussion is getting lost somewhere between designing a bold course on an uninteresting, flat piece of land (Lido, Whistling Straights, Castle Course for three very different examples); and “over-designing” features and eye-candy on an inherently good piece of land. Both are forms of “maximalism”. The first can be excellent or poor architecture, the second is an example of those extra brush strokes that ruin a great painting.


Going back to John’s post, I will always prefer the great minimalist course on great land. But I might admire the architecture of a well executed maximalist course just as much, even if for different reasons.

[Adam Lawrence]

For me the appeal of a minimalist course over a heavily constructed one is that it blends into the surrounding landscape better. This isn't an absolute -- there are plenty of links courses where the course effectively occupies all the linksland, and therefore the surrounds of the course have very little in common with the course itself. But _most often_ a golf course is surrounded by land that resembles what the site of the course itself looked like before it was built. QED, if the golf is built with the lightest possible touch, it will blend in to its surrounds better. I generally am less fond of courses that appear to be islands (of whatever; greenness in a desert, undulation in flatland) because they seem to be imposed on the landscape, and I like playing golf in what at least _appears_ to be a natural setting.

The implication of this is something that has been discussed on here before: that, where construction is necessary, it is generally better to cut than to fill. It is when you build up above natural grade that the course appears to be most obviously imposed on the landscape.

It is for that reason that I have not liked some of the more obvious faux dune courses that I have seen.

I think this connects into the 'vernacular' thread. The definition of vernacular architecture is that it is authentic to the locality and uses local or regional materials. Which, in relation to golf design, it seems to me, means operating with a very light touch on the landscape, not trying to transform a site into something it is not, nor importing brilliant white sand from far afield or planting non-native species.

[jeffwarne]

Covid brought in, or "restored", a lot of new golfers.
The Roaring teens and early (20)20's(at least for the already well "ass"etted)brought in a lot of new cash.


Combine that with social media, and lately drone shots......and subtlety.....an acquired taste....is pushed to the background by the more obvious and immediate gratification of big and bold.


It's not dead, but it's definitely not in vogue at the moment.


Let's hope this cycle doesn't end the way the last Roaring 20's decade did.
We're sure setting up for it.

[Craig Sweet]

Isn't it all about money?  Given enough money you can build anything.....and it looks to me as if a lot of owners want to spend a lot of money to achieve something that will be talked about. 


Course maintinence is no different, Given enough money every course can look like Augusta.

[Jonathan Webb]

Alive and well in Venus, Florida.

Colin - when do things start at HG?


I grew up on the Lake Wales Sand Ridge in Babson Park, FL

And, did my L.A. Capstone project about redeveloping / re-routing a golf course on the LW Sand Ridge.

[John Kirk]

One last thing.

I mentioned a couple months ago that birdwatching is actually on my list of criteria to evaluate a golf course.  We have lots of time to look around while we're playing and a diverse, natural landscape is filled with activity.  Plants, animals and insects.  The sound of the wind as it blows.  Clearly, you can't let Canada geese ruin your golf course every winter, but a great golf course is rarely devoid of wildlife.  If there aren't any birds or small mammals darting around and keeping their distance from the humans, then something's dead about the environment.     

[Ira Fishman]

Covid brought in, or "restored", a lot of new golfers.
The Roaring teens and early 20's(at least for the already well "ass"etted)brought in a lot of new cash.


Combine that with social media, and lately drone shots......and subtlety.....an acquired taste....is pushed to the background by the more obvious and immediate gratification of big and bold.


It's not dead, but it's definitely not in vogue at the moment.


Let's hope this cycle doesn't end the way the last Roaring 20's decade did.
We're sure setting up for it.

Jeff,


This actually seems counter factual. There are some developers who prefer boldness and some in Florida who by necessity require earthmoving. But Doak and C&C seem to remain the preferred architects, and they seem to depart from mininalism only occasionally. That seems true as well for their proteges who are getting some good assignments.


So where is the evidence that it is not in vogue?


Thanks.


Ira


PS I have no theology on this topic. A good course is a good course whether "minimal" or "maximal".

[Tom_Doak]

So a great piece of land creates far more pressure.

A great piece of land is the opportunity of a lifetime.  Anyone who feels that as pressure is in the wrong business (or not ready yet).


Pressure is a bad piece of land in a high profile location.


This is exactly the same in athletics.  You can be nervous about the big game, or you can call it excitement.  They’re the same butterflies, it’s all about whether you’re ready to handle them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just an honest question, but did anyone actually define minimalism before it dies, so we can have a proper eulogy?


I noticed a few years back that Gil and a few other architects started hedging their bets on at least the historic preservation aspects of minimalism, saying things like "balancing the past and future" to cover their design ideology, which was different than some earlier arguments that a course should be restored to exactly the way it was at its high point.


Building architecture had its minimalist period, which was rooted in the newer materials of steel and glass, but technology kept improving the cost effectiveness of "ornamentation" aspects and minimalism is certainly dead in buildings, at least if money isn't tight. Function may be the main way to judge a design, but ornamentation is of at least secondary importance.  No one would want their house to be as spartan as a Russian prison, for example. As FLW said, "form follows function, but identity resides in ornamentation."


In golf, that might be different than structures, since nature is usually a bigger part, but the main design goal is always to give people an experience they enjoy, no matter what, over trying to employ a specific design style.  If action movies and video games make us all a bit more visually oriented, it makes sense to me that going overboard visually at least by a bit may be a requirement of modern design. 


IMHO, minimalism in golf was kind of the opposite, i.e. not based on what was possible but on what had historically been done with less technology.  Personally, I believe the minimalism in building architecture was more "sincere."  In architecture, I doubt a period where they just copied the past (i.e., greek columns, etc.) would be "utterly cryt down upon" as a very uncreative period of design, whereas in golf, we seem to think it cannot be done any better than a century ago.


And in any case, golf course design isn't much different than other aspects of modern pop culture, which is always looking to move on to "the next big thing" so it was probably time for something new to evolve, hopefully keeping the best parts of what has gone before, but tweaking them to be new and different.

[Garland Bayley]

Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?

David Kidd
Kyle Phillips
King / Collins
Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus before any of them


I won’t try to define it but I know it when I see it.  I’ve even had to do it occasionally - as we are doing in Florida right now.  But then in Texas, minimalism is alive and well.

Any chance this uninteresting piece of land in Florida is a candidate for your Olympics design?

[Tom_Doak]

Just an honest question, but did anyone actually define minimalism before it dies, so we can have a proper eulogy?

I noticed a few years back that Gil and a few other architects started hedging their bets on at least the historic preservation aspects of minimalism, saying things like "balancing the past and future" to cover their design ideology, which was different than some earlier arguments that a course should be restored to exactly the way it was at its high point.

Building architecture had its minimalist period, which was rooted in the newer materials of steel and glass, but technology kept improving the cost effectiveness of "ornamentation" aspects and minimalism is certainly dead in buildings, at least if money isn't tight. Function may be the main way to judge a design, but ornamentation is of at least secondary importance.  No one would want their house to be as spartan as a Russian prison, for example. As FLW said, "form follows function, but identity resides in ornamentation."

In golf, that might be different than structures, since nature is usually a bigger part, but the main design goal is always to give people an experience they enjoy, no matter what, over trying to employ a specific design style.  If action movies and video games make us all a bit more visually oriented, it makes sense to me that going overboard visually at least by a bit may be a requirement of modern design. 

IMHO, minimalism in golf was kind of the opposite, i.e. not based on what was possible but on what had historically been done with less technology.  Personally, I believe the minimalism in building architecture was more "sincere."  In architecture, I doubt a period where they just copied the past (i.e., greek columns, etc.) would be "utterly cryt down upon" as a very uncreative period of design, whereas in golf, we seem to think it cannot be done any better than a century ago.

And in any case, golf course design isn't much different than other aspects of modern pop culture, which is always looking to move on to "the next big thing" so it was probably time for something new to evolve, hopefully keeping the best parts of what has gone before, but tweaking them to be new and different.

I'm not sure Gil ever declared himself a minimalist; maybe he was just riding the wave because it was trendy and golf writers wouldn't know the difference.  Or maybe being front man for the people who really wanted to tinker around [under the guise of restoration] was just a shrewd business move.


Anyway, count us out at your peril.  [Oh, I guess you're retired, so you don't have a stake in it.]  As long as clients keep finding interesting land for us, we start with a built in advantage.

[Mike_Young]

Think about Golf architects as you would hairdressers.  How do they compare?  Well, if a good hairdresser only takes the really good looking women for clients she is going become known as a great hairdresser with superb styles.  And then another hairdresser of similar talents has a lot of clients that we might describe as "homely".  She can be creative as she desires but the babes are not as likely to come to that hairdresser.   
The only way to get the flat dull sights to build maximalism golf is to have built a reputation from projects done on good land.  It doesn't work in reverse.  And that's ok....

[Kalen Braley]

Think about Golf architects as you would hairdressers.  How do they compare?  Well, if a good hairdresser only takes the really good looking women for clients she is going become known as a great hairdresser with superb styles.  And then another hairdresser of similar talents has a lot of clients that we might describe as "homely".  She can be creative as she desires but the babes are not as likely to come to that hairdresser.   
The only way to get the flat dull sights to build maximalism golf is to have built a reputation from projects done on good land.  It doesn't work in reverse.  And that's ok....

Mike,

I could be wrong, but I thought Kings/Collins got their start with flat crap sites and building something interesting on them?

As to this topic, Minimalism vs Maximalism is not near as important as the end result.  My preference will always be to play the course with the most interest and fun with options a-plenty, regardless if it started as a blank slate or a tremendous sandy/ocean-side site.

Most actual minimalist courses I've played are boring as hell with flat fairways, flat greens, shallow bunkers with added ponds to try to create interest... DS 1s at best.

[cary lichtenstein]

I for one, never liked, understood or appreciated minimalism, I have always maintained that "EYE CANDY" was more important for me, but I know I'm in the minority on this site

[Michael Dugger]

Minimalism is rooted in the idea that nature creates the best land for golf, and the imperative of the designer is to juice the maximum potential from the site. 

At the core, the philosophy demands a good site.  And then where artificial features must be created, they should be built to mimic the natural features themselves.

Doak came along during an era in golf design when very few gave credence to the idea. 

Now, today, we have a lot of designers on our hands who are pretty doggone gifted when it comes to making artificial features indistinguishable from nature herself.  Whole courses even.

Does it matter to the golfer if it's natural or artificial?  Not really, no.  Is it probably less expensive and quicker to build a course when massaging nature, as opposed to creating it, probably true, yes.

Do some prefer artificial looking "golfy" features to natural "golfy" features, perhaps some do, yes.  Does everyone?  No.

But I don't think letting a great piece of land speak for itself will ever fall out of flavor, so minimalism will live forever.

   

[Michael Chadwick]

A perhaps unexpected defender of minimalism can be found on a number of holes at the Tree Farm. By my count from a video flyover, there are 4 holes without a bunker, and 9 greens without nearby bunkers. Many of those greens appear to be at grade and rather lovely.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Minimalism is also about saving recourses and keeping course construction and operational costs within reason.  Not a trivial component for planning many new golf courses. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree minimalism will always be around.  Frankly, outside of the well known projects discussed here, for nearly every mid level course, minimalism is probably required just to meet the budget, which may be a bigger challenge now than ever before. 


Most architects I know (and I know a lot of them) strive to follow the land and reduce earthmoving to meet the budget.  They also probably limit features as well.  For instance, my criteria for placing bunkers was always that they served multiple functions among strategy, hazard, guidance, separation, occasional "save bunkers", created or didn't block better views from surrounding housing or roads, etc.  Otherwise, on an average budget course, they were extraneous, or at least not worth the money they cost for creating overall value for golfers.


As the old saying goes, some courses are minimalist out of necessity, and a few are just minimalist by choice of the architect.  Obvious to all is that minimalism works far better on good to great sites.  A few top names used it as a marketing phrase first of all to quickly describe a basic design approach.  Most big names got famous for difficult courses (tour pros) while Faz and Jay Morrish made their name in high end circles on playability of their courses (Faz more than Jay, IMHO)  TD and CC used a less obtrusive style to distinguish themselves in those high end markets, to good effect, I might add.

[Ben Sims]

Goodness, this thread sure does carry a scent of modernist gatekeeping. There’s so many conflicting ideas on what minimalism even is that it’s hard to discuss its death. Is the premise that due to Sweetens, Lido, and some characteristics at a few other courses that the tenets of the style are gone? Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?

[Tim_Weiman]

Goodness, this thread sure does carry a scent of modernist gatekeeping. There’s so many conflicting ideas on what minimalism even is that it’s hard to discuss its death. Is the premise that due to Sweetens, Lido, and some characteristics at a few other courses that the tenets of the style are gone? Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?

Ben,


I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

I think you are confusing low budget courses with minimalist courses.

Ballyneal is a minimalist course that you couldn't stop raving about.

Your favorite Spokane area quirky course is a low budget course.

[Tom_Doak]

Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?

Ben,

I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).

If I said that, I will take it back.


Really the only thing minimalism REQUIRES is land that naturally surface drains, so you don’t have to re-grade everything to get the playing surface to drain.  (That rules out lots of Florida, where there are unfortunately so many courses, but few other places.)


After that, yes, more interesting land gives the designer more tools to wow you, but the whole idea that every course is going to wow (or meant to wow) is the topic of a different thread here.


The Legends, The Rawls Course, and now Sandglass (my new project in FL has a new name) were all dead flat sites that had to be contoured, and none of those clients were keen to build the low-key, Garden City like course I’d love to build someday.  Every once in a while, when I have nothing more interesting to do, I’ll take on such a project and see what I can do with it.

But on a good site I can judge for myself if I’ve gotten the best out of it.  On a blank site, there’s no such metric, and if you’re not a bullshitter, you’re always going to wind up disappointed. My imagination pales in comparison to Nature’s.  And so, in my opinion, does everyone else’s.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff, you asking to define minimalism.  A $5000 well made gray suit is minimalism.  A custom suit for NFL Draft night is maximalism.  The drone is the worst thing for marketing golf design because has allowed some pure crap to be hyped as good.  The one thing that has always been true in golf design as well as anything else is the statement " exclusivity is earned and it can't be purchased".  It takes years to earn exclusivity and really I can only think of a couple of newer courses that have earned it...say Sandhills and Pacific Dunes.  Whether maximalism or minimalism, much of the hyped stuff today will be out of the picture in 5 years.  But I promise you, you could still wear your grandfather's gray suit today while Rodney Dangerfield's yellow leisure suit may not work for you...BUT it will get you noticed.

[Tim_Weiman]

Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?

Ben,

I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).

If I said that, I will take it back.


Really the only thing minimalism REQUIRES is land that naturally surface drains, so you don’t have to re-grade everything to get the playing surface to drain.  (That rules out lots of Florida, where there are unfortunately so many courses, but few other places.)


After that, yes, more interesting land gives the designer more tools to wow you, but the whole idea that every course is going to wow (or meant to wow) is the topic of a different thread here.


The Legends, The Rawls Course, and now Sandglass (my new project in FL has a new name) were all dead flat sites that had to be contoured, and none of those clients were keen to build the low-key, Garden City like course I’d love to build someday.  Every once in a while, when I have nothing more interesting to do, I’ll take on such a project and see what I can do with it.

But on a good site I can judge for myself if I’ve gotten the best out of it.  On a blank site, there’s no such metric, and if you’re not a bullshitter, you’re always going to wind up disappointed. My imagination pales in comparison to Nature’s.  And so, in my opinion, does everyone else’s.

Tom,
[size=78%]Makes sense. I have long sung the virtues of golf in the Cleveland/Northeast [/size][/size][size=78%]area where there are many “mom and pops”, courses that don’t wow anyone but the average golfer enjoys playing.[/size]