I have kind of stepped back from these threads as Zach is a friend of mine. So it has been interesting to hear how others in the treehouse have taken and interpreted his criticism. As there I tend to agree a lot of it.
First, there has been a lot of discussion in this and the other thread about the semantic value of his arguments without engaging with any of the claims or thesis apparent in piece. This is not a productive line of argument and just proves that this board has fallen to sniping rather than rising to the challenge implicit in the piece.
As for big, bold and more structured approach to the features of golf course, I think it's an interesting line of argument especially as that's what we are seeing with larger clearing and more imposing features that contrast and standout in these environments not only in person but in images as well.
This makes a lot of sense in that environmental context of a majority of the most recent crop of new courses. As smaller more human scale features like those found at Garden City and other golden age classics. Would be dwarfed in these bolder larger scale environments and are very challenging to make pop on camera.
I also believe that this is not only a shift in taste caused by purely architectural taste. But also a response by architects to the majority of new builds in the past 10 years of golf being resorts.
With clients as always playing a larger role in designs than anyone here or in print would like to admit This is key to me in understanding the trend as a whole. As Zach points out and eloquently argues golf courses are as much a result of cultural forces as they are expressions of art.
As resorts demand more playability, memorability and visibility than their more repeatedly played golf club cousins. As most of the clients of these places play them once a year if not once in a lifetime. Which is why big, bold and blatant. Became more common as even the most talented architects in the field. Needed to ensure that the course was understood quickly and by a large audience. Which is why templates have almost become de riguere over this period as well. As the function in the same way a boldness telling the golfer the shots to hit to get the expected result. As the luxury of having the guest slowly be shown how to play a hole over multiple rounds is a luxury that few can afford. I almost see this era as a parallel to modern Hollywood. Where modern auteurs like Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve are the kings of the modern blockbuster.
The work is still amazing and of quality but the moving parts have to fit the budget and expectations of a wide and general audience.
This is where the rub lies with all of this. We are finally seeing golf courses being designed for more than 1 play. As there has finally been some new courses being built as golf clubs first with some outside play as a distant second thought.
This is where we will see if the rubber hits the road with golf being defined at this scale. Even though this and the other thread have fallen into the trap of comparing Old Barnwell and The Tree Farm. I see them as almost a new breed of this modern aesthetic. As both are wonderful golf courses that fit and live well in their environments. But let's not kid ourselves about the scale and nature of the shaping. Yes, it is bold, brash and hungry. But, that's not wrong in their environments. As if we swapped out their features and put small pots of a Sunningdale or the subdued of hillocks a New Zealand on these sites they would be dwarfed by the existing contour in these locations.
If this group wants and with some permissions. I might be able to show you what I mean by this as I tried as an experiment on a job this summer to put some smaller more intricate bunkers on a bold and brash site. It didn't go well as the power of the environment they were situated in instantly overpowered them. It was a good lesson for me as a shaper to not let my personal preferences dictate the work but to rather let the environment and the scale of the site take the lead.
Just because a feature are bold, loud and large doesn't make them bad or good. Rather its a question of whether the features fit and highlight the chosen landscape. As Don Mahaffey says above it takes a lot of skill and experience to build these type of features well. Which I think we can all agree has been a hallmark of this new generation of architects getting their feet wet with long overdue new work.
I for one celebrate the fact that there is finally enough work to go around for this to happen. As it's been a tough almost 13 years before this era of new work to begin. As with a few exceptions and one offs few firms were able to get anything new off the ground. Those that did were normal the blockbuster resorts that I mentioned earlier by proven names. That ushed this new generation along by providing a place for guys and girls cut their teeth. Playing the supporting roles of partner, lead associates and construction hands. It's no wonder that these talented architects would lean on some of the tricks they learned in the past era. But, I think it's also rash to paint this work with a brush before the grass has even fully matured on these projects.Time will tell how this all shakes out.
I think that in some ways scale might stay big.Not because there won't be an inevitable want to return to a more soft, subtle and human scale design. But rather that time and money demand golf to be big and loud.
As it takes a lot less time to make something that people can identify and understand if it's loud and let's face it. Time is money. Maybe some of the bigger budget new private clubs can afford to be subdued and more subtle but let's face it. Golf is expensive to build and there is little ROI. So every day I spend massaging a feature before grass goes down can be easily thousands of dollars. This is why it's not uncommon for the demand for a hole a week to be built on a public project or a smaller budget private with 3-4 shapers in site.
This isn't a bad thing in my view. As I like to work hard and keep rolling, plain and simple. This on turn make it's hard for me to square the circle of how do we make things more intricate and produce at a steady and solid rate.
I know golf architecture isn't making sausage but it isn't all art, and theory either. It's a blend and the leading spice needs to be interesting golf that allows space for the golfer to make choices both good and bad. I think that the bad choices have been lost in this search for scale as people only make bad choices with partial or limited information. This is the real cost of scale as the larger the feature the more dictative it becomes not only to play but to the eye as well.
Then you are almost trapped into an arms race against yourself. As scale has diminishing returns each time it's used. As something can only be big once. That's why it's impressive that some of these places work as well as they do and some of the lesser ones fall flat quickly. This is a problem I spend a lot of time on as I don't think there is an easy answer outside of trying to work with the scale of the land your given. As at the end of the day the real judge of good golf architecture is does it fit the land and will it last there.
Sorry for the length of this response. I just wanted to spend the time to really dive into the subject as I felt most of the replies in this thread. Where targeted at the surface of the issue.