The life cycle of golf architecture styles

[Neal_Meagher]

In today's Wall Street Journal, there is a review of a new off-broadway play called "Private Jokes, Public Places".  It is a send-up of architecture schools and the very academic way the subject is taught, full of designer-speak phrases and the like.

In one quote, from the very earnest protaganist architecture student, defending her latest work to visiting starchitects, she touches on something that resonates in the world of design in general:

"You ask us to come up with these abstract ideas that aren't even meant to be built, but then before you know it, someone publishes it in some chi-chi poo-poo New York magazine, and then all of a sudden there's a show at MoMA, and then pretty soon after that, it gets built, and then others get built, cheap knock-offs start showing up in office buildings, shopping malls, hospitals....and all from what"  Some narcissistic attempt to stand out from the rest as if they're trying to come up with a new craze in designer jeans".

Could this also speak to the way golf design goes round and round in its own cycles?  Could it be that, while minimalism is rightfully beginning to take hold in many quarters, that we will, eventually, be back to over-the-top design that departs widely from the essence of the game so eloquently expressed by the Brora's of the world?

[RJ_Daley]

Neal,

Don't you think modern economic realities, and scare resources of land and water may mitigate against the continued proliferation of "over-the-top" projects?  

Sure, probably few will chi-chi poo-poo New York society style projects (Trump National) will still be built by the Donalds of the world (who seem to be the perpetuators of projects of the ilk your play scenario describes).  But, even his water may be cut at some point.

[Jeff_Mingay]

No. Because the 'over the top guys' have, and always will be the 'over the top guys', and the Dye's, Coore's, Whitman's, Doak's, Hanse's, Axland's and Proctor's, and DeVries' will always be themselves. Regardless of what's en vogue.

Don't forget, during the early 1980s, when some pretty horrible golf architecture was en vogue, Dye, Coore and Whitman were out there building some pretty neat stuff reflecting the essence of the game - stuff we continue to admire today - at places like Ponte Vedra, Fla., Corpus Christi, Tex., and Ponoka, Alta.

The thing is, those golf courses - including TPC Sawgrass - weren't en vogue then. They are today.

To sum it up, the guys doing good stuff, regardless of the art form, don't follow trends. So there are no worries, Neal  

[TEPaul]

Neal:

This thread of yours is precisely why I love Golfclubatlas.com! Thinking about a subject like this is about a thousand times more interesting to me than reading whether Hidden Creek is really a 6.95 or a 7.35 and does it really deserve to be in the top ten in the State of New Jersey!  

It's hard to imagine where golf architecture might go in the next 100 years, though, don't you think? It appears undeniable that in America, anyway, change is perceived as a good thing--perhaps even a glorious or essential thing. This country has never liked stasis! The last 100 years of golf architecture in this country is evidence of that.

But, I believe in the "Big World" theory of golf architecture based on the phrase;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

I actually believe that "difference" in golf architecture is a good thing maybe even an essential thing. But even with real difference in architecture in the future I do hope we have learned one important lesson from what happened in the last century and that was the failure to preserve the differences in types and styles and the all too common inclination of homogenizing what came before into what the latest style is.

In the next 100 years whatever happens I hope the types and styles, as different as they may be, can be kept really distinct from one another and preserved as they were meant to be!

Wonderful thread!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Good point, Tom.

One thing that should be taken into this new century is, the necessity of preserving different styles of golf architecture. In other words, the old Wayne Stiles course shouldn't be looking for a remodel to look and play like the new Tom Fazio course built down the street.

That has become a problem in golf. No doubt about it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm with TEPaul, although I'm surprised he didn't jump you a bit over the words "minimalism is rightfully beginning to take hold in many quarters" when he believes in the big house theory of golf architecture.

Future designs will be affected by:

The personalities that choose to go into design (or a change in personality, like some current gca losing his mind after contracting syphillis or something, a la Van Gogh)

The actual needs of particular golf courses, including new type sites, site specific problems requiring new solutions and new regulations.

Each new designer at least somewhat consciously trying to do something totally new to get recognized.  

There will always be someone who will latch on to whatever bandwagon is hot, but just as there was one Pete Dye in the Scottish imitation mode (until he changed when the rest of us were copying him) and perhaps a few original minimalists like Coore and Doak, most will be better served career wise being the first of something else, rather than the third minimalist.  

Those factors pretty much gurantees change.  It also guarantees that I can't predict what it will be.

I like Neals quote about asking for abstract designs not meant to be built.  I always wonder why AIA and ASLA give out merit awards for "unrealized designs", ie project designs that were for competitions, usually the unsuccessful proposals.  How do we know an unbuilt project is worthy of anything?

A related question - what courses started as over the top, then went mainstream, and are now perhaps something else again?  Sunningdale comes to mind as a groundbreaker, that is now revered.  As Jeff Mingay TPC was a renegade turned mainstream now, as is Bellreive, which was reviled in 1965 as over the top, and looked like a great mid level country club challenge the last time the PGA visited.

There have been a lot of courses that have different perceptions over time.

[Bill_McBride]

The sad thing is that 98% of American golfers (and abroad?) don't really pay much attention to golf design except to follow the cart paths to the next tee.

GCA types who can discern the unique characteristics of different design styles and strategies are maybe as many as 2%.

So why does it make a difference to encourage innovative design?  Probably most important is reducing costs in the economic environment we are currently experiencing, and to minimize cost of playing golf to encourage continued growth of play.

[JakaB]

But, I believe in the "Big World" theory of golf architecture based on the phrase;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

My commode is a great bid thing and there is room for me to puke in it if I have to hear this again any time soon.

Hairy bunkers are a stupid fad being followed by guys who need to eat...puke.

[TEPaul]

"My commode is a great bid thing and there is room for me to puke in it if I have to hear this again any time soon."

Then you better get ready to do a whole lot of puking in your commode for a good long time to come, JakaB!

[RJ_Daley]

Someone is missing the point here, I think.  Neal seems to be asking about if the world of GCA is like the world of building architecture portrayed in the play.  He gives us a quote to go by.  That quote speaks of trendiness and the tendancy for the influential crowd to search for "over-the-top" creations that aren't even meant to go past the concept stage, but wind up with a bunch of back benchers trying to latch onto the concept trend and start repeating those overblown concept ideas to the point of cheesy, and trite.   Do, I get that right Neal?  

In that case, it is sort of like those goofy surrealistic drawings of golf holes on the edge of a cloudbank in the Himalayas or floating greens at Xochomilcho.  Thus a GC designer gets caught up in the race to be trendy and starts a whole cylce of imitators and they take the whole thing in a long term cycle that becomes hard to break.  Didn't we somewhat come full cycle when Dye's course fell into the drink, or with the floating green in Idaho, or the two Shangri-la courses in Vegas, Trump Nationals mounts and waterfalls?  

Hasn't the new buzz been the minimalist Friars Head, SH, WH, PD, etc.?  Neals says rightfully so, but wants to know if the cycle will start again.  I say above, maybe not except in isolated circumstances because economic realities and scarce resources may weigh against all but the very few efforts of the very wealthy over-the-top crowd that will be harder to repeat in a full blown cycle.  

[RJ_Daley]

Barney, the hairy bunkers can be a stupid fad on the wrong course and constructed by the wrong guys.  Those wrong designers/constructors are jumping on the trend cycle and cheesing it up, just like Neal says.  The only thing that isn't correct about the analogy in my view is that hairy bunkers on the correct terrain and used in the right design genre aren't an over-the-top feature, as they are at their best, naturally inspired, and minimalistic.  It is odd, but if they are artificially slammed into the wrong site and style, they are hard to do well and hard to maintain.  If done in the right context by talented designers with an eye for where they belong and how they should blend in, or if they are discovered in nature like blowouts, they are somewhat simple and inspiring.

[JakaB]

RJ,

I got the point you missed the boat...Sand Hills and Friars Head are not minimalist in trendiness....they are overnaturalized for natures sake on outstanding sites that should not be mimicked for popularities sake.   Get off the budget train and think about style...or just give me one good reason strategically for a hairy bunker.

[RJ_Daley]

Uncertainty!

[Neal_Meagher]

Dick Daley,

You are absolutely right.  I like what Jeff is sayinig about some courses starting out controversial but then being mainstreamed over time, but the gist of my query is concerning the misappropriation of design.

It is one thing to create a Friar's Head, quite another for some over-zealous developer who owns 250 acres of flat prarie with nothing on the horizon but pungent piles of cow patties to decide that is what he wants.  Or worse, a slammed-into-place housing development with wrought iron fences segregating the golf from the housing, Berlin Wall-like, that then asks the golfer to suspend belief and accept a Friar's Head look.  Just don't look too far or you'll see the jungle-gym and the ornamental plum and pear trees planted in all of the various back yards.

At some point, might there be enough bad attempts at good simple design, that some will want to simply say, bollocks to that junk and give me my waterfalls!

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,
Wtih all due respect, I think I got Neal's point, although I'll admit to struggling with Jaka B's a bit.....

My point was that most architects will follow to a degree the current trend/fad, which is minimalism, and will come up with pale versions of Coore, but the next big one, IMHO will do something completely different, as Neal suggests with his dlalogue, and then the trend will start all over.

Even in a depressed climate for golf courses, there will be a limited number of extravaganzas built.  (Think Southern Hills and Prairies Dunes in the 30's, and now, the economy is probaby less national, and some areas will still have big money in the worst of times, as the oil areas did inthe 30's)  Since most courses will be built on a budget, its possible that the next big thing won't be one of extravagance to overcome a limited site, or inflated owners ego,  but of necessity to overcome a limited budget, or course potential.

And the designer selection process is so random, that the best invention will be a great marriage of the proper personality attacking the most unique problem.

[JakaB]

I just hope the Xeroxophiles don't try to create more cognoscente classics...

[TEPaul]

This is a part of a JakaB's post I didn't pick up on enough;

"Hairy bunkers are a stupid fad being followed by guys who need to eat...puke."

Now right there is a great example of why the "Big World" theory in golf architecture is necessary. And for any of you who aren't aware of what the "Big World" theory is based on--it's based on this phrase;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

(How's that great big commode of yours working with the puking, JakaB?).

But anyway, it's apparent that JakaB doesn't like hairy bunkers. Apparently they make him puke! I assume by 'hairy bunkers' he means what some of us think are bunkers that're grassy, perhaps some rugged fescue and natural looking. So a golfer like JakaB, and there're probably a lot of them out there like him, needs to have bunkers that are very different than hairy bunkers, perhaps immaculately maintained razor edged, clean lined bunkers with pearly white sand. (I wish I had a commode as roomy as JakaB's so I could puke in it).

So this type of difference in architecture, even extreme difference in style and type of architecture is completely necessary to accomodate the varying tastes of all those diverse golfers out there. And this is precisely why the "Big World" theory is necessary and will be necessary in the future.

Did I mention the phrase the "Big World" theory of architecture is based on? Oh, sorry, I must have forgotten. It's;

"Golf and it architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"



 

[TEPaul]

Here's another interesting remark of JakaB's to RJ Daley;

"Get off the budget train and think about style..."

This is another good reason the "Big World" theory of architecture might be necessary. Here's a good example in the vastly different taste of JakaB compared to RJ. This again shows why it's necessary to have vastly different styles and types of architecture for the vastly different tastes out there.

And we should never forget the timeless remark of P.T. Barnum that;

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public!"

Did I mention the phrase the "Big World" theory of golf architecture is based on? Yeah, I think, I did, but if not I'll mention it again next time.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm curious as to what comes next, too.  I've got several ideas that are just waiting for the right situation, but I don't know if any of them would catch on and be the "next thing."

However, it's never far from my mind that the trend between 1930 and 1950 was no trend at all, because there wasn't much work being built in that economy.  I hope the creativity of the next generation is not stifled in the same way ... but I think it will be a while again before the market is booming and the young and talented get to show off their own new takes on golf.

We haven't had a call about a high-end daily fee golf course in a year and a half ... and though we've got a handful of private club courses in planning, memberships aren't flying off the racks on many courses nowadays.  The housing development market will keep golf course development from slowing to nothing, but it's awfully hard to be creative with your golf in those 350-foot corridors.

[RJ_Daley]

John C., just to clear one thing up...  Do you think I have a proclivity or bias towards elevating my approval for golf courses with "hairy lipped" bunkers?  If you do, I would have to say you're wrong.

If the trendy cycle caused maintenance efforts to present unkept wild grassy edges of some of the elegant and clean styling bunker designs of GCT at a Riviera or even the clean edges of the flatish pits of SR or Langford, or the flashed up clean sides of Ross, I'd puke.

It is a great big world of GCA out there, and keeping design themes in their place is about the site qualities and characteristics and locations, not about what style to order up for trendiness's sake.  

And, getting off the budget train is not something I want to do at any old stop.  I want to ride as long and far as I can for my dime, paying the least amount for the real deal in design, without the superfluous and costly styling.  I don't mind paying for elegant styling where it matters as far as interesting golf is concerned, however.

[Jim Thompson]

FYI for the budget native area haters -

The Hairy Lipped Bunker and Native Grass trend should NEVER be a budget driven decision.  If it is, the result will be visually annoying after the first year and an eyesore by mid second year.  Those long relatively mono-stands are anything but maintenance free.  They still require regular spray applications, fertilization, and HAND labor to maintain.  You don’t just waive a magic wand and make the thistle disappear.  Queen Anne's Lace and Black Evening Shade are not native desirables.  I hate to even bring up purple loosestrife.

In the end, if you do it right, the marginal cost benefit of natural anything, is close to a wash.

And when it comes to the Architect - If the client is budget dependent, he'd better figure out how to work maintenance into his design - lest he be labeled “the designer who had all those projects that failed”.  Not exactly a moniker for drumming up future business.  For the daily fee operators out there, an architect with a turf degree and real maintenance experience should have significant merit.  Golf course design - the gift that keeps on giving...

[TEPaul]

Man, this thread has the potential to be educational and also the potential to break into all kinds of tangents. Who cares, there should be a lot to learn for those on here who care about detail, maintenance, cost and reality. The last three posts of Tom Doak, RJ and Jim Thompson are really good. I mean Queen Anne's Lace, Evening Shade and Purple Loosestrife?? Who of the architectural afficionados on here have ever even heard of them? But if you don't know about them and other naturally occuring vegetation and you're into a certain look and maintenance without much knowledge about it you might just be in for a surprise.

I particularly like RJ's post. There're so many different bunker "looks" in architecture (Raynor, Thomas, Ross, Tillinghast, Mackenzie/Maxwell, Wilson/Flynn etc of the old school) and the numerous distinct and different "looks" of those today. And certainly the maintenance of those distinct intended "looks" takes both time and effort to understand how to maintain properly.

Some clubs, maybe many clubs, probably don't even think about the "look" of their architect's distinct features like bunkering and so they let it all degenerate into sort of "one size fits all" maintenance practices that probably end up with less than positive results amongst members and goflers who never even thought about it in the first place.

It's probably just too much for any architect to expect that someone in any club of a course he's built will figure these things out on their own and maintain the intended "look" of the architecture correctly over the long haul.

Because this is undeniably so it should be the job of the architect to leave the club with detailed maintenance instructions, and in written form, when he pulls out of town and leaves the club on it's own to maintain what he built and the look of it for the rest of time!

If any architect really cares about his work and the impression it leaves long term he should do this, as much for himself as the club.

[Norbert P]

"Gallery owners, and critics have been responsible for the valuation of many a career in art. This is sad because all art has enough value for everyone to share. Those that deserve critical extra esteem will, and have eventually, rise to the top of their genre via a vast amount of time and re-evaluation. Time is the only true critic, and time has a prolonged ledger. In the meantime, the real critics of modern/post modern art have yet to be born and even then they will undoubtedly be wrong as well."

Corey Engel -  11/11/2003

[Norbert P]

In 1969, Ayn Rand, wrote:

  "Just as modern philosophy is dominated by the attempt to destroy the conceptual level of man's consciousness and even the perceptual level, reducing man's awareness to mere sensations -- so modern art and literature are dominated by the attempt to disintegrate man's consciousness and reduce it to mere sensations, to the 'enjoyment' of meaningless colors, noises and moods. ... The art of any given period or culture is a faithful mirror of that culture's philosophy. ..."

  What gloms my attention the most is the phrase:

 "...disintigrate man's consciousness and reduce it to mere sensations..."

  This is what happens when we construct golf courses, akin to Mr. Potato Head stick-ons, with features, fairness, framing and sightlines and the status quo of expectations.  IMNSHO.
 

[RJ_Daley]

Slag bagger, there you go getting all cybercerebral again...