Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Brian_Ewen on September 02, 2006, 06:11:38 AM
-
This was an interesting and sad read this morning , because it is as relevant to todays Scotland , as it is to Australia .
Anybody else got views on this ? .
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20327340-28737,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20327340-28737,00.html)
-
No particular view on this topic. What do you think the ramifications of what is being said are from your viewpoint?
-
Strikes me as an interesting use of categories. The argument about social capital and community has to do with voluntary communities, civic space and democracy. To impart this into the realm of private golf clubs, because it helps one make a point about the decline of the golf (and sports) scene, is a bit of a misuse of a more valuable sense of citizenship and public commitment. Still, it is an interesting argument, one that's like a "Meeting of the Minds" of Karl Marx & T.E. Paul.
Prof. Carroll is taking advantage here of some basic sociological theory that derives from late 19th century regrets about the onset of mass society and industralization (Emile Durkheim, Max Weber). He yearns for the good old days, and has a nostalgic look at private clubs for the sense of culture and role that they instill.
Maybe Australian, British and Irish clubs generally are and were less exclusive than their American counterparts. This kind of argument certainly wouldn't translate as well onto the U.S. scene, where private clubs have a thoroughly exclusionary and elitist purpose. I also suspect he overstates the case of how well Australian clubs worked.
Probably like a lot of others here, I share his regrets about the effects of big business and "the social golfer." The critique comes off at one level as a bit conservative, yet it's based upon deeper, radical concerns about the whole direction of modern society, culture and industry. In that sense, it's a welcome perspective that helps explain why golf is in trouble.
-
I wonder how that master capitalist, Rupert Murdoch, allowed such a piece in his prize Australian tome.
He seems to be critical in particular of The National's culture -maybe the rise in share-based memberships has to do with a demise in club culture, as there is no need to be associated with a number of members simply to get in the door.
My club has the same scheme.
But we are all good blokes. :)
-
I see a mix of good and bad in this. The bad includes some of what the article says -- at my former club there was a sense of belonging, of having a stake in the future of the place, and the undeniable benefit of having a relatively empty facility at times that enabled one to go out on a summer evening either as a single or to take a bag of practice balls to a remote hole and just work on your game in privacy. It's a shame if these sort of things disappear.
But I think those positives only last as long as one feels the club is keeping up with the times and that the price of membership is good value. I think a lot of clubs get myopia when it comes to longer-term planning. They become captives of a segment of their members that don't want anything to change and fall behind as a result. Often this membership segment is a minority, but a loud one. In the case of my former club it manifested itself in a ridiculous situation that allowed cliqueish "groups" (informal teams) to own all weekend morning tee times, the domination of club activities by these same groups, and a lack of investment in the golf course. Over time this led to a situation where friends did not want to play at my club because of the availability to tee times and the course conditions, and I was forced to become a "social golfer". When you are paying a few thou a year to be a member of a club that your friends don't want to play then it's time for a re-evaluation of things, and that's what I did. My old club is slowly dying, but I'm not sure many there even notice.
-
"Strikes me as a rather complete hijacking of categories. The argument about social capital and community has to do with voluntary communities and civic space. To impart this into the realm of private golf clubs, because it helps one make a point about the golf scene, is a bit of a misuse of a more valuable sense of citizenship and public commitment."
I don't think so Brad. What you just said about this article is just a matter of the fact that the author bit off an very large and extremely broad-based general social subject---eg social capital. And that concept and ethos comes in many forms, from the wholly public or civic to the private organization. To attempt to put either in wholly separate categories denies the huge fundamental interconnection of the entire spectrum of social capital and its many forms (both private and public) in a general society or general culture.
What this man is talking about goes from the basic social concepts of deTocqueville to even Frederick Law Olmsted in his land-planning for general social benefit of "community" to inspire civilized culture, all the way to Digby Baltzell and his fundamental thesis that the world of the WASP (a term he even coigned) was to a large extent based on the social fabric of that group's "club".
The difficulty in the end boils down to the fact that in a general social context there always has been and probably will continue to be a huge dynamic between the world of public social capital in an association or organization sense and the world of the private club or association.
Just the term "free association" or "freedom of association" as a social concept whether it be public and civic open to all or private and restricted to those who associate only with those they choose to associate with has created enormous confusion and misunderstanding, it seems.
Someone like Martha Burk may've thought that the fundamental American Right to "Freedon of Association" meant that any America should have the RIGHT to join ANGC, while obviously ANGC felt that they had the constitutional "right" to refuse anyone they chose to refuse simply because they feel they have the constitutional right to accept anyone they choose to.
One of the most interesting things imaginable would've been if that "Burk/ANGC" issue had progressed all the way to the US Supreme Court at which the details and realiites of what is and what isn't "Freedom of Association" or the Right of "privacy" or private association is all about in the context of the U.S Consitution and Bill of Rights.
I doubt the US Supreme Court would've been all that sanguine about seeing a case like that land in their chambers because of the public reaction to the decision they would likely and logically have made and I'm pretty sure Martha Burk would've begged off too before that occurrence understanding that there would be little way for her to do anything but lose.
-
And Brad, I think the larger issue and subject here is that it's probably pretty undeniable that benefits do derive in a number of ways (social capital) for the individual to even all the way to the context of nations and national culture or national ethos if citizens feel that they "belong" (to something). There's no question that that feeling of "belonging" can be both in a private and public context. The real problem arises when nations begin to think that the two must be mutually exclusive to the point where the right of "freedom of association" in a "private" context should cease to exist.
There's no question that citizens or just people in general do have an inclination to want to "belong" to something and in some cases, probably most cases, that tends to make them feel a little bit special somehow---eg better about themselves.
If that can be accomplished in a general sense in either a public or a private context, then what could be the matter with that?
Matter of fact, to have both coexisting in a culture just may be one of human nature's greatest motivators.
-
TEP, after I first posted I edited and revised my thoughts, so that we're closer than you might think. (Leads me to think you write slowly and thoughtfully, which I don't).
You are quite right to invoke DeTocqueville and Baltzell here. I think what I find intriguing is the way the critique lends itself to both a conservative and a radical turn and can go in either (or both) directions. The conservative turn would look to reinstill the culture of the old associations; the radical one would see the demise in terms of modern industry and culture. By the way, Martha Burk's response isn't part of any critique at all; it's just a liberal's assault on the right of any private association
-
Brad, I see you edited your first post. Thank you, thank you, thank you veeery muuch.
DeTocqueville and Baltzell in the context of this thread probably are pretty interesting but even if it may be a bit off the subject, I think some of Olmsted's fundamental beliefs about the benefits of community as a motivator of culture and civility and taste through community "landplanning" just may be more apropos to certain golf and golf architectural projects even if perhaps just a select few, and perhaps rare.
After all, who couldn't say that Tom Cousins attempt in Atlanta at Eastlake golf course and outlying community wasn't a stab at the very philosophy that Olmsted was essentially trying to achieve? In both cases the feeling of "community", of "belonging", seems to have been the goal of both.
I think one of the most important things to try to do in threads on this kind of subject is to try to put aside whatever may be our personal political beliefs and try to look at the bigger picture in an historic as well as a contemporary light. If we can do that we can probably find things in both worlds or both extremes that have some kind of utility somehow.
You may think I'm an elitist but I'm really not. I feel that there were some things that were valuable in the context of the concept of elitism at its finest---eg the concept of "Noblesse Oblige" as it once functioned at its best and purist was one of those things. Unfortunately it eventually devolved into prevalent snobbery and defensiveness on the part of those whose forebears may have practiced it best.
On the other hand, I'm not a fan of total governmental "social engineering". It has been shown to be a philosophy which has initial appeal and benefit but if taken too far becomes hugely negative in a social and culture sense.
I'm a big believer in various words and terms particularly if they can manage to convey the true meaning of the philosophy they represent. And I'm no fan at all of some of our fundamental terms or the general perception of them.
America as the land of Equality is one of those misperceptions. The United States and its unique and radical experiment in government never offered its citizens equality, and never really intended to. It only offered them "equality of opportunity". That denotes a contract, albeit it perhaps one of faith, between the government and its citizens and it requires a certain set of responsibilities on the part of both. Apparently too many US citizens have either forgotten or were never aware that they have a certain responsibility to themselves to act on their opportunities. Too many obviously think America offered them a free ride on which the government isn't upholding its end of the contract, or promise, or whatever it is that some US citizens think was offered to them by the United States of America. ;)
-
Tom, I'm going to go back to a serious read of Olmsted on this. He was more implicit than explicit in his writings, but still more aware of the issues of landscape architecture and its moral influence on public culture than any of his predecessors (Repton, Brown). The golf architecture guys never touched the topic, but it's present in what they did and what they do when at their best in the field. I've been toying with doing this in the context of golf design for years, and at my wife's urging I'm finally on the way.
-
An interesting article, it seems to me his argument has as much to do with nostalgia as it does with social concerns. Not that is a bad thing, and they are related to certain extent, most civilized people are strongly influenced by nostalgia and an appreciation for older things. They are more settling and confortable. Our interest is old golf architecture is proof of that.
Looking at the Australian Club example...who here wouldn't want the old clubhouse with its intimacy, its interesting architecture and its old panneled walls, artwork and comfy chairs. I'm certain what happened there had more to do with economic pressures than social decline, although I have no doubt that the club is not the same.
The other example of more AFL games being moved to night got me thinking about old World Series day games. Its a sunny day and I can still see Bob Gibson standing on the mound and see Roberto Clemente running around the bases, I can see the long shadows and I can hear Curt Gowdy. It was simpler, it was more quite and it was more natural IMO, but then again I'm nostalgic. Unfortunately there are no more day games....economics again. And even though I would argue for the return to day games (its a better game aesthetically) I don't think attendance suffers at night and I suspect it doesn't suffer in Australia either, and obviously TV ratings are higher.
I also suspect economics has a lot to do with the lack of young professionals joining some of these golf clubs. Money is often at the root of these changes.
Nostalgia vs Economics, nostalgia often takes a back seat to progress.
-
Brad:
The irony with Olmsted (the father, not the son) is he may've looked to golf as another vehicle (somewhat akin to parks) with his philosophy on some of the benefits of landscape architecture on golf architecture or landplanning on golf but he died in 1895 just about on the cusp of when golf was first arriving in this country to any noticeable extent.
-
Olmsted died in 1903. On a related note he planned the village of Pinehurst. It must have been one of his final projects and one of his best.
-
By the way, Frederick Law Olmsted never saw Pinehurst. His engineer, Warren H. Manning, did that famous radial / oval land plan of the town in the summer of 1895. Olmsted was last in NC earlier that year, having finished the arboretum at Biltmore Forest and suffering from the onset of dementia. Tufts went to the Olmsted office in Brookline in June 1895 and probably met with Olmsted but Olmsted was never in Pinehurst and didn't draw it. The plan is really the emodiment of the classic New England small town.
Almost all of the golf course properties done under the rubric of Olmsted (i.e. Mountain Lake) were done by the son, not FLO. His spirit and values of land live on, but they came via others who were inspired by him -- not a bad ethic, and in spirit with what Prof. Carroll's article is about.
-
Brad
Are you saying that Olmsted was not the author of the plan for the Village of Pinehurst?
-
A great example and analogy of the nuances of what it takes to maintain and preserve an "aura" and "community of place" like the aura of some of the old buildings of clubs mentioned by this author is the phenomenon of the Brill Building in NYC.
Some on here may not know what the Brill Bldg in NYC was. It was owned by two businessmen who happened to have the foresight to use a part of it to dabble in promoting American rock and roll songwriting. Those two propietors were not songwriters and frankly didn't even know that much about music in the beginning. And that original dabbling into rock and roll songwriting became the most productive rock and roll songwriting machine of that age perhaps accounting for well over half of all the rock and roll songs written in that era.
The atmosphere was a bunch of cubicles with pianos in each and young talent from New York would come in there after school and such and they'd write songs as fast as possible and sometimes to compete in who could do the most in an hour.
Those who got their start in the Brill Bldg reads like a Who's Who of American rock and roll songwriters and other styles and famous recording artists. The Brill Bldg songwriting production machine was so strong most all the current recording artists would show up there for music and the proprietors wouldn't necessarily give them what the recording artists wanted, they would give them what they felt like giving them.
And at the height of all this the proprietors decided to sell the Brill Bldg but understanding how strong the community of those songwriters was at the Brill Bldg and how important the actual aura of the building was with its cubicles and pianos in each, they created an exact copy of it in another bldg.
For reasons no one involved with it can really put their finger on, it was never the same again and the songwriting production machine that was once the Brill Bldg began to wind down and fade away.
I guess this proves that in a fast moving culture like ours it's true to say---you can never really go home again. ;)
-
"Olmsted died in 1903."
That's true. He retired from the business in 1895. I should've said he retired, not that he died.
The last great project Olmsted was actively involved in was George Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate in Asheville NC. That consumed practically the last seven years of his active career in landscape architecture.
-
Tom MacWood, that's exacty what I'm saying, and I said it in my Ross biography, pp. 63-65. Olmsted (FLO) did not do the plan; his firm (Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot) did.
-
Tom MacWood:
I thought you considered yourself to be a good researcher. How could you not have known that Pinehurst's land plan wasn't done before FLO retired from the business? That you don't know that is just positively SHOCKING!!!!!!!
That kind of gap in knowledge should serve to kill even the little bit of remaining credibility you have on here.
What do you think Bradley S.? Don't you think that just proves this guy is a bunch of hot air?
;)
-
A great example and analogy of the nuances of what it takes to maintain and preserve an "aura" and "community of place" like the aura of some of the old buildings of clubs mentioned by this author is the phenomenon of the Brill Building in NYC.
Some on here may not know what the Brill Bldg in NYC was. It was owned by two businessmen who happened to have the foresight to use a part of it to dabble in promoting American rock and roll songwriting. Those two propietors were not songwriters and frankly didn't even know that much about music in the beginning. And that original dabbling into rock and roll songwriting became the most productive rock and roll songwriting machine of that age perhaps accounting for well over half of all the rock and roll songs written in that era.
The atmosphere was a bunch of cubicles with pianos in each and young talent from New York would come in there after school and such and they'd write songs as fast as possible and sometimes to compete in who could do the most in an hour.
Those who got their start in the Brill Bldg reads like a Who's Who of American rock and roll songwriters and other styles and famous recording artists. The Brill Bldg songwriting production machine was so strong most all the current recording artists would show up there for music and the proprietors wouldn't necessarily give them what the recording artists wanted, they would give them what they felt like giving them.
And at the height of all this the proprietors decided to sell the Brill Bldg but understanding how strong the community of those songwriters was at the Brill Bldg and how important the actual aura of the building was with its cubicles and pianos in each, they created an exact copy of it in another bldg.
For reasons no one involved with it can really put their finger on, it was never the same again and the songwriting production machine that was once the Brill Bldg began to wind down and fade away.
I guess this proves that in a fast moving culture like ours it's true to say---you can never really go home again. ;)
Tom-
To take this a step further, do you think we could draw a parallel between the lessons/experiences from the Brill Building and many older golf clubs vs. newer golf clubs?
And then back to the article, the culture of golf/country clubs today vs in the past?
I am of the mind that things which evolve over time--i.e. many of the older, grand clubs and courses--became that way because of blood, sweat, and tears on behalf of the founders and architects--when you put your heart into something, there's an intangible there, a connection, which simply can't be bought. In other words, you can buy your way in as a member, but it doesn't have the same feeling, the same soul, than if one was a founding member or had that connection to the past--and here's the start of that "club" culture. I may be digressing here, but I saw it plenty from my six years in several clubs as part of the Management Staff--and I sometimes wonder if people today aren't looking to join these clubs for the sense of community and belonging, but just for a babysitter and other surface reasons?
The way the clubs market themselves doesn't help--all this bullshit about "Scottish this-and-that" and "links-style design" and things, attempting to give the illusion of authenticity.
F**K THAT.
You can't manufacture tradition, history, and camaraderie, nor can it be bought. Community of place evolves over time.
Would you agree?
-
As a sidebar, I sometimes wonder, as I look around and see my peers in the workplace and around town and things--where are we going to be with golf clubs 10,20,30 years from now? I just wonder. I don't see a lot of guys my age playing, wanting to join clubs, wanting to improve their club and carry it forward through this 21st Century the way many of the more senior guys on here have done, shepherding their club through projects related to the golf course.
It's food for thought.
-
"Tom-
To take this a step further, do you think we could draw a parallel between the lessons/experiences from the Brill Building and many older golf clubs vs. newer golf clubs?
And then back to the article, the culture of golf/country clubs today vs in the past?"
Doug:
I don't know if we could draw any parallels between the Brill Bldg and the futile attempt to recreate its aura somewhere and what happened with the older clubs vs newer clubs, but we probably could learn something from the saga of the Brill Bldg about the prevelant inclination of some of the older American clubs who seem to redesign, rennovate or rebuild their old clubhouses at the drop of a hat. That effort surely doesn't always work that well and some tradition, and sometimes a lot of "aura" can go by the boards when some of those old and often funky clubhouses that were built back in the good old Golden Age, or before, go by the wayside. ;)
-
Doug:
I don't know if we could draw any parallels between the Brill Bldg and the futile attempt to recreate its aura somewhere and what happened with the older clubs vs newer clubs, but we probably could learn something from the saga of the Brill Bldg about the prevelant inclination of some of the older American clubs who seem to redesign, rennovate or rebuild their old clubhouses at the drop of a hat. That effort surely doesn't always work that well and some tradition, and sometimes a lot of "aura" can go by the boards when some of those old and often funky clubhouses that were built back in the good old Golden Age, or before, go by the wayside. ;)
Tom-
I understand what you're saying. What I was trying to say was that tradition and authenticity can't be bought--be they clubhouses, golf courses, or clubs as a whole. They take time.
-
"You can't manufacture tradition, history, and camaraderie, nor can it be bought. Community of place evolves over time.
Would you agree?"
Doug:
Yes, I probably would. Tradition, "community of place", taste, style, civility, gentility, these are probably all very important human characteristics and conditons, as Olmsted surmised and advocated. He obviously thought they were all fairly essential to benefit the "human condition".
I have this cousin who is obviously sort of some world class genius and I guess always has been. He's made a great living out of going around and advising large multi-national corporations and governments as well on what the state of the world and such is at any particular time. The guy also has one helluva devilish and dry "put-on" sense of humor. He's also more than a little eccentric in a brilliant way, if you know what I mean?
And at one of these conferences they asked him what he thought could articulate perhaps the most significant advance in the human condition?
Was it vacinnation, or the light bulb or the telephone, or the airplane or the automobile or the printing press or what?
He sat there and after a time said that the best way to articulate the most significant advance in the human conditon, were with the words;
"Madame, dinner is served."
;)
-
I must comment that I am deeply sadened by the quality of the writing in the article compared to the drivel that appears in our american newspapers. It is literate and packed with information.
It is also rather secular in its tone in that membership in the club is discussed in terms that are often used to represent church attendance in the u.s.. Not being a church-goer and noting the addictive nature of golf many years ago it merely reinforces the overwhelming potential of good that golf offers to many individuals when practiced in a respectful way. Unfortunately in many american clubs the talk is busines, business and more business. Little socializing goes on although this is more prevalent in country clubs than in golf clubs. fundamental differences exist in these institutions, but occasionally it is necessary to use a country club when a golf club is not available.
Social capital certainly takes a secondary seat to personal advancement at the former as opposed to the latter IMO in most instances.
Good read.
Dr. V.-
One of the clubs I was at several years ago actually had rules of conduct written into the operating standards and goals for the dining facilities, and it included a specific statement that business papers, laptops, and related items were verboten within. When you think about it, it makes sense, and takes the dynamic more towards a social environment. This isn't to say that politics, business, sex, and religion weren't discussed, but it created a more collegial, social atmosphere.
-
It is irrelevant what we argue here. Yesterday I spent some time in the company of a local club captain. He had been interviewed by a local council official who had asked him about his club's policy about positively recruiting members from ethnic minorities and Muslims in particular. He was told that unless his club's policies were amended in terms of positive descrimination their licencing agreements etc would be revoked.
I have to say that we have many friends who are Muslim, and they are among the most generous and sincere friends we have. They happen not to play golf They happen not to support indiscriminate bombing. We respect their sincerity. I suspect that they would be alarmed that they are descriminated on their behalf positively.
On the other hand, I would support a club's right to decide who was likely to be a better member than another. It should not be decided on race, religion or wealth but on whether they would enjoy being members of the club, and what they would contribute to it.
-
Tom MacWood:
I thought you considered yourself to be a good researcher. How could you not have known that Pinehurst's land plan wasn't done before FLO retired from the business? That you don't know that is just positively SHOCKING!!!!!!!
That kind of gap in knowledge should serve to kill even the little bit of remaining credibility you have on here.
What do you think Bradley S.? Don't you think that just proves this guy is a bunch of hot air?
;)
TE
Wow, thats a pretty strong reaction, especially from someone who just a few posts before said Olmsted died in 1895. The plan was unveiled in 1895, why are you certain FL Olmsted was not involved?
-
I'm afraid I missed something here. Redanman is one of the sharpest cats I know, so in deference to his compliments at the writing, I read it twice.
Okay, I read it again . . . . .
and still thing the article is a prime example of how to take a fairly simple concept and muddy it beyond all recognition with meandering, didactic, pseudo-intellectual, flowery psychobabble.
Claptrap that can only be clearly deciphered by a theoretical sociologist and composed by some Aussie who is obviously paid by the word.
"That's not writing, that's typing."
-Truman Capote, when asked to comment on the work of Jack Kerouac.
-
Gib
Read it again. It is a well written and well argued description of many of th echanges that are hapening in our world. The only thing that surprises me is that it was written by an Aussie! :)
Rich
PS--
Q. How and why did this thread turn so quickly into a trivia/pissing contest about Olmstead?
A. Read the article yet again.......
R
-
Rich
Do you think we should fight these changes , or just go with the flow ? .
I ask you because you are also a member of a Scottish Club and must be seeing the same changes that I do ? .
Having grown up with the Club Culture in Scotland , I just cant understand whats happening or what to do about it , if anything .
Best Regards
Brian
-
"TE
Wow, thats a pretty strong reaction, especially from someone who just a few posts before said Olmsted died in 1895. The plan was unveiled in 1895, why are you certain FL Olmsted was not involved?"
Tom MacWood:
Have you read posts #s 14,17 and 18 or a Olmsted biography? Apparently not?
-
"Q. How and why did this thread turn so quickly into a trivia/pissing contest about Olmstead."
Rich:
Because Tom MacWood happened to ask Brad Klein if he was sure FLO wasn't involved in the design of Pinehurst, and when the answer was provided to him a couple of times he apparently didn't undertand it or read it, as usual. Olmsted was mentioned in the first place because there are some interesting parallels between Olmsted's philosophy and "community of place" or "social capital" and the subject of this "The Australian" article. I, for one, think that's more interesting than debating whether or not the writing style of the author of this article is more like typing or writing or Kerouac or Truman Capote. ;)
-
Tom McWood,
with all due respect to TEP, he's not the one to ask (reply #27) here why he's sure Olmsted wasn't involved in Pinehurst. He's obviously following me on this, and his assumption is perfectly reasonable based upon the evidence.
My initial point (in reply #14, based upon my Ross book) was that Olmsted never visited Pinehurst and that it really wasn't "his" plan. Given the evidence, and the lack of any proof of his involvement, and the reasonableness of concluding that he was in no condition to help and never saw Pinehurst, it makes sense to say that it wasn't his plan.
I spent a lot of time researching that Ross biography, much of it in the Tufts Archives, where the extensive file on Olmsted and Pinehurst is very clear. James Tufts went to the offices of Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot to talk about Pinehurst on June 20, 1895, met with the elder Olmsted and others. They agreed then to a contract of $300. Olmsted Sr. had already been showing signs of dementia - evident by the conflict inside the firm over his work in March and April at Biltmore. He had headed north to the office in early June from Biltmore Forest and clearly did no field work or drafting after that on any major projects, only brief ceremonial work and a few official matters, and he was clearly out of it and unable to focus on any planning.
The work on Pinehurst was immediately handed over to the firm's horticulture expert and director of planning, Warren Manning, who worked with local surveyor Frank Deaton. Olmsted never visited Pinehurst; he was languishing in dementia, taking rest vacations. Manning and Deaton did the site work, and they delivered the basic drawings to Tufts on Nov. 17, 1895, by which time Olmsted, on forced retirement from his own firm (at $1,200 a year), had set sail for a vacation in Britain.
Manning went on to make Pinehurst a significant part of his own independent professional commitment for decades.
By the way, the definitive FLO biography, by Laura Wood Roper, has extensive material on all of Olmsted's project and never mentions the word "Pinehurst" in the text or the index.
-
Sean
Very interesting , thanks for posting .
Stonehaven's difficulties are the same , a falling membership , but the reasons seem different .
We have always been the community golf club , and until recently you had to live within 20 miles of the club to be a member . Since WW2 , there had always been a waiting list and 10 years ago the wait was around 5 years , and there was a joining a fee of £300 .
This past three years we have lost members at an alarming rate . You can walk straight in and be accepted without as much as your name going in front of the committee nowadays . A joining fee ? , ha ! .
Two groups are thriving within the club . Our Senior members grows at an alarming rate , and it is estimated that in 6 years time , we will have more Senior members than any other group . This sounds great as they play a lot of midweek golf and do bring in extra trade to the clubhouse . Unfortunately they also expect their entitlement to reduced annual subs. , and there has been one heated EGM in the clubhouse about this already , and it resolved nothing .
Our Junior section is as healthy as it has ever been . We have plenty of keen youngsters with low handicaps that are also doing well in district comps.
So its the Ordinary members we are losing , the 17 to 50 year old bracket . Why ? .
1.The course itself doesn't suit the modern golfer . Everyone wants to play what they see on television and are much more willing to travel for it . A quirky , unfair , 118 year old , 63 acre , par66 with great views just doesn't attract nowadays .
2. Subscriptions have doubled in 9 years , although some would laugh at our thoughts of £360 a year being far too expensive , they are . The committee say we need these fee's to pay for the course upkeep and maintenance in this pc , health and safety world we have nowadays . Up to 10 years ago we had 2 of a greenstaff and most was done by hand . Nowadays we have 5 greenkeepers and everything is done sitting down , and the course is much more manicured ( and doesn't look or play any better ) .
3. Society golf .
And I am as guilty as everyone else . Start of the season I will buy a bunch of those 2fore1 vouchers and we travel around the country looking for value for money , and ticking off lists . Something we just didnt do that much in the past .
There are a few other reasons but I think those are the main ones that are killing off our local community based golf club .
The funny thing is while we struggle to survive , there is plans for two more golf course in the area . Stonehaven is a small town of 11,000 , and I cant see two clubs making money , never mind three . So something has got to give .
And are these new courses promoting themselves to the locals as community clubs ? .
No , "we want to build a championship golf course that will attract tourists , especially Americans" .
???
Best Regards
Brian
-
The book (biography) I use on Olmsted is called "Frederick Law Olmsted, Designing the American Landscape" by Charles Beveridge and Paul Rochelau (kindly given to me by one Yancy Beamer). It precisely confirms the details of the end of FLO's career Brad Klein just outlined, but something tells me Tom MacWood will just keep asking and questioning. Perhaps he has found something from a 1903 edition of the Columbus Times Picayune that details FLO's total dedication to Pinehurst until the day he dropped dead in 1903. ;)
Tom MacWood may even have some ultra-special source into the life of FLO that no one else is aware of as he has claimed that FLO kept John Rushkin's book by his bedside. That's some pretty important information ;) from a guy who doesn't even know when or under what circumstances FLO's active career wound to a halt.
-
Brian and Sean:
Can you imagine what some apparently reliable market studies over here say is the single most important thing a golf club (over here) must have today to attract new members?
A health and fitness facility. ;)
Is there any "social capital" or "community of place" in the heath and fitness facility of a golf club? Not in my opinion, or at least not unless Heidi Klum is in there.
-
Thanks, Brian and Sean
Brian, your description of Stonehaven is a virtual mirror of Aberdour! Same age, same course size, great (but different) views. Even the same annual dues! Like you, we are full of an increasing and increasingly healthy and wealthy group of seniors who want their 1/2 price dues without any reduction in privileges. They also would prefer an old style club, where members speak in hushed tones and women and children are seen but not heard. We do still have a waiting list, but that is rare for our area.
As you note, the crux of the problem is the declining number and quality of pople in the 17-50 year bracket. I see the reason for this problem slightly differently.
Primarily, this group has far more alternative ways to spend their time and money than previous generations. Tennis, the gym, foreign holidays, children's sports and other activities, etc.. Golf is competing with these alternatives for the attention of this group, and in many ways is found lacking (too time consuming, too expensive, too hard, too fuddy-duddy, etc.). Even Tom Paul gets it a bit right this time (when not bickering about Olmstead)--if you want to attract younger people, build a spa rather than buy new china for the dining room.
Secondly, the new members which do come in are often new to the area, or even to the game of golf. This is partly due to increased mobility but also to the fact that the children of the senior members can't afford to live and stay in the area where they grew up once they start families. Our best young players will hang in to their early-mid twenties, but after that they tend to drift away.
What you end up with is a multi-furcated membership--a dwindling number of keen and good youngish golfers, a growing number of youngish learners and/or "social" golfers, an ever growing phalanx of seniors, some keen, some just grumpy old men (and women). There is no binding social fabric, such as one ought to have in a "club." Everybody is in it for themselves (or their mini-cohort), and not the greater good. We shouldn't be surprised, however, as that is exactly what is happening to "society"--both in the UK and the US.
My other club, Dornoch, is different in that it is wealthy and has hugely more prospective members than it needs. It is similar, however, in that the membership is aging (largely due to retirees emigrating from England, the US, etc. to enjoy the cheap and great golf). As there is an increasing amount of emigres, the local nature of the club, rooted in history and gene pools, is diminishing. The club used to be loosely bound together by a relatively large group of members (most in the 17-50 are bracket) who lived elsewhere but spent 2-4 weeks in town every summer. They shared the tee times and the competitions with the locals, but left the locals to run the club and preserve it's traditions. Not for nothing did they hold the EGM setting dues and deciding key policies in February.....
Sean
You are very lucky to have a club whose social activity has increased. How the hell did you do it? At both of my clubs (outwith a few exceptional but predictable days) the atmosphere gets more and more alien and morguelike every year.
Rich
-
As one who is in his second season in a club and, at 40 in the age range where clubs have difficulty attracting members, a couple of thoughts:
Despite having friends at the club and absolutely loving the course, I was hesitant to join. First, and most fundamentally, the cost was so high, I could not justify the expense. Beyond that, however, I almost felt a social stigma at the thought. Caddyshack does an effective job of portraying the downsides of club life and is so funny because it is not all that far off from the truth in my experience.
In addition, I had no sense of how enjoyable it is to be a part of such an organization, despite its flaws. I have really enjoyed being a part of a group of entertaining, talented, successful, flawed human beings who share a love for the game. People on this board identified that enjoyment when I was contemplating whether to join, but I did not appreciate it until I experienced it.
Finally, another large reason for hesitation was the informal group I already played with at public courses. I knew I would not play with that group as much, and in a sense, I left a "club" that I was a part of already.
I'm not sure whether the decline of club life is due to a decline in the desire to be a part of something or that the nature of such clubs has changed from traditional organizations to more informal groups or internet "clubs" such as GCA.
-
Sean
Yes , our club is going to introduce a mandatory £60 bar voucher scheme next year . Talk of more Golfers quitting because of it .
I know its not very pc to say it , but our clubhouse atmosphere has steadly declined , along with enforcement of drink-driving laws .
Best Regards
Brian
-
Sean-
Does your club have a St. Patrick's Day Party?
;D
-
Rich is right, there are too many alternative uses for our time and society is changing faster today than at any time in the last 180 years. Is it any wonder a relatively new development, whose model only existed for a couple of generations, is now going to have to change.
I have seen moribund industries revitalise themselves by changing the service provided and putting their prices up, so they become vital again on a smaller customer base. GOLF IN GB IS TOO F****** CHEAP! Both the above examples are of clubs that I would love to belong to and £360 wouldn’t buy me a third of a season ticket to sit on my arse watching Soccer or Rugby! Before Sky came along everyone used to moan about the BBC fee being too high at £50 or whatever. Now Sky has found enough customers who hand over (I believe) anything from £480 quid a year to sit on your arse and fall asleep!
(This is also cost based. Compare the increases in what a plumber costs compared to what a gardener gets over the last 10 years. In North Berwick this summer the guy on the counter of the CO-OP store, left a greenkeepers position of 10 years at Gullane for more money. Golf is too cheap to survie in todays econmy – get used to it).
Most Parent s of the golden age of Golf Club Culture spent less time with their kids (my supposition I admit) than the family man of today. At the same time we have more family’s than ever breaking up. How does this situation affect the club culture? Other social changes in GB include the war on drinking and driving. Over here in the last 20 years the country pub has changed from where you went to get smashed and have a quiet drive home to a place providing meal’s for couples and families. Golf clubs have not found a similar way to adapt.
And the implications for GCA as an industry starting to meltdown look at the trends
1.The course itself doesn't suit the modern golfer . Everyone wants to play what they see on television and are much more willing to travel for it . A quirky , unfair , 118 year old , 63 acre , par66 with great views just doesn't attract nowadays .
3. Society golf .
And I am as guilty as everyone else . Start of the season I will buy a bunch of those 2fore1 vouchers and we travel around the country looking for value for money , and ticking off lists .
I see golf entering a period of severe mutation and those stuck with what they like now may not be able to find much of it in the future. As I write I’m 48 and have been a member of a club for less than a year. The danger of those retired members wanting cheap and conservative golf makes them the enemy within. Adapt or die is the message here, and a club in the grip of it’s older members isn’t about to change.
-
The book (biography) I use on Olmsted is called "Frederick Law Olmsted, Designing the American Landscape" by Charles Beveridge and Paul Rochelau (kindly given to me by one Yancy Beamer). It precisely confirms the details of the end of FLO's career Brad Klein just outlined, but something tells me Tom MacWood will just keep asking and questioning. Perhaps he has found something from a 1903 edition of the Columbus Times Picayune that details FLO's total dedication to Pinehurst until the day he dropped dead in 1903. ;)
Tom MacWood may even have some ultra-special source into the life of FLO that no one else is aware of as he has claimed that FLO kept John Rushkin's book by his bedside. That's some pretty important information ;) from a guy who doesn't even know when or under what circumstances FLO's active career wound to a halt.
TE
Jiminy Xmas...what's got into you?
The info about FLO's beside books would be found in the biography Brad said was the definitive FLO, by Roper.
Brad
I've read the Roper biography and maybe another one, and I've read some of his published papers. It is my understanding that most of his projects were colaborative efforts. For example Biltmore Estates, Warren Manning devised the planting scheme...he was in charge of planting for the firm. Olmsted's sons were involved with the Boston Park System. And there were several associates working on the Chicago Exposition.
Regarding Pinehurst by June the firm had a topo map of the Tufts property (surveyed by Francis Denton). By July they had produced a diagram for the hotel and cottages. By September there was preliminary plan for the village. I think its plausible FLO had some hand in the design of Pinehurst.
Warren Manning is an interesting subject in his own right. He was a proponent of wild gardening, an American version of the idea conceived and practiced by William Robinson. He is one of the most important landscape architects of that era.
-
Tom, I can't prove that something did not happen, but I don't think FLO himself was involved. The details are pretty basic, as outlined in my book. James Tufts visits FLO and OO&E on June 20, 1895; the firm does some plans based upon local surveys and delivers the first drawings July 6, then has to redo them completely because the surveys were wrong and sends its own people down there to work, led by Warren Manning. FLO never set foot in Pinehurst. He was incapable of functioning at the time in anything more than a ceremonial manner. The final plans evolve, are delivered on Nov. 17, by which time FLO is on forced retirement at $1,200 a year and off for six weeks R&R in GB.
I know there are golf course architects in the U.S. who get paid for their "signature designs" on that basis, but even they end up showing up once --- and even if they did, I would not claim it was really their design. In this case with Pinehurst, not even that standard was met. So I conclude FLO was not involved in the planning. You can put it any (other) way you want, but any other conclusion you draw is simply based upon speculation and hope, not evidence.
I think what you say about Manning is very interesting. I also think what you call "wild gardens" would have been what the British theorists and writers called "picturesque." I know lots of GCA junkies think links golf is the important lineage to trace when it comes to modern golf course design, but based upon a recent trip to GB where we saw dozens of historic gardens and I dabbled in some (admittedly) diverse readings, I'm increasingly convinced that the vital connector was landscape theory and garden design, particularly (are you sitting down?) the Arts & Crafts theorists and subsequent generations of garden writers they influenced: Gertrude Jekyll, Vita Sackville-West, Christopher Lloyd. I think this is the vital link that is needed to establish an influence of Arts and Crafts on golf course design.
By the way, Lloyd's father, who created the wonderful wild garden at Great Dixter, was an avid golfer and member of Rye GC. I can only imagine his conversations with fellow member Bernard Darwin.
But we digress. Western civilization is collapsing, as are its golf clubs.
-
Brad
I'm envious of your trip abroad touring the great gardens.
Nathaniel Lloyd is another very interesting character. If I remember correctly he hired Lutyens to design or redesign Great Dixter. He went on to become a self taught architect and garden designer of distinction...it was a different era. And he was actually the chairman of the green committee at Rye. He was very interested in golf course agronomy and golf architecture. There is an interesting exchange between Lloyd, Reginald Beale (Carters Seed) and Tom Simpson in the form of a series of letters to the editor in The Times.
As you probably know Robinson advocated the use hardy indiginous plants, and beleived they should be allowed to grow into their natural form, and from what I understand Manning really studied and promoted the use of native American plants. They were both dedicated plant men.
-
I think the argument could be made that just because private club member numbers are down, that does not necessarily mean that "Club Culture' is down. At least not at top clubs?
-
Mike,
You mean "top clubs" based on their architecture? or, other criterion?
Being new to this whole aspect of golf. My initial observation is the one stronghold, every single member of Ballyneal has a grip on, is the golf course's architecture.
-
"I also think what you call "wild gardens" would have been what the British theorists and writers called "picturesque."
Bradley S.:
The concepts of "the Sublime". "the Beautiful" and "the Picturesque" are interesting in how they evolved through art, science and philosophy to be categorized and analyzed, particularly be the Royal Society (incorporated in 1662 by the Crown). In that climate of experiment, categorization and description whole areas of thought and experience were subjected to analysis and exegesis. The subject of aesthetics was no excpetion. By the 18th century Joseph Addison, Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant et al were defining and distinguishing the terms "Sublime" and "Beautiful" to natural occurrence or the human experience of it. In 1757 Kant published his "Philsosophical Enquiry into the Origins of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful.
"The Beautiful" as exemplified in the paintings of Claude Lorrain et al (Salvator Rosa)---eg careful asymmentries of balanced groups of trees used as repoussoirs in the foreground to flank a distance in which the light is reflected from the surface of lake, sea or river, became the device for presenting landscape within the confines of a rectangular frame so well known and resorted to that it came to seem as natural as nature itself. (perhaps this is where my semi-aversion came from to landscape architecture>golf course architecture's principle of "Emphasis"----eg directing the eye to the most important part if that is where one is SUPPOSED to hit the ball ;) ).
The paintings of Lorrain, for example, exemplifying "the Beautiful" became the model for a new breed of landscape gardeners who emerged during the 18th century. Lancelot "Capability" Brown, the most well known of those in 18th century England, was employed by landowners all over England to transform their "parks" (estates) into view that Lorrain might have painted.
This new art-form (landscape gardening) bred its own theorists which led to the enunciation of various "rules" by which nature could be "improved".
A Rev. William Gilpin (18th century) articulated a complete theory of aesthetics on the principle of "the Picturesque" which was essentially a specialized branch of "the Beautiful".
From this came the first applications of landscape gardening or English landscape architecture principles that were applied to golf course architecture app 150 plus years later. An architect such as Macdonald even mentioned the names of a few of those early landcape gardeners or landscape architects as analogous to golf course architecture and golf architects.
By the way, an English landscape designer such as Lancelot Brown who utilized landscape design theories of "the Picturesque" that were later applied to golf course architecture preceded the Arts and Crafts Movement by app a century.
-
TE
The garden designers of the late 19th and early 20th C hated Capability Brown. They wanted to recapture the aesthetics of Old England, they had a yearning for the past, and to a simpler way of life. Their models for the English garden were the gardens of the Middle Ages (the A&C movement was a revival movement). A garden that was a continuation of the architecture, a continuation of the rooms of the house…the garden extending the house into the midst of Nature. Brown destroyed a great number of these old gardens and they despised him for it.
They also thought the English landscape school was a sham. In spite of what it professed to be, it was governed by as many rules and was as formal as anything that had gone before.
They preferred the real McCoy to this idealized form of nature, which in their opinion was not natural. Their model: the architecture, a transition in the form of the traditional garden - more formal/architectural near the house - eventually merging with Nature. Jekyll captured this approach better than anyone.
It is interesting to note the A&C gardeners did however respect Repton mainly because he preserved and restored the tradtional gardens of 16th and 17th C, and they like some of his ideas about incorporating real nature into his scheme without trying to over power it or overly manipulate it.
-
"They also thought the English landscape school was a sham. In spite of what it professed to be, it was governed by as many rules and was as formal as anything that had gone before.
They preferred the real McCoy to this idealized form of nature, which in their opinion was not natural."
Tom MacWood:
That very well may be and that's all very interesting, in the area of and in the evolution of landscape design, but we are talking about golf course architecture here and the influence of landscape architectural principles (art principles) on it.
It occurs to me that there have always been a number of "rules" and "art" (landscape architecture) principles (Balance, Harmony, Proportion, Rhythm and Emphasis) as well from landscape architecture that have been massively applied to golf course architecture including the general theory of "improving" upon nature (idealizing). Obviously, some of that has to do with the fact that golf itself NECESSARILY requires a number of aspects that are inherently NOT natural--eg tees, fairways, putting greens or even sand bunkering on sites where sand is anything but natural.
I'm not saying we have to like it (and in many ways I don't) but it's almost impossible to deny the reality of it and its massive influence on golf course architecture in the last century. Your inclination to assume that the Arts and Crafts Movement, perhaps inspired by or inspiring of some form of it like the English "wild garden" form of a Gertrude Jekyll, is a wish, not a reality. ;)
But who knows, perhaps it's in our future for golf course architecture, now that we are in the midst of a mini-cycle in golf course architecture that could fairly be considered golf architecture's first "renaissance" in its history.
By the way, Tom, have you ever stayed at Greywalls in Gullane and have you studied Gertrude Jekyll's garden there attached to Edwin Luytens design? ;)
-
TE
No, I have not been to Greywalls but I am familiar with the house and garden. Do you understand the nature of A&C gardens and the gardens of late 19th and 20th C? To better understand the possible influences at that time golf architecture was being reformed, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with what was going on at that time in the related arts, including architecture and garden design. It was a period of revival.
The models for garden design at that time were the English gardens of the Middle Ages in the 15th and 16th C. Like those gardens the A&C garden was a continuation of the architecture, a continuation of the rooms of the house. The closer to the house the more formal and structured the garden design. The natural or the wild was the way they utilized the plants within the garden (in opposition to the Victorian carpet bedding) and the way they melded the garden with the outside world. The garden extended the house into the midst of Nature but it wasn’t designed to copy or replicate nature.
Jekyll’s gardens are examples of this style as are a couple of gardens Brad mentioned yesterday – Vita Sackville-West’s Sissinghurst Castle and Nathaniel Lloyd’s Great Dixter.
There are couple of good books that helped me understand the period better - Thomas Mawson’s ’Arts and Crafts of Garden Making’ (1899) and a newer book ‘The Gardens of the Arts and Crafts Movement’ (2004) by Judith Tankard.
-
Tom:
Thanks for the English garden lesson but I know all that and have for years. There're two of them within three hundred yards of me. :) I've also been to Greywalls, Sissinghurst, Great Dixter and a good many more of their kind in GB. And thanks for the book recommendation. I'm sure it's an interesting read no matter where one reads it.
"The natural or the wild was the way they utilized the plants within the garden (in opposition to the Victorian carpet bedding) and the way they melded the garden with the outside world. The garden extended the house into the midst of Nature."
By the way, Gertrude Jekyll's garden and design at Greywalls doesn't meld with the outside world at all. It's completely enclosed from the outside world by a rather high wall. However, at the very end of the garden and in the middle of the wall lined up perfectly with the central walk from the house is an opening in the wall in the form and shape of a human eye. ;)
But anyway.
-
The thoughts above about the aging of golf memberships is very pertinent to the whole issue of club cultures and the future of private club membership.
When Hurricane Ivan destroyed the aged clubhouse of Pensacola Country Club, we hired an expert in clubhouse design and he suggested a series of focus groups to see what the membership really wanted when the new clubhouse was built.
The first report had a significant and very important factoid: the average age of our members was 71 years old! :o
In addition, quite a significant number of these are retired naval officers. They are a good bunch but all on fixed incomes. As a result, the club has had had a culture of cheap for years. Cheap initiation, cheap dues, deteriorating infrastructure, lousy maintenance.
Our only hope to improve things - and maintain our new Jerry Pate designed course, which looks really good with a par 3 18th hole hanging over the bay behind the clubhouse - is to attract a younger membership. To that end our membership drive, as we near opening date for the new course, is focusing on younger members with junior executive options. Hoping to attract that crowd at full dues, we are also including a fitness center and a pool at the enlarged tennis center.
All of this is of course making me very nervous..... :-\ It's a real tightrope act.
-
In my opinion, it all started when... Oops, never mind.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/BoyGeorge.jpg)
Sorry.
Mike
-
By the way, Gertrude Jekyll's garden and design at Greywalls doesn't meld with the outside world at all. It's completely enclosed from the outside world by a rather high wall. However, at the very end of the garden and in the middle of the wall lined up perfectly with the central walk from the house is an opening in the wall in the form and shape of a human eye. ;)
But anyway.
Sissinghurst and Great Dixter are enclosed as well, but of course you already knew that. ::)
-
If this very interesting, learned discussion devolves into yet another argument about the role of the A&C movement in golf course architecture, I'm going to be extremely disappointed.
-
Mike
How dare you try to hijack a thread about Sissinghurst! >:(
Bill
Good insights on your experience with Pensacola. Good luck!
Brian and Sean
Thanks for the thoughts. We have our AGM at Aberdour in a couple of weeks and will be talking aout a serious (~£750k) renovation of the clubhouse. In the run-up I have argued for helping finance the project by opening up the club to non-members (or greatly expanding social membership). I hate to say it, but what is really needed is more of a "country club" model. Within that model, keep part of the facilities exclusive to golfers (Grill Room model).
Based on your thoughts I'm going to add the idea of increasing the bar minimum to £50-100 (we put through a £20 annual voucher scheme a few years ago and, contrary to most predictions,the sky didn't fall...). I'm not going to talk about spas (a bridge too far...), but will keep it in mind.
Tony
You are right and you are wrong. Yes, UK golf is cheap, but the answer is NOT to raise prices and try to survive on high margins and lower volume. That is a slippery slope to disaster, UNLESS, your "product" is demonstrably superior. Very few golf courses do or can attain this sort of nirvana.
The drink/driving "problem" is a real one. My idea is to have a scheduled minibus to shuttle slightly tipsy members from their club to their homes or the homes of their lovers.....
Now lets get back to the discussion of the Victorian gardens of Jekyll and Hyde......... :'(
-
Thanks, Sean
1. The clubhouse is and will probably remain spikeless. We do have a dirty bar (i.e. where you can talk dirty without giving the blue rinse brigade hot flushes) and it will remain
2. No smoking allowed in any public places in Scotland these days--it's California without the macrobiotic diets up here now...
3. This is what is and what will remain so
4. We poshed up the locker room 10 years ago and it was the worst expenditure we ever made. Unless you have a club full of poseurs, don't do it. Real men change their shoes in the parking lot!
Rich
PS--a fair amount of market research has been done, but since there is a high proportion of numpties in the club, lotta good that's going to do......... ;)
R
-
Rich – part right? I’m obviously improving. You’re the business strategist; it would be very interesting to know how you see the industry evolving?
These are the key factors I would identify.
- Older more conservative membership for existing clubs. 60+
- Plenty of new competition/courses entering the market. People at Pay and Plays are a diverse bunch. I spent 4 out of the last 5 years mixing in with them. The average guy only play’s once a month, has all that ‘expensive’ gear, figures it’s a day out and a 5 hour round so what’s the problem? They average 30 something in years. Other weekends they do something else with their disposable cash. When my friends and I did the sums we played enough to make it a no brainier to join a club and pick carefully our extra days. The average guy who does pay and play probably spends as least as much as local club members but get less golf per annum.
- The two groups are now completely overlapping. Clubs have sought society cash and made themselves more accessible. Many have no waiting list or large deposit fee so why committ to one club, even if you only do a year you can always drop out again? The club golfer (as per Brian) takes advantage of how much easier it is to get on other courses, a few of which are upmarket Pay and Plays or CCFAD. Clubs have invited casual play in and it’s a two edged sword.
All these and the social factors mentioned above are death nails to the old Club Culture. I’ve seen the future and it ain’t pretty… (The implications for courses, standard of golf and pace of play are all grim).
(The other side of this is the really desirable ‘Clubs’ will shrink in number and become even harder to get into. At my age it’s time I got my name on a couple of waiting list so I can hang out at a good ‘Club’ when I’m retired.)
Odd, I normally consider myself an optimist but I can’t see the upside of all these changes. :'(
-
Sean
Nothing's particularly ailing (except maybe the fabric of the building), it's more a let's make our mark on history kind of thing. As for changing in public, we only do shoes, but if at Droitwich it involves clothes, then please fast-track my pending application for membership.
Tony
Very good points (you're 100% right this time!).
All in all, it is hard to create a scenario where "club culture" does anything but "decline."
Rich
-
"The natural or the wild was the way they utilized the plants within the garden (in opposition to the Victorian carpet bedding) and the way they melded the garden with the outside world. The garden extended the house into the midst of Nature."
“Sissinghurst and Great Dixter are enclosed as well, but of course you already knew that."
Tom MacWood;
So what, all the better to seamlessly meld the house and garden through enclosed walls and straight into the outside world and into the midst of Nature, right? ;)
The star of Capablilty Brown’s landscape gardening style did rise in the 18th century and then fell into the 19th century as greater “naturalism” in landscape gardening took hold. But it’s ironic to your point that some of the purists of the highly formal English gardens that preceded Brown blame him for destroying those highly formal English gardens to make way for his form of naturalism---eg the massive English “park” (parkland estate) that were most of his commissions. A style of landscape design, by the way, that did evolve from the painting art often known as "the Beautiful" (in the sense of its interpretations of Nature) that emanated from the likes of artist Claude Lorrain et al.
But then Brown’s star rose again into the 20th century which is important for us on here to know, as it is the century, by the way, where most of the best man-made golf architecture was designed and built and hit its peak, in both England and America, particularly inland and particularly with what has become known as the “parkland” style of golf architecture. It’s instructive for us to know that some of Brown’s “park” designs and projects are used as golf courses. Are any of Gertrude Jekyll’s projects used as golf courses?
Repton was critical of Brown occasionally but he also defended him and his work. You seem to want to make it look like he may’ve hated everything he did. One should never advance one-sided historical revisionism to make some point. A more balanced and more accurate presentation of history is necessary to understand it best. :)
But, again, let’s not forget, we are a golf architecture website here. Brown’s landscape architecture designs have influenced golf course architecture tremendously, particularly it’s “parkland” style that is of no small significance or consequence in the context of golf course architecture generally. Both England and America are replete with "parkland" style courses and have been for the last century.
You should try a bit harder to understand this and admit to it instead of constantly trying to defend your fairly unsupportable point that the "Arts and Crafts" Movement and perhaps the landscape gardeners who endorsed it are some primary influence on golf course architecture of the 20th century including the Golden Age.
-
Tom, Tom and Brad
What was Repton's take on spas vs. new locker rooms vs. the status quo Auntie? Did he dare to change his shoes on the street......?
Thanking you in advance.
rich
-
Rich:
Why don't you go into the lockerooms and deal with the subject of the changing of one's shoes? Can't you see we are in the gardens and on the golf courses? ;)
-
Tom
Is the same old geezer still running the locker room at Gulph Mills? If so, he must be even older than you these days.
-
Who's the gardener at Gulph Mills? Chancy?
(Hint ....Being There)
James B
-
In New York, a number of private eating/social/athletic/city clubs now have deals where members can go play a number of "B" private golf clubs (the Friars Club does NOT have a reciprocal with Friars Head for example ;) ). In some cases you pay directly, and in others you charge it to directly to your account at the reciprocal club. Typically you are allowed during the week, but in some it is weekend afternoons too.
Is anything like that happening in London?
-
It seems that the issues discussed here by Mike Sweeney, Tony Muldoon, Rich, Brian Ewen (I think) and others could just as easily apply down under. Difficulty in getting 25-50 year old members, access at newer better quality courses, the problems of debt associated with new clubhouse facilities. It seems to be global.
James B
-
A couple of suggestions for the aging clubhouses who have aging members.
ADA toilets and showers. Wider doors for those wheelchairs, and a depends dispensor.
Cater to us old guys and you shall reap the rewards.
On that vien, perhaps devoting some of the un-used space to a ortho/cardio/emerg care unit would be insightful. This should reduce the time it takes to get medical help, while generating enough cash flow to even pay the docs. A pharmacy wouldn't be a bad idea either.
;D
-
Mike I don’t think the type of clubs you describe are strong in London but I guess it would come under the catch all ‘Society Day’ Many old clubs these have long standing arrangements with old established Societies e.g. Surveyors groups or accountants down to a Pub group. Rye has only a few a year but many commercially minded clubs set aside every Tuesday or Thursday for the purpose. I’m a member of www.foretour.com and earlier in the year Sean Arble and I had a day at Swinley with them. Last Month I played Sunnigdale, great day out (if a little slow 9 hours for golf - and judging by the way the Club organised us I don’t think we were a bad group.)
Nearly all access is granted during the week – even if it means great clubs having no one at all on them Sunday afternoons. However in the last 25 years rising const have meant all courses are more accessible than they were.
For some the Society is a Club who meet half a dozen tiems a year and this arrangemnt remains strong.