Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ian Andrew on September 03, 2016, 08:43:09 AM
-
I remember my first visit to St. Andrew’s. I marveled at the history, the examples of great strategies and all the terrific ideas that I could borrow and adapt. I also was a little taken back by how plain it was in appearance early on.
One of the most memorable things about my first visit to Pinehurst #2 was it was the hardest course I ever tried to photograph (that has changed recently). But at the same time I saw the golf course representing the greatest example of how to defend a course without hazards.
"Think simple" as my old master used to say - meaning reduce the whole of its parts into the simplest terms, getting back to first principles.” Frank Lloyd Wright
My favourite era of painting is Cubism (sorry, I’m one of those). During the late 19th century people had discovered African, Polynesian and Native American art. Some of history’s greatest artists including Gauguin, Matisse, and Picasso were inspired and intrigued by the power of such stark simplicity. There were other powerful forces at play, from politics to communication to technological revolution, which all must have played a role. But there work was more powerful through stripping away many elements and returning to core ideas.
Early Modernism in building architecture was a reaction to a period of high ornamentation. It was an attempt to simplify and strip down architecture to its essential elements and remove all the fenestration. In its purest form it was clean, precise and extraordinarily well built. It contained fascinating political undertones and reflected the coming influence of mechanization of society.
Punk music looked at all the self-indulgence and excess of the 1970’s music and sought to strip music down to its basics. Once again it was more than a reaction to music, it was a reaction to the politics and tough economic times too. The results were short, stripped down, direct, often politically charged songs. The contrast was staggering and exciting while managing to encapsulate the tension or that era.
“True ornament is not a matter of prettifying externals. It is organic with the structure it adorns, whether a person, a building, or a park.” Frank Lloyd Wright
When I look reflectively back on Modern Golf Architecture, dominant in the 1980 and 1990’s or the most important Minimalist work done in the 1990’s to now, they share something in common. They feature very elaborate bunkering and were all built to be attractive to the eye. In the last 50 years aesthetics have dominated design.
“Less is only more where more is no good.” Frank Lloyd Wright
I love history, so often I like to think about what might come next. Knowing a new movement requires a reaction to the current movement, I found there weren’t many obvious directions to go in golf. The one direction that makes the most sense is the concept of stripping down golf architecture to something far simpler, particularly in presentation. It would address the economics of this current era. It would make a nice reaction to the previous two eras of more and more visual appeal.
Interestingly, in my opinion, it would require architects to show more creativity since they could no longer depend on hazards (bunkers in particular) to visually sell their work. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe bunkering will always be essential to the game, but excessive bunkering has always been architecturally lazy. And why I always felt bunkering to frame a hole or provide a target is the lowest form of the art in our design profession.
Before you point out that St. Andrew’s has a lot of bunkers, or Pinehurst #2 is now so impressive with the waste areas. I will point out both St. Andrew’s and the previous version of Pinehurst #2 did not rely one iota on aesthetics. The courses were great because they played great and that was inspiring enough to have them be considered among the finest examples of architecture in the game.
If we acknowledge that greatness lies in how a course plays and what the ball does on the ground, isn’t it possible, perhaps even probable, that the next movement in the art of golf architecture is a lot less emphasis on bunkering and bunker style and a whole lot more on the ground contours and play.
You wanted something interesting to discuss. Take the time to reflect on what you like and how you would react to this change in the presentation of architecture. Be honest. Kill the idea if you hate it. Fight like hell for it if you think the aesthetics are overdone in general.
-
Ian:
You need to come and see The Loop. One of the byproducts of building a reversible course was that we needed to forgo a lot of the aesthetics to make the course work in both directions. [Nearly everything you do to make a hole look better, in one direction, makes it look worse in the other.] I understood that going in, but did not quite anticipate the result.
As happy as I am with it, I suspect the course won't be rated so highly by people who have "memorability" and "aesthetics" as prime criteria of worthiness, and I doubt that other clients will clamor for something so stripped down. It would be nice if design wasn't all about the top 100, wouldn't it?
-
Tom,
I plan to see the Loop with you, that has always been a given. I'm even more interested with what you just shared. The photos that @brianmooreturf posts on twitter look fantastic.
The September date has given me fits (we have a short window to renovate). I'm trying to figure out if I can get there and keep three projects going. I'm not out, but I'm not in yet either.
-
Ian,
Good topic...if sand had been green we would have a lot less bunkers...
-
Ian,
Interesting topic....you are soooooooo deep!
I have been giving the entire "ornamentation" thought process another look.
I do believe we design for people, and it is time to start designing for the next generation of golfers, not the last. As much as I think the visuals were affected by us being the "TV" generation, I can't help but think the kids brought up on video games won't want/need even more exciting visuals than even our generation.
Sometimes I think maybe golf will be urbanites only chance to see nature, which might start a trend back to mostly grass and trees, but then, I see Disney marketing their theme parks as true "adventure" vacations (huh?) and go back to thinking golf will still need to be an even more stylized substitute for nature to be popular.
As to your fondness for Cubism, I agree it was an (over) reaction, just as modern architecture was an over reaction to ornamentation. But, Cubism also shows how the human brain takes in weird stuff and processes it. In other words, golf courses as art don't really need to be natural to be appreciated. And, going all the way back to basics might be an over swing of the pendulum. In all things, it hardly ever happens, but seems like it would be nice if the pendulum stopped closer to the middle, rather than veer all over the place to extremes.
-
Ian,
The reason you are more fond of Cubism than most of us is that you were free to go there and we have had an embargo on the country for years.... :)
-
Ha ha ha ... Cuba ... Cubism
Ian, do other architects beyond FLW talk about simplicity? Knowing what I do about his architecture from the few buildings we have of his in Buffalo, simplicity might be the fifth word that comes to mind when I think of FLW, in both appearance and engineering.
-
Ha ha ha ... Cuba ... Cubism
Ian, do other architects beyond FLW talk about simplicity? Knowing what I do about his architecture from the few buildings we have of his in Buffalo, simplicity might be the fifth word that comes to mind when I think of FLW, in both appearance and engineering.
Phillip Johnson...Greene and Greene are a couple
-
8) What would a basic Matisse inspired routing look like?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/images_zpstznohd61.jpeg)
-
Whether in films or books or music or golf courses, I find that I enjoy and appreciate the same basic approach/quality, i.e. art without artifice -- without the self-conscious and self-serving tricks that focus our attention on the artist instead of on the art.
It takes the rare combination of utmost skill/craftsmanship alongside the maturity and confidence to rein in the desire to show off, or the need to glorify oneself.
It's a knife-edge, I think: the introversion of a saint and the extroversion of a showman -- creating with a pure and clear intention focused on the work itself, yet with a constant awareness that the work exists and is meant to serve others.
For golf course architects, the wild card is the client. Lots of showmen in the "client class", but few (patron) saints.
Peter
PS - Ian, when you were with DC, did you have a hand in Ballantrae?
-
Mies Van der Rohe ............ "God is in the details".
Examples please: My limited perspective is that I have played only 2 courses that might get a 10 (Pinehurst #2 & Pacific Dunes(I presume the latter will get a 10 in the 3rd Volume)). These courses are anything but minimal or reductionist. It would take me another 50 rounds or so to begin to"learn" them.
-
Ian - Strip it down, but even in its most true, honest and barebones state, it must evoke emotion.
-
Ian,
Good topic...if sand had been green we would have a lot less bunkers...
Mad awesome quote.
-
Ian - Strip it down, but even in its most true, honest and barebones state, it must evoke emotion.
But Jaeger...isn't it the decisions and shots that create the emotion?
-
Ian,
A very well introduced thread and topic.
My preference in golf is for things to be very lean, bare-boned, pared down and rudimentary. I truly believe that there is an opening for golf courses that do not have razz-a-matazz and an overabundance of bunkers. as long as there is contour to the field all would be very well.
So I am all for golf course architecture to enter a supra-minimalist phase. It would be economically sensible and allow many more people to simply hit the ball aboot the course!
Great topic,
Cheers Colin
-
Ian - Strip it down, but even in its most true, honest and barebones state, it must evoke emotion.
But Jaeger...isn't it the decisions and shots that create the emotion?
No. Think deeper. You shouldn't need to actually play the game to feel the emotion if the architecture is good enough, no matter how much you strip away... I am talking about connecting the user with the space, in this case it is a landscape.
-
Ian,
Very interesting topic. I feel as though the current economics of the game is forcing the stripping down of GCA, which in the right hands may well be a silver lining to some of the excesses of the past. Jaeger brings up a good point as well, that to varying degrees the aesthetics of the landscape factor in to the experience. The question is how and to what degree and level of importance. The subtlest minimalist low budget inland design can provide not only a fun strategic game, but a deep sense of communing with nature. Whether this translates into rankings and/or economics is a different, albeit integral, discussion. I guess the challenge is how to make an economically sound plan that focuses primarily on strategy, fun for all and affordable maintenance while perhaps having a few token concessions to the eye-candy bunker crowd that don't blow the budget.
-
Ian,
Very interesting topic. I feel as though the current economics of the game will force the stripping down of GCA, which in the right hands may well be a silver lining to some of the excesses of the past. Jaeger brings up a good point as well, that to varying degrees the aesthetics of the landscape factor in to the experience. The question is how and to what degree and level of importance. The subtlest minimalist low budget inland design can provide not only a fun strategic game, but a deep sense of communing with nature. Whether this translates into rankings and economics is a different, albeit integral, discussion. I guess the challenge is how to make an economically sound plan that focuses primarily on strategy, fun for all and affordable maintenance while perhaps having a few token concessions to the eye-candy bunker crowd that don't blow the budget.
I think there may already be more of this around than we acknowledge on this site. First, the types of courses you mention don't advertise and depend on locals. Second, the "over dressed" golf courses you are talking about are usually done that way not for the golf but for attracting people either to resorts or housing or clubs. And , IMHO, if the land and topography allow natural bunkers with exisiting "in ground" sand then bunkers might not blow the budget. The need for bunkers in climates and regions where they should not be is the issue. JMO
-
Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.
Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?
Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.
-
Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.
Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?
Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.
Jaeger--
What aspects of the "honest connection between the architecture and the landscape" are the ones that "evoke emotion," if not the way it looks to the third parties who experience it, and the resulting judgments? A golf course is a piece of visual art. The visuality (?) of it is necessary for the assessment of it.
Also, I'm not sure what implications are attached to your contention that Picasso and Braque (the intent behind Hendrix' clothes doesn't matter much, since his art was sound) were not "after an aesthetic." They painted "what they truly felt inside of them," okay, fine, so what? It's still the case that the people who look at their paintings can't help but regard them as entities in possession of some kind of aesthetic. Whether or not the artist intends to impose an aesthetic on the work, by virtue of being a visual artist, (s)he imposes an aesthetic on the work. No aesthetic, no visual art.
-
First of all, I agree with Tom Doak that The Loop should be experienced in line with this thread. I think he's done a great job there stripping down architecture - in large part because he had to due to the reversible design.
Overall, I think that many of the "old" design features have been lost to a large degree. Deep swales, chocolate drops, and sidehill lies are too often abandoned in favor of what Redanman called the "bunker fetish".
But best to me is a combination of swales, natural mounding, sidehill lies, and great strategic bunkering.
-
I posted last week about a golf course which truly exemplifies stripped down architecture. Hopson Hills Golf Course. No bunkers, no fairway irrigation. Certainly not the first golf course built like this, but it is a NEW course and a real-time indicator of where US golf may be going in 10-15 years? Hopefully Hopson will still be around in this time...
I'm learning through first hand experience, right now, from customer feedback, maintaining the golf course, and helping with its design that the average player really just wants to find their ball. Some customers have asked for more "definition" with the use of trees or bunkers and they may indeed be added over time, maybe 5-7. However, width and "findability" seem to be the key ingredients to the enjoyment of the golf course for MOST people.
Now speaking personally, this is a place which evokes emotion for me because I know how the course was built and I respect the methodology, for its efficiency and thoughtfulness. Not only that , Hopson also happens to be a beautiful place with long views and a variety of colors and native vegitation. Some people like myself appreciate the pure intention for golf here, others just want to drink beer and find their ball. Either way the stripped down architecture can be enjoyed by everyone because its affordable.
-
The need for bunkers in climates and regions where they should not be is the issue. JMO
Mike:
Have you ever built a bunkerless course down in that fine Georgia clay? [Or anywhere else?]
What's the fewest bunkers you have built? And what's more typical for you?
I definitely build fewer bunkers on the rare occasions we have dealt with clay. Quail Crossing has about 40 bunkers, if I recall correctly - none at all on the first two holes, but then I spoiled it by putting about 8 of them on the 16th. Our new course in France also has about 35-40. That's probably more than they needed; but if I'm going to build fewer bunkers, I'm going to have to staff the projects thinner. ;)
-
The need for bunkers in climates and regions where they should not be is the issue. JMO
Mike:
Have you ever built a bunkerless course down in that fine Georgia clay? [Or anywhere else?]
What's the fewest bunkers you have built? And what's more typical for you?
I definitely build fewer bunkers on the rare occasions we have dealt with clay. Quail Crossing has about 40 bunkers, if I recall correctly - none at all on the first two holes, but then I spoiled it by putting about 8 of them on the 16th. Our new course in France also has about 35-40. That's probably more than they needed; but if I'm going to build fewer bunkers, I'm going to have to staff the projects thinner. ;)
I've built a couple that had between 15-20. For most courses in my area with a normal budget a flat sand bunker is the only practical solution IMHO. I just don't see how one can replicate a "sand land" bunker and have it last. For example, I really admire Cuscowilla ( not to be dissing a sacred cow on the site ;D ) but the bunkers are a mess because they replicate a sand based bunker. Just not practical there. I assume they will be eventually be modified in some way.
-
When I rebuilt Maple Downs (new greens, tees and bunkers) I widened fairways, created feeder slopes and used short grass run-offs to emphasize the land. I also removed every target and comfort bunker on the course.
When I presented my plan to the committee, I went hole by hole and each hole was approved on its own merit. When done I finished up and said congratulations you've approved a course with only 29 bunkers!
They couldn't do it.
The number scared them and we added a couple. Eventually the membership fought for a few more. We only added eight, but not one were necessary.
Bunker is far less important than its given credit for strategically. But it's so easy to keep adding more and more and think your creating "more" strategy ... when your not ... your just making things more obvious
-
Bunker is far less important than its given credit for strategically. But it's so easy to add more and more and think your creating more strategy ... when your not ... your just making things more obvious
Ian:
I often think about how few fairway bunkers there are at Crystal Downs. The back nine, which is more Maxwell's, really has none other than the 15th hole, and my favorite 8th hole doesn't have one, either. They just aren't necessary ... position on a particular side of the fairway is key to playing all of those holes, and position is well defended by the rough or by trees. You can tell that MacKenzie was more involved with the first few holes, because there are more bunkers!
-
Tom / Ian , hello! I've seen Crystal only twice, but both times impressed with the elegance of the presentation. What do I know, but I don't think Crystal would be that much improved with more bunkering?
Do you reckon that Crystal is "stripped down to its architectural core"?
What if Mackenzie was there the whole time, would Crystal downs have been that much different from a bunkering point of view?[size=78%] [/size]
-
Jeffrey - interesting that you and Tom mention Crystal Downs. I have only played it once, and while undoubtedly a great golf course, for me it had more "artifice" than art to it; in short, I don't think of it as "stripped down". Much like Augusta (the only other Dr Mac course I'm familiar with, but only through hundreds of television viewings), I found the "planning" of Dr Mac's work very evident there, very "conscious/self-conscious" for lack of a better term. Perhaps that is why my favourite holes at CD, besides the Par 5 8th -- which is the only Par 5 I've ever loved -- were the Par 3s: there was something remarkably understated and stripped-down about their design and presentation, i.e. they "work" and fulfill their purpose beautifully, but without -- as, for me, many of the famous Par 4s seem to do -- drawing attention to their architecture/strategy/choices.
Earlier in the thread Tom mentioned The Loop -- and from photos and write ups, it seems a course that, in part because of its reversibility, has been stripped down to it essence, both in terms of its playability and with its aesthetics; I imagine that any "artifice" there, any strikingly-evident and obvious "design", would stand out like a sore thumb....if not from one direction than certainly from the other.
I asked earlier if Ian had worked (while with Doug Carrick) on Ballantrae , a course north of Toronto that I played (many years ago) several times. On the one hand, you couldn't find a more quintessential housing/real estate course -- I imagine the routing was directly tied to/had to take into account that component; but on the other hand, I remember it as an excellent example of a particular kind of stripped down and low-to-the-ground and understated golf course...and I remember how much my friends and I (ranging from a 4 handicap to a 18) enjoyed it and found it playable and commented on the quality of the design, years before any of us really thought about architecture. (Years later, it occurred to me that it was the closest I'd yet come to playing something akin to Garden City). If Ian DID have something to do with the design, it shows that his appreciation for such apparent simplicity of intent and design is of long standing.
Peter
-
I don't think of fewer bunkers as stripped down architecture. I think fewer bunkers offers more of an opportunity for a better design if a more balanced tool bag features are used.
Ciao
-
Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.
Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?
Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.
Jaeger--
What aspects of the "honest connection between the architecture and the landscape" are the ones that "evoke emotion," if not the way it looks to the third parties who experience it, and the resulting judgments? A golf course is a piece of visual art. The visuality (?) of it is necessary for the assessment of it.
Also, I'm not sure what implications are attached to your contention that Picasso and Braque (the intent behind Hendrix' clothes doesn't matter much, since his art was sound) were not "after an aesthetic." They painted "what they truly felt inside of them," okay, fine, so what? It's still the case that the people who look at their paintings can't help but regard them as entities in possession of some kind of aesthetic. Whether or not the artist intends to impose an aesthetic on the work, by virtue of being a visual artist, (s)he imposes an aesthetic on the work. No aesthetic, no visual art.
Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).
Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.
It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!
Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.
-
I don't think of fewer bunkers as stripped down architecture.
Ciao
Totally agree.
When I think stripped down architecture the first place my mind goes is a man wandering around in nature with a club hitting a ball towards things his eye picks out. I start to think about when I used to grab a club and a ball and make up holes in the practice fields behind my dorm room at college. Hitting it through the goal posts towards a fence post beyond. Then back around around a tree to lacrosse net, etc. Friends joined, it became a game. Is that not the essence of golf?
The next example my mind goes to is the Sheep Ranch. Although I've never been there, I've stared at the sketch and article on Tom's wall for hours... The Loop looks exceptionally interesting to me.
-
Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).
Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.
It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!
Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.
Jaeger you are on a roll don't stop ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI
-
Peter,
I think Ian gets the credit for mentioning CD, just trying to go with the flow of the conversation... Dr. Mackenzie often gets associated with flashy bunkering but CD is somewhat reserved and Jockey Club also did not strike me as overly bunkered (no chance to hide the artifice at Jockey). However both courses demand thoughtful positioning. I couldn't have exemplified two more topographically different courses, but both use a variety of ground contouring and bunkering to create interesting architecture (at Jockey many of the drainage swales which run across the fairways are used to create uneven lies on an otherwise flat property)
I tend to agree with Ian that bunkering makes strategy more obvious, but like Sean says, if used in conjunction with good ground game strategy, you will ineveitably come out with some really though provoking golf architecture. The loop is evidence of that as well.
I've been regularly playing / maintaining a bunkerless course for the last month now. Lots of intriguing ground contours to keep things interesting and a good forward bounce allow the architecture to reveal itself through playing. I think the course would improve with some bunkering but it really doesn't need any.
This is the essential balance... A flat course like Jockey Club or even a place like Bob O' Link needs artificial features (bunkering / push up greens) to keep things interesting. If you have enough contour, a few bunkers here and there should be enough to grab your attention.
-
If you strip a golf course down, the one thing it has to has to have is cups. We can choose to mow a "green area" at a lower height for putting and we can locate some tee areas to initiate the hole. Rough is not needed and bunkers are not needed. IMHO bunkers could be the first thing to go and rough second. Why have we allowed the bunker to consume so much?
-
If you strip a golf course down, the one thing it has to has to have is cups. We can choose to mow a "green area" at a lower height for putting and we can locate some tee areas to initiate the hole. Rough is not needed and bunkers are not needed. IMHO bunkers could be the first thing to go and rough second. Why have we allowed the bunker to consume so much?
Mike:
I will quibble with your reduction here. Rough is NOT needed ... but grass doesn't mow itself, so unless you have a bunch of animals grazing the field of play, it is the fairways that golfers add to the landscape, not the rough.
Interestingly, some of my favorite courses in the UK are still grazed, and some of my favorite sites that I've worked on [incl. Cape Kidnappers and St. Andrews Beach and Rock Creek and Dismal River] were open grazing land when we started. It sucked when we had to take the cattle away, and all the rough started to assert itself.
I remember spending a couple of days at The National GC [Australia] with Mike Clayton when the land for the two newer courses was all being grazed, and it was just spectacular ... much more beautiful than the corridors through the native rough there today. It looked like the surface of the ocean, only green.
-
While Mike Y is being somewhat facetious, we do have to define what "core" architecture is before deciding whether to strip down to it. As I read this, it seems like an obtuse method of (again) celebrating minimalism and defending it as the only true path (much like some religions tout themselves)
I am more in the TEPaul "Big World" theory and believe now (as always) we are best off letting every architect and owner explore their own vision of architecture and await the results before we give it an automatic "thumbs down" based on preconceptions of any kind, not playing the course.
-
Jaeger you are on a roll don't stop ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI)
Hey Man, Don't drink the purple kool aid! ;D [size=78%] [/size][/size][size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13tx3pFNjNI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13tx3pFNjNI)[/size]
-
Jud - It isn't about aesthetics. That will be stripped away. It is about the honest connection between the architecture and the landscape which should evoke emotion.
Do you think Picasso and Braque were after an aesthetic? Or was it after they started painting what they truly felt inside of them, that people in the salons and galleries felt connected to this sort of expression?
Do you think Jimmy Hendrix wore clothes like that as a part of a wardrobe? No, that was him being true to himself. That is why when he started to play the way he wanted to play, people connected with something nobody had every heard or seen before.
Jaeger--
What aspects of the "honest connection between the architecture and the landscape" are the ones that "evoke emotion," if not the way it looks to the third parties who experience it, and the resulting judgments? A golf course is a piece of visual art. The visuality (?) of it is necessary for the assessment of it.
Also, I'm not sure what implications are attached to your contention that Picasso and Braque (the intent behind Hendrix' clothes doesn't matter much, since his art was sound) were not "after an aesthetic." They painted "what they truly felt inside of them," okay, fine, so what? It's still the case that the people who look at their paintings can't help but regard them as entities in possession of some kind of aesthetic. Whether or not the artist intends to impose an aesthetic on the work, by virtue of being a visual artist, (s)he imposes an aesthetic on the work. No aesthetic, no visual art.
Tim the essence of what I'm saying is that you do not going about designing an aesthetic, at least in this stripped down architecture. Build what is true to the site, to the architect, to the landscape, and a its own unique aesthetic will form... Great architecture evokes emotion by moving the user through space(s).
Your above about "okay, fine, so what", is glossing over the fact that they broke something down and reassembled it in an entirely knew what that had never been thought of before. They took the same paints, the same colors, the same guitar, and put it back together. Instead of painting a thing, they painted emotional reactions to a thing. It is not the colors that is the reason why their work is in the museums and history books. Their work is there because they took the norm, broke it down, and used it as a weapon to rebel against the norm.
It is not about the colors, it is about the Why!
Golf course architecture is way more than a visual art.
Jaeger--
I think you're in error to discount the colors used in those paintings as an element of their greatness. Someone like Mark Rothko would certainly take issue with your dismissal of that key element of painting (and his works are abstract in broadly similar ways as Picasso's), just like I'm taking issue with your dismissal of the fact that to the player, whether the architect imposed or channeled an aesthetic just doesn't matter, because how a stripped-down course looks is still how it looks. It's the experience of seeing and playing the course that "evokes emotion."
I'd be interested in reading the writings of golf course architects that speak directly to the conclusions you're arguing for. Which specific architects are/were demonstrably in dialogue with the likes of Picasso and Braque then, and chefs like Ferran Adria and Grant Achatz (whose molecular gastronomy movement is the culinary version of what you're applying to golf) now?
-
I asked earlier if Ian had worked (while with Doug Carrick) on Ballantrae , a course north of Toronto that I played (many years ago) several times. On the one hand, you couldn't find a more quintessential housing/real estate course -- I imagine the routing was directly tied to/had to take into account that component; but on the other hand, I remember it as an excellent example of a particular kind of stripped down and low-to-the-ground and understated golf course...and I remember how much my friends and I (ranging from a 4 handicap to a 18) enjoyed it and found it playable and commented on the quality of the design, years before any of us really thought about architecture. (Years later, it occurred to me that it was the closest I'd yet come to playing something akin to Garden City). If Ian DID have something to do with the design, it shows that his appreciation for such apparent simplicity of intent and design is of long standing.
It is actually my work. It was done while working for him. He provided the initial routing/housing plan. I revised the plan as the development began to alter corridors. I was allowed to design and build the course on my own.
Doug changed the 11th after I left the firm (to yield more housing). That's not my hole of green.
The property had only four feet of elevation change and it was a single fall from west to east.
Glad you liked it, I think those greens are the best I ever produced.
-
Tim - It is always going to feel different to every individual. As long as they feel something, I suppose... What if you didn't play, and just walked around?
Good call on the chefs! I find many of those guys incredibly inspiring and analogous to this stripped down architecture concept that Ian started, and I have gone off the deep end with!
I'm not sure there is much written on the breaking down of gca in this context. Maybe if you look back into the writings by Thomas about the multi-purpose short course in a driving range concept he shared with Tillinghast, and was criticized at Riviera by MacKenzie. I don't recall much of what Simpson wrote to accompany the reversible course in his book... See what you can find on Urbina and Doak's basecamp golf idea maybe scattered in the deep reaches of this site!
-
When I was getting into the business thirty years ago, one of the biggest buzzwords was "definition". Most architects felt like they had to "define" every shot with a target bunker through the fairway, or bunkers bracketing the greens, or trees, or mounding to visually contain the hole and not let you see another. That was so different than the older courses that I'd seen, that it was the part I rebelled against when I started building things in my own version of minimalism.
Over time, we came to see that even the mowing lines were part of the modern trend toward formal "definition", and we began trying to blur those as well, just so they wouldn't stand out visually. The majority of the "eye candy bunkers" that some criticize on my courses were actually placed for anti-visual purposes ... to break up a long mowing line on the outside of the hole and make it go away visually. Eventually, we got down to just two cuts of grass at places like Sebonack and Streamsong and Dismal River, with the tees connected to the previous fairway in one big blob, as on an old drawing we'd seen of The Valley Club that still hangs on a wall in my office.
I suppose you can strip it down even more than that, but it's probably going to require sheep to do the job right.
-
Fascinating to wonder how "definition" ever became a positive value in creating fields of play for an outdoor game, one with its playing so intimately tied to Nature and with its roots so firmly in the Scottish linksland.
Maybe there were just too many architects living in luxury gated communities back then, what with their razor-straight boulevards and sharply lined hedges, and with nary a leaf out of place. The keeping up with the Jones values of order, uniformity and sterile cleanliness transplanted to the natural world, and creating the aptly-named Country Clubs for a Day.
What a horror, when you really think of it -- the so-called "beautifying" of all things random and wild and crooked and imperfect. At its worst, it feels like another example of colonization (of the near defenceless) by a smugly dominant culture.
-
8) Sometimes one mundane, but well placed bunker can present a test
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/IMG_0967_zpsij7s38lr.jpg)
-
Ian,
I'm a bit late to this but a very interesting topic and I enjoyed your mentioning the advent of modernist architecture to support your case, which I felt was very appropriate. Being an Architect myself (of buildings, not golf courses, sadly) and having studied at Mies van Rohe's school here in Chicago, some of these issues resonated with me:
You stated Modernism was "a reaction to a period of high ornamentation", which is true, specifically a reaction to the the Beaux-Arts style popular in Europe at the time. Beaux-Arts was a heavily ornamented, classical approach to architecture (think 19th century Paris, or most of Europe, lol). Modernism was also a reaction to the various political upheavals at the time, but very much a reaction to the industrial revolution, which brought many new building materials and construction methodologies into play (i.e. steel and glass). Modernism dealt with an analytical approach to function and an openness to innovation, as most modernists felt Beaux-Arts was "stuck" in a philosophy that no longer reflected the current times. Is GCA philosophy currently "stuck"? Or what is GCA reacting to to warrant a stripping down?
Also was your mention of ornamentation. Ornamentation and Decoration (not the same thing) can be huge trigger words for Modernists! I could wax philosophically on this but in short, I was taught or came to understand that decoration is bad (i.e. Post Modernist architecture, blech) and ornamentation CAN be good if it is used as a seed, where the essence of the underlying structure is brought to life, expressing a reasoned harmony of all parts within. Many Modernist Archy's would say there's no room for ornamentation in Modernist architecture but I would disagree. Can a similar argument be made in GCA?
And another quote:
"Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins." - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Modernism's no. 1 ODG) To me it's ALL about the word "carefully"!
What would the GCA equivalent be? Golf Course Architecture begins when ________" ?
-
"Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins." - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Modernism's no. 1 ODG) To me it's ALL about the word "carefully"!
What would the GCA equivalent be? Golf Course Architecture begins when ________" ?
Golf course architecture begins when you identify a point for a tee and a green.
However, most of these building architecture terms are used in different ways when applied to golf course architecture. Minimalism in building architecture [as I understand it] is VERY different than how it's come to be applied to golf design.
-
When I was getting into the business thirty years ago, one of the biggest buzzwords was "definition". Most architects felt like they had to "define" every shot with a target bunker through the fairway, or bunkers bracketing the greens, or trees, or mounding to visually contain the hole and not let you see another. That was so different than the older courses that I'd seen, that it was the part I rebelled against when I started building things in my own version of minimalism.
Over time, we came to see that even the mowing lines were part of the modern trend toward formal "definition", and we began trying to blur those as well, just so they wouldn't stand out visually. The majority of the "eye candy bunkers" that some criticize on my courses were actually placed for anti-visual purposes ... to break up a long mowing line on the outside of the hole and make it go away visually. Eventually, we got down to just two cuts of grass at places like Sebonack and Streamsong and Dismal River, with the tees connected to the previous fairway in one big blob, as on an old drawing we'd seen of The Valley Club that still hangs on a wall in my office.
I suppose you can strip it down even more than that, but it's probably going to require sheep to do the job right.
I think there are different types of definition. You seem to referring to playing corridor definition or as I call, road mapping. I don't have much interest in that sort of thing. These days I am noticing quite a bit of higher profiling of bunkers. That is making bunkers more visible on the landscape. I spose the thinking is if the bunker can be seen, why not make it properly visible?
It is interesting that at times you prefer to place a bunker not because you think it helps the strategy of the hole, but to hide or break up long (and presumably unattractive) grassing lines. I spose this is another instance of having to decide the best least attractive option. This is one area where I think placing bunkers rather randomly, but in natural pockets/upslopes can go a long way to helping aesthetics. Although, it can quickly become too much if the archie isn't careful. I like this approach because there will be some bunkers which I never give any thought until that one weird weather day....
Ciao
-
One of my favourite quotes on design is -
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I think that this really expresses my views on the ornamentation of golf courses with features purely for eye candy. If we limit the use of bunkers or other features but place the ones that we use to maximum effect then I think that the end result is more satisfying.
I fully understand that the number required will very much depend on the land on which the course is built and its contours but still start from the principle that less is more.
-
I'm a little late coming here...but when comparing stripped down design styles that represent the most basic values of golf design...then the furniture design of the Mission/Arts and Crafts/Stickley movement come pretty close to a 'form follows function' philosophy that I try to apply to my own golf design. I still question myself at least twice when I have an urge to put in a bunker, and probably about 75% of the time I don't.
It's kind of like the old carpentry adage of 'measure twice, cut once'.
Tom D...I hope to see your work on the Loop sometime because that's a concept I've spent much idle mind time contemplating. I even like the idea of only seeing bunkers while playing in one direction, and none while playing in the other.
-
I didn't like The Loop. The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes. I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing. Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design. Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses. Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work. As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves. And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable. Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.
-
Tom D -
A minor historical note - Joshua Crane strongly advocated more definition on golf courses. He wanted to see clear rough lines and bunker/hazard edges.
Crane believed "definition" was one prerequisites of a "fair" golf hole.
[I've sometimes wondered if - perversely - Crane wasn't more influential on post WWII gca than the famous names from the Golden Age.]
Bob
-
Andrew -
I think Doak's architectural bet at The Loop is that golfers will get past the need for "eye catching aesthetics" and see the courses for what they purport to be - as presenting interesting golfing challenges that are pretty unique in the US.
Doak will lose that bet with some golfers. But I think in the long run The Loop will be appreciated as great fun and strikingly different kinds of course(s) that will draw a lot of people to northern Michigan.
Bob
-
A couple of random thoughts before boarding the plane for Bob Cupp's memorial.....
JN just had a press link (not sure where I found it) saying he thinks golfers first and foremost like an eye pleasing golf course. So, he apparently hadn't given the stripped down thing a thought. I have, and still believe those of us growing up in the TV generation, and now video games, are just more visual than when golf began. I would say you strip out aesthetics in the name of some esoteric design theory at your peril.
Not to mention, the world isn't stripping down and golf architecture can't in many ways because of it, a la, permits, views from residential, enviro sensitivity (which you would think would mean leave more untouched, but in so many cases, means grade more to control water flow, etc.
As to bunkering, most of us find we are stripping out "unnecessary" bunkers (and maybe always have) because of budget.
As to definition, as I read architecture history, I see it as a constant upwards desire of players and architects. There may be some other factors, like busier courses, surrounding housing, etc. that has accelerated the long standing trend. Golfers want info, whether yardage books, lasers, distance markers, etc. When that idea matured, definition in golf architecture followed.
Its great that a few architects are going back to the all turf, two cut, less definition look. It might be one of the last ways to fool a pro, or maybe not, given all their other aids, maybe indecision has gone out of style for good. At the very least, I would say the world is just complicated enough that it is a great variety to have different styles, a la no definition, but won't, and perhaps shouldn't be accepted as norm everywhere.
-
While Mike Y is being somewhat facetious, we do have to define what "core" architecture is before deciding whether to strip down to it. As I read this, it seems like an obtuse method of (again) celebrating minimalism and defending it as the only true path (much like some religions tout themselves)
I am more in the TEPaul "Big World" theory and believe now (as always) we are best off letting every architect and owner explore their own vision of architecture and await the results before we give it an automatic "thumbs down" based on preconceptions of any kind, not playing the course.
Jeff,
Not sure I can agree with your suggestion that stripping down to "core architecture" is an obtuse method of celebrating minimalism. To me, it means identifying what really makes a golf hole interesting to play.
Let me give a not well known or discussed example. Sadly, it has been quite a while since I have been back to Dooks - one of the most joyous places in golf IMO. So, forgive me, I know changes have been made to certain holes.
But, anyway, the old 17th hole was an essay in "core architecture" and what makes a hole interesting to play. At first glance this hole was defenseless: only about 300 yards, straight, from an elevated tee and no bunkers if I recall correctly.
Nothing to it, right?
Wrong!
Just short of the green - bleeding into the green - was a depression (I am guessing it was about a foot). Wow, this little hazard could easily cost a stroke or even two.
I found it amazing: such a little hazard could have such a big impact.
Now one might be tempted to say the hole was an example of "minimalism". Not me. The real essence of the hole was its "core architecture": a small, well placed hazard you wouldn't even see the first time you played the hole but it certainly made things quite interesting time and time again.
-
Ian, From the cheap seats,,, there have been several modern courses built with the values you espouse, only to have their playability dilluted by those with neither the ability to adapt, or, to be creative. The shot making nuances, to the slightest change in the agronomy, firmness, and ground contours, requires too much time commitment.
Thomas Kincaid seems analogous.
-
I didn't like The Loop. The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes. I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing. Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design. Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses. Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work. As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves. And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable. Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.
Andrew:
That's a very interesting review ... even more so than a lot of the feedback I am getting from friends and fellow designers who played in the Renaissance Cup. Thanks for posting it.
One reason I have held the reversible concept under wraps for so long is that I knew it would confound how the raters rate, and thus it probably wasn't going to be attractive to clients who were interested in getting a top rating for their course [which is most of them!]. The very thing which makes the project the most interesting -- that the two courses are so different that people struggle to remember which is which -- makes it lose big points for "Memorability" and "Aesthetics."
I believe we could have done more to make the course visually interesting, but we elected not to, partly because the concept is so difficult to pull off that we needed to keep the execution of it simple, at least at first. I am glad it is close to my home, because I think it will benefit from tinkering around at the margins. However, I think that a lot of visual elaboration would have come at the expense of some of its playing interest. As is, it's one of the hardest tee-shot courses I've built, because of the lack of definition, the many angled fairways, and the difficult native rough awaiting those who take a bad line or double-cross their drive. Extra fairway bunkers probably would have allowed players to be more comfortable with it. We have a lot of thinning out to do in the roughs for playability's sake, which will likely add some visual interest, too, but without the pretty bunkers for which my crew are well-known.
Your review is interesting because it's such a mix of feelings, which prompts an honest question: did you really not like it emotionally, as much as you admired parts of it, or is that an analytical response based on the definitions you are rating under? You seem to chafe at being told to rate it as one course ("unfairly") instead of two.
One of my former associates -- a former mathematics major -- said she did not know how to rate the course, because what is 6 + 6 on the Doak scale? She wasn't sure whether it should be 6, or 12, or somewhere in between. I suppose the answer depends on the observer.
Interestingly, the most ardent admirers of the course so far are people I wouldn't have expected: a club manager who thinks it's a home run as a business proposition, and one organization that is already considering the possibilities as a tournament site. Feedback I didn't expect: it will be hard to set up for television, because a camera tower behind the green for one direction is going to get in the way the next day! That certainly wasn't on our radar when we started.
-
I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't. To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?
Peter
-
I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't. To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?
Peter
Pietro
Not at all, only it is easier to tackle a wide as the world subject such as aesthetics a few pieces at a time. I have become far more interested in these aspects of design over "shot value" or other esoteric golf chats. I find it interesting that Doak was willing to possibly use a man-made sand feature to hide man-made grass lines when the sand may have very little impact on the playability aspect of the design. That to me is not stripping back design, but I can't say its necessarily a negative impact on design...indeed Doak intends it to be a positive impact on design.
Ciao
-
I didn't like The Loop. The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes. I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing. Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design. Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses. Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work. As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves. And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable. Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.
Andrew,
What you didn't like is what I did like. :)
-
I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't. To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?
Peter
Peter,
IMHO many people rating courses view color variation as the main aesthetic. They should try viewing some of these places in black and white....
-
Sean, Mike - always good to get your perspectives on my rambling.
Sean - it's interesting how we 'learn' and change; I remember that for many years the only difference between your tastes and mine (based on your English course profiles) seemed to be that you saw the value in -- and even liked -- the chocolate drop mounds and raised false fronts/green side ridges that someone like Colt might use on flat sites, and I thought they were unnecessary and even ugly - a blight on the landscape. I've come to some extent to see the error of my ways, while you seem to be going in the other direction!
Mike - Fascinating. I have my blind spots no doubt (though, being blind spots I'm not aware of what they are!). But that seasoned/sophisticated golfers can chide architects for "eye candy" bunkers and artificial mounding and yet not recognize the eye candy that is color variation is a real surprise to me. Black and white would be a good idea; perhaps even better, as I once proposed on here, is that golf courses only be seen and walked in winter, when they are covered in a thin layer of snow. Nothing puts the focus so squarely on contours and the relationship between features as a snowfall that blots out the aesthetics!
-
A week from now I will be visiting the eldest Goodale sprog who has been working full time in the computer game industry since April, focusing on User Interface. She has absolutely no interest in golf, even though I pushed her in her pram over Royal Dornoch when she was 3 months old, but I think she would be interested in this thread which is effectively all about UI. Keep up all the good thoughts on this thread, archies, and hopefully Caitlin can push me in a virtual pram through the intricacies of her passion next weekend. If I learn anything, I'll let you know.
-
Sean, Mike - always good to get your perspectives on my rambling.
Sean - it's interesting how we 'learn' and change; I remember that for many years the only difference between your tastes and mine (based on your English course profiles) seemed to be that you saw the value in -- and even liked -- the chocolate drop mounds and raised false fronts/green side ridges that someone like Colt might use on flat sites, and I thought they were unnecessary and even ugly - a blight on the landscape. I've come to some extent to see the error of my ways, while you seem to be going in the other direction!
Pietro
Yes, I still like all the weird stuff, but I know that its a very small niche market and most modern archies wouldn't even dream about doing that sort of thing. They have modern methods of creating features which when done right (though this is quite rare) looks wonderful. As with many things in architecture, I think we can trace back attempts at providing a natural aesthetic to Colt etc. Its interesting what has become of that natural style and how a handful of top modern archies are living large on it. I wish these sitting comfortably with guaranteed legacies archies would push the boat out and give us some architecture which is far more blantantly in the golfers' face and decidely unnatural in appearance.
I think Mike is right when he states colour variation is the main aesthetic. The lack of colour variation is, I think, a big reason why some UK parkland courses are not thought of more highly. Somehow, the Sacred 9 broke through that bias, but I do think a great many people still shake their heads in wonder at why it even gets a look into proclaimed greatness.
Ciao
-
When I think stripped down architecture the first place my mind goes is a man wandering around in nature with a club hitting a ball towards things his eye picks out. I start to think about when I used to grab a club and a ball and make up holes in the practice fields behind my dorm room at college. Hitting it through the goal posts towards a fence post beyond. Then back around around a tree to lacrosse net, etc. Friends joined, it became a game. Is that not the essence of golf?
Very nicely described. I reckon many of us have operated in this manner - a young Gary Player hitting shots through and over rugby posts. Seve on the beach with his hand-me-down 3-iron. I played golf like this on the dunes where Trump Aberdeen now resides in this kind of basic manner 30+ years ago.
I imagine visiting Mulranny prior to the recent Buda would have been an interesting eye opener for some. Carne, especially the Kilmore-9, may have been too. Ballyliffin Old and the likes of Gweedore etc as well.
One aspect of "strip down" to remember though is that you need something to compare it with.
Without the other side of the fence, which for discussion purposes I shall term the "flashy" approach, then there is nothing to compare "stripped back" with. Variety is the spice of life and all that. Whilst my preference leans more towards the "stripped back" side of the fence it's interesting/nice to experience the other side occasionally.
Atb
-
I'm glad this thread has risen back to the top. I had a couple things to say.
1. I believe history will show the opportunity to build great new golf courses during the economic expansion from about 1983 - 2008, corresponding to the development of the Internet and electronic communications, was largely squandered on unsustainable, unwalkable designs. It appears unlikely that another period of prolonged prosperity is possible in the foreseeable future. With respect to golf, this is my greatest source of anger and disappointment, a result of letting the bastards run the asylum. I want like-minded architects and designers to enjoy the fruits of our prosperity.
2. I've said before that I often compare golf to baseball, a game where the results are straightforward most of the time, with a possibility for rare play exceptions to the rule. A great golf course should yield rare plays, which can usually come in the form of shots from awkward stances, awkward or unusual lies due to differing vegetation, or from sand. These types of plays test the golfer's patience and skill.
You can build a very good golf course without sand, but I enjoy greenside bunker shots as much as any play in golf. There is great variety of shots offered within a good bunker. You could conceivably offer a full compliment of sand plays by using as few as ten well-placed bunkers, maybe one or two for fairways and eight or nine by the green. Make ten bunkers count, and they would add immense excitement and value to a course.
-
I agree with John K. et. al. that the fewer bunkers the better (particularly fairway ones--use the contours archies!). One thing I find interesting these days is that I play my best fairway irons when my ball ends up in a fresh, unreplaced divot. I HAVE to keep my head down and HAVE to focus on hitting down on the ball. Alternatively, when my ball ends up on an invitingly fluffy piece of turf I am more likely to get distracted, lift my head up too soon and hit the ball unpleasantly thin. The anecdotal GCA meme is that the ODGs waited to place their bunkers until they identified places where most shots tended to end up by looking for the most scarred ground. Given that these days the equipment and techniques for bunker play, either in the fairway or near the green, makes up and down from sand far easier than up and down from turf (particularly where the ground is scarred), why not get rid of as many bunkers as possible and ask golfers to recover from rough ground rather than pristinely manicured sand?
-
Given that these days the equipment and techniques for bunker play, either in the fairway or near the green, makes up and down from sand far easier than up and down from turf (particularly where the ground is scarred), why not get rid of as many bunkers as possible and ask golfers to recover from rough ground rather than pristinely manicured sand?
+1
Atb
-
One of the only complaints I heard about Pacific Dunes during our last KP there was from one of our better players. He lamented that the low pockets in the prime landing zones collected balls and thus made a divot farm. After witnessing the deep furrow he was trapped in I don't particularly like the idea of cultivated divots!
-
Pete
Pacific Dunes advertises itself as a links course. If this is so, daily hand sanding of divot scrapes will solve this problem. During the day if some eejit forgets to replace his or her divot and your ball ends up in a furrow that is called "rub of the green" which can be largely overcome by a sound mind and sound technique. If your playing partner threw his toys out of the pram just because he got unlucky, he is not as good of a player as you may have thought.
Slainte
Rich
-
This thread questions ornamentation. Which I can agree is over done in most circumstances. Fitting hazards in to a landscape should not require building huge showy flashes and marking them with native chunking on every bunker. But when done correctly it defiantly adds to the connection of the golfing landscape to the existing site and its forms. We can all agree when a hazard or contour fits its setting it is art of the highest level. I think that we can also agree that most courses are over bunkered and under contoured. I think that this is why the work of Perry Maxwell is so important to the study of golf as he was so reticent to add a extraneous fairway bunker as pointed out above. But other than on special projects like the Loop could we get away from hiding bunkers and not letting people know of the pearls that exist in front of their nose. This gift I think is reserved for the best and even for them is a reprieve from building courses that shout. Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.
-
Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.
Ben:
Your last sentence has hit on the essence of the problem. Does every architect and every developer really need to design for the raters? If so, then we have reached a new low. The average rater is no match for a thoughtful member.
-
I'm glad this thread has risen back to the top. I had a couple things to say.
1. I believe history will show the opportunity to build great new golf courses during the economic expansion from about 1983 - 2008, corresponding to the development of the Internet and electronic communications, was largely squandered on unsustainable, unwalkable designs. It appears unlikely that another period of prolonged prosperity is possible in the foreseeable future. With respect to golf, this is my greatest source of anger and disappointment, a result of letting the bastards run the asylum. I want like-minded architects and designers to enjoy the fruits of our prosperity.
John, that growth of golf courses had nothing to do with golf and all to do with real estate values. Golf was used and then thrown away. The golf design powers that be at that time were no good and IMHO any guy starting was intimidated and felt those guys knew what they were doing. And this was because there had been no need to train archies since the 30's.....the potential is here for that to repeat itself in another 20 years or so... There was mostly bad golf built after WW2 until the 90's.
-
I'm reminded of a line from Sergeant York, the 1941 film starring Gary Cooper about Alvin York, poor farm boy from the mountains of Tennessee who became the most decorated American solder of WWI. In one scene, Alvin's mother is noting how the land below them is rich and fertile, and the landowners there well-off, while up in the mountain the Yorks work very hard but are very poor, the rocky soil yielding barely enough to keep them fed. And Ma York says: "Queer how the folks that lives on the bottom looks down on the folks on top."
Which is to say: Queer how the original sea-side course and home of golf that has impressed and inspired industry professionals for over a century would be deemed an utter failure if built today -- as dull as dishwater compared to its modern-day equivalents. For every journalist/rater who might recognize the strengths of a newly-built St. Andrews as a field of play, there'd be a thousand journalists and raters ready to anoint Cabot Cliffs a "10" before it even opened. Earlier admirers of The Old Course like Dr. Mackenzie and Max Behr and Bobby Jones and Bernard Darwin didn't use terms like "shot values" or focus on "memorability"; I guess as experts they were too busy appreciating the actual golf that could be played there. It makes me wonder what today's experts are "too busy appreciating"?
Peter
PS - man, I don't understand it myself, but this modern-day change/development has been bugging me for quite a while now -- and more than I know it should. But something is really rubbing me the wrong way about this, i.e. this acute and snobbish sensitivity to "eye candy" and yet a seemingly total blindness to how the "spectacular" has similarly so little to do with the actual game. I know that there is no one here but us chickens, and that we get the golf courses we deserve -- but I find myself wishing that there could be only one rater in the world, and only one list: Sean Arble, and his Top 100 Value Propositions.
-
Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.
Ben:
Your last sentence has hit on the essence of the problem. Does every architect and every developer really need to design for the raters? If so, then we have reached a new low. The average rater is no match for a thoughtful member.
Raters are only part of the story...that goes hand in glove with coffee table photography. Some angles of particular holes/features can come to define a course in the mind of the casual magazine reading golfer.
However....speaking as a rater...its painful to think of golf courses in terms of quality rather than interest. Looking at courses from a quality perspective forces me to look for things rather than see what is there.
Ciao
-
Looking at courses from a quality perspective forces me to look for things rather than see what is there.
Yes, this is my problem with a lot of the "checklist" ranking formulas, as well.
For me, the ultimate interest in a course is based on how many interesting holes it has. How many people really choose where to play based on a lack of weaknesses?
-
So the impact of the slam-bam-thank-you-mam rater experience has Trumped, pun intended, the thoughtful consideration of multiple play member or local experience. Now that I'm again looking at college rankings for another kid and looking more closely at the criteria used, I realize how silly pretty much all of these lists are and how possibly destructive they can be if taken at face value.
-
I had written...Taking the lowly 74th response position for:
But Jud sneaked in and used it for something worthwhile, so that changes to:
Wasting the coveted 75th response position for:
"Tomorrow is a busy day
We got things to do, We got eggs to lay
We got ground to dig and worms to scratch
It takes a lot of settin', gettin' chicks to hatch
Oh, there ain't nobody here but us chickens
There ain't nobody here at all
So quiet yourself and stop that fuss
There ain't nobody here but us
Kindly point that gun the other way
And hobble, hobble hobble of and hit the hay."
"Ain't Nobody Here Bus Us Chickens", written by Alex Kramer and Joan Whitney. Popularized by Louis Jordan & His Tympani Five in 1946.