Two unique golf courses Stone Harbor and Running Deer were built with tremendous imagination!
i have fun looking outside of golf for inspiration and then trying to relate it back to golf. I think less about the product and more about how it functions and the techniques used to create it. So many courses have been built and designed, it's hard to keep looking inward for inspiration. That's just going to lead to more and more bombastic architecture. That's fine to a point, but if we get to a place where a triple Sitwell green is looked upon as pushing the envelope I think we'll have missed the mark. Looking beyond golf is where I think some new ideas will emerge. And as Ian said, golf still needs to be played on whatever is created, so pushing the envelope can't just be art for arts' sake.
Skateboarding, particularly street skating, has many parallels to golf. Street skaters are constantly finding design elements and finding ways to utilize them. They sequence tricks over obstacles and hazards to create routings. The more i learn, the more i realize street skaters and the original links golfers have a lot in common.
Also reading a book called Built By Animals: natural history of animal architecture. very cool to look at architecture of animals.
Some artists working in LA did an installation at the MoMA with drain pipe that was worth researching more. makes me wonder why all that stuff stays below ground.
Kendrick Lamar, a rapper, made an album a few years back called DAMN, that was later revealed to be reversible. The songs played in reverse order and the sequence of the content still held up. Always thought it’d be interesting to have Kendrick Lamar and Tom Doak sit down and discuss their reversible designs and see if certain design processes or techniques overlapped.
Kendrick Lamar, a rapper, made an album a few years back called DAMN, that was later revealed to be reversible. The songs played in reverse order and the sequence of the content still held up. Always thought it’d be interesting to have Kendrick Lamar and Tom Doak sit down and discuss their reversible designs and see if certain design processes or techniques overlapped.
Archie -
previous posts got me thinking that very few push the envelope because of the primary importance of *function* in gca.
In this the architect is most like not a writer or film director or painter or musician but a tailor.
A bespoke $4000 Italian-made fine wool suit has (and must have, in order to be called a suit) much more in common with a $300 off-the-rack version than it has differences.
They both have lapels and a vent at the back and three buttons and two sleeves and a breast pocket and flat front two-legged trousers with belt loops etc etc. And from 20 yards away I wouldn't be able to tell one from the other.
But *up close* (the way we tend to look at gca here), the former's finer 'textures' and 'materials' and 'craftsmanship' and 'drape' and intangible sense of 'classic style' would be much more readily apparent.
And yet, that $4000 suit is not 'pushing the envelope'. It's still just a suit.
The architects who consciously pushed the envelope were those of the post-war era through the early 1960s. Today's style favors those who hearken back.
My question, if CB Mac took us out of that era, who will take us back?
Wolf Creek is one that pushed the envelope off a cliff. It is beautiful but is wall to wall green in a desert setting with huge changes in elevation on many holes.
I also think there’s a misconception that the most creative ideas spawn from a blank canvas. i think a lot of innovation comes from a really complicated problem and a really creative problem solver.
The more I think about this analogy the more I like it. Two guys who had very high level mentors (Dr. Dre, Pete Dye), smaller early success (Section.80, High Pointe), before making a critical darling (Good Kid Mad City, Pacific Dunes), and eventually with enough cache and funding pushed the envelope into reversible gems (DAMN., The Loop). Never thought I'd type that sentence out!
Kendrick Lamar, a rapper, made an album a few years back called DAMN, that was later revealed to be reversible. The songs played in reverse order and the sequence of the content still held up. Always thought it’d be interesting to have Kendrick Lamar and Tom Doak sit down and discuss their reversible designs and see if certain design processes or techniques overlapped.
I wasn't aware of the album, but that would be way harder to do than building a golf course you can play backwards. If anybody knows him [yeah, right], set it up!
This thread does raise a question that I have been wanting to ask for a while to the architects on here- If you had the perfect client and they gave you complete freedom to shop for a property and to create your magnum opus upon it, what would you do? I'm assuming that you'd push the envelope, but do you have a concept in your head that realistically you'll never get to try due to the realities of the industry?
Peter, short courses provide a good opportunity to explore some “out there” ideas. Less risk for the client, but still some parameters to work within. I’d like to see the envelope pushed as much as possible on short courses.
I also think there’s a misconception that the most creative ideas spawn from a blank canvas. i think a lot of innovation comes from a really complicated problem and a really creative problem solver.
For those wanting to see photos of the two courses Archie mentions at the beginning of the thread, go here:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html)
I'm a big fan of Running Deer. In particular the 3rd hole, a par 4 that just fits my eye.
A potentially big issue inhibiting creativity is health and safety issues. This makes some small, cool sites potentially unviable due not being able to use shared fairways and blind holes. Isn't this one reason 9 holers are now gaining some traction?
I am still waiting for the guy who randomly shapes the land before the holes are designed. I think this idea has great potential for using land not well suited to golf, but after shaping would allow the archie to discover holes as if it were virgin land and go from there.
To what extent do those in the business consider that outside restrictions, constraints etc will increasingly effect how they do their business?
A potentially big issue inhibiting creativity is health and safety issues. This makes some small, cool sites potentially unviable due not being able to use shared fairways and blind holes. Isn't this one reason 9 holers are now gaining some traction?
I am still waiting for the guy who randomly shapes the land before the holes are designed. I think this idea has great potential for using land not well suited to golf, but after shaping would allow the archie to discover holes as if it were virgin land and go from there.
Second paragraph first: I love the idea, but if you were a client, would you pay for that approach?
I think the health & safety issues as an excuse why people are not more creative are just that -- an excuse. I've built crossovers and tees hitting over greens and other such features, and had no issues with planning -- the only people who have to approve of that are the client's lawyers.
The most interesting thing about The Mulligan is, it's quite easy because many of the greens are in bowls and a ball might come back to the hole off a slope . . . I played it a couple of years ago in a mixed fivesome and there were a dozen times that it looked like someone might hole a tee shot. I have never played a round of golf where the players were more excited and yelling after their shots. The idea that courses have to be hard in order to be interesting is really put to rest there. But, again, if I did that on a regulation sized course people would moan about how easy it is . . . I think we only got away with it because it's a par-3.The way-more-often-than-usual opportunities for something exciting to happen to a ball on a green is part of why I love the Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee (Engh). The extreme concavity of those greens makes long-range hole-outs and kick-in birdies a possibility on practically every hole, depending on the setup.
Think how frustrated tennis court architects must get.
My old bosses used to tout the "golden rule", i.e. he who has the gold rules. I believe that based on experience. And, I think even TD has rued some early attempts of his to design what he wanted, in battle of sorts with the owner. It happens.
But your post struck me as to just how conservative the gca's are - If par something other than 72 is a major out of box thought for golf, and there is some evidence it is, then we are really, really conservative in our thoughts.
For those wanting to see photos of the two courses Archie mentions at the beginning of the thread, go here:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html)
I'm a big fan of Running Deer. In particular the 3rd hole, a par 4 that just fits my eye.
Joe:
Thanks for the photo tour of Running Deer. I don't normally sit through an entire slide show but that one kept me tuned in.
Honestly, it looks like four different guys took turns building the holes, as some are guarded by mounds, some pinched by bunkers, some defended by cross hazards, and others by waste areas or trees! Most designers would feel forced to "pick one," but the opposite viewpoint is that it looks like there's something for every golfer to like. And it also looks like a set of consistently interesting greens.
Where is the new course in Cali to be located? Is it the one in Napa Valley?To what extent do those in the business consider that outside restrictions, constraints etc will increasingly effect how they do their business?
The hard part about "working with" the environmental agencies is that they want to steer the car, but they generally don't understand how golf works and why certain distances are important. They see nothing wrong with a hole that requires a 180-yard tee shot and a 200-yard second shot over 100 yards of water.
In such circumstances, all you can do is ask them to delineate the areas they want you to avoid, and try your best to design around those constraints.
Is it getting harder and harder over time? Hard to say, it still depends on the exact location. For example, was Coul Links impossibly hard, or easy as pie, if they'd just taken "no" for an answer?
Rumor has it that certain wetlands rules in the USA are about to be relaxed by the Trump administration . . . I am wondering if there are a bunch of people out there just waiting to get certain things approved and locked in while the window is open. We are in final permitting for our course in California and the new interpretation of the law might make a lot of our headaches go away: if the little ephemeral stream is no longer regulated federally, then the project is not in their jurisdiction, and rules about other issues also go away. But no one can tell us for sure!
8)
Joe those are some great pictures of Running Deer.
The 11th is one of my favorite holes there just because the green sits so well in that little pocket with the water left and front. It's just a little too short IMO and would have been just outstanding if it was 50 yards longer. How do you like that hole?
(http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/RunningDeer/3d.jpg) (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/RunningDeer/3d.jpg)
Jeff:
That was a nice bunch of quotes you assembled. I will think a little about them before responding.
I don't think I've ever said I rued my attempts to design what I wanted. I just did not have the people skills to deal with the clients better in my early days. Most of them being 20-30 years older than me was part of the problem, it was like dealing with an authority figure and I've always had problems with that, even today.
In working on my routing book, I've had cause to reflect on all of those early projects, and how they got to be the way they are [or were]. The only two where I had real disagreements with the client were High Pointe [all coming after the golf course was complete] and The Legends [when we started the third course, not the first]. On the latter, I had assumed that because we got on so well for the first course, I'd have more slack to do what I wanted -- but in fact, I had less, because now the client's office was on site instead of 30 minutes away.
In reality, I just didn't ask those clients well enough in the beginning what their idea of success was, so that I could tailor my design ideas [and how I presented them] toward their own wishes. That's a really important step, because the differences between your clients can also be used as features that differentiate your own courses from one another.
Strangely, I got a lot better at that by interacting with Mike Keiser and understanding what he wanted, so I could do it with my own spin . . . but then Mike sometimes seems to think I should build every course to his ideals, even though the clients for Streamsong and Ballyneal had different input than Mike did.
One of the interesting things about Tara Iti was that I tied a good % of my fee toward achieving the client's goal, because I knew that would appeal to Mr. Kayne. But, once we'd agreed on that, I realized and noted that meant Ric would have to give me the freedom to achieve the goal as I thought best, which wasn't really what I'd intended. We would spend some time together whenever I visited so I could get feedback from him as we were building the holes, but there was only one where he said he was disappointed by the outcome, and I wound up agreeing and changing that hole, just after the seed had started to germinate.
P.S. The one quote I saw that I didn't agree with was the one about the architect having so many "masters". Thinking about it that way would drive me bananas. It's much easier to incorporate all of the above by saying that I answer to my own conscience.
Gotta ask what people skills MK taught you? Something like, "Everything you say should sound like it came from a greeting card?" :)
I never went on long golf trips with potential clients, but do agree that establishing a synergistic relationship with the key guy(s) makes a project a lot better personally, and usually makes for the best designs.
Joe,
How do you make photos clickable to a larger size?
Seems like there was a pretty significant push in the envelope when the Haskell replaced the guttie. Shouldn't there be a place at the current pushing the envelope discussion table for equipment/ball rollback? It might even be the key aspect that ultimately unlocks many different doors.
atb
Tom D,
I would modify that a bit. Its about trying to do More for Less, which in reality turns out to be doing Less for less in my view...at least that's what I see a lot of in my field.
Off the top of my head, its probable that the next out of box thing is building golf courses much faster, to save cost, speed up revenue streams, etc.
Tom, Jeff --
it strikes me that it may well be both: faster, yet with smaller crews and predominantly local architects & hires.
From what I can tell/have read here over the years, both of you know how to do that and have proven you can do it successfully.
What may slow down, I suppose, at least in the short term, is the renovation-restoration industry, i.e. will any club coming out of this want any part of their course 'shut down' even for a day? Members will no doubt be busy making up for lost time.
I've been thinking it will be building it more LOCALLY - instead of a having a team of guys fly in from America [or Nebraska].
Another way i see the envelope being pushed is evaporating green space in urban areas. How does golf stay accessible and affordable when urban greenspace keeps rising in value? Does golf get smaller? Does it co-exist with something else? Can you design the course to function as something else in non-peak hours? Maximizing space and being efficient with urban space is more important than ever. How does golf fit in so it doesn’t get left behind?
I've been thinking it will be building it more LOCALLY - instead of a having a team of guys fly in from America [or Nebraska].
I feel personally attacked...
Tom D, you mention 'Ultimately, what holds back golf course design the most is the conservatism of clients, due to the economics of the business. But the lack of decent criticism is surely also a factor.'
In terms of that lack of decent criticism, I was wondering where this would/should come from? In my mind, it's tricky because if it comes from someone in the industry like yourself, it can come across that you have ulterior motives. And yet, I don't know many, if any, that aren't in the industry that are qualified enough to realistically know the difference between good and great. And if they do, they likely don't have the influence to make it count. Tricky!
-
The other interesting aspect to me is the briefing stage of the project, which some have touched on in this thread, and in other discussions. But I feel it's a real skill to understand what the challenge is, and create a solution that fits. Far too often in my field, clients come with solutions rather than challenges. They'll say 'We need a new website', without setting the context for why a new website is so important. They've handcuffed the company from the start, where there may be more creative ways to achieve what they want without a website (as a simple example). I wonder if GCA is the same: 'I want a Top 100 course'; 'I want the most difficult course'. Those seem like solutions in a way. The crux for me is understanding why they want a Top 100 course. Is it for prestige? Is it because they don't think they can survive if it isn't a Top 100 course? The Loop is a great example that Tom talks about in that the challenge was 'How do we ensure people stay on site longer', rather than 'We need a second world-class golf course'. How many architects do enough digging to truly understand what the challenge is? Just curious - I have no idea!
Back on a topic earlier in the thread, but I am transferring files to my new computer and came across one where a club I worked for in CA was suing an architect who did one green for them, saying the contours were too steep and they didn't get enough cup space.
Is there a post WWII course that is solid to very good that could be great or at least more distinctive if the architect had pushed the edge of the envelope?
Is there a post WWII course that is solid to very good that could be great or at least more distinctive if the architect had pushed the edge of the envelope?
Creativity knows no bounds.
Tim,
Oddly, sense of place was the thing they taught me day one in landscape architecture school. And we were taught the best way to achieve that was to leave as much of it as possible,