Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike Hendren on January 14, 2024, 05:06:34 PM
-
Is it premature or is The Lido the final nail?
Are Sedge Valley and Pinehurst #10 minimalism’s last stand?
-
It's not dead but social media certainly incentivizes big and bold.
Query, what is the more noteworthy trend? Big and bold features or the massive investments in infrastructure beneath the course being made by some elite clubs?
-
See the original and restored Oakland Hills or Lawsonia. There is room for minimal and maximal.
Many of the classics were majestic. Lido is one of those and was designed to be spectacular. In no way is it meant to be a retail or resort course so it is not a category killer.
Tom designed Sedge Valley across the street so the neighborhood remains in balance.
-
It's not dead but social media certainly incentivizes big and bold.
Query, what is the more noteworthy trend? Big and bold features or the massive investments in infrastructure beneath the course being made by some elite clubs?
Good point.
Big land has big infrastructure demands which demand big features.
EG your place, a classic Flynn, has to move a billion gallons of water on and off course after big weather events.
Minimal Little ditches, tiny bunkers and little mounds won’t get that done.
-
Sadly, true Vaughn. Gravity and fire hoses!
-
Is it premature or is The Lido the final nail?
Are Sedge Valley and Pinehurst #10 minimalism’s last stand?
Mike,
The idea of doing the Lido was discussed for a long time. Now that it has been done, why should I think it is anything more than a one time thing which doesn’t signify any trend in modern golf architecture?
-
Tim, is it possible that folks are raving about the Lido in part because it was delivered into a market where bold design has become de rigueur? Could it embolden the maximalists to take even greater liberties with design. Did Sand Hills not spawn an entire new design era? Could the Lido prove to be just as pivotal?
That said it remains the only golf course on my near empty bucket list.
-
Brambles (C&C....20-30 minutes north of Napa) is about as "Minimal" as it gets. Cue Mark Twain quote.
-
The Lido is the opposite of minimalism….it’s been built 3 times.
-
Hello Joe. Didn't a wise man once say "there's no money in doing less?"
Hope you're well.
-
The Lido is the opposite of minimalism….it’s been built 3 times.
Ever think that it has been built three times because people thought is is a superb design?
Frankly I do not "get" how Lido is the end of minimalism. If Lido is anything, it is the return of "thinking" golf courses and IMO that is big time great. Other "thinking" courses are TOC and ANGC before the changes to "Tiger-proof" it. And as of right now I would add Old Barnwell to that short list. These are courses that require tons of local knowledge to decipher and also require discipline to play where the course dictates. Golf was always meant to be played mostly in the 6" space between our ears, so we should celebrate course that require that!
-
The Lido is the opposite of minimalism….it’s been built 3 times.
Ever think that it has been built three times because people thought is is a superb design?
Frankly I do not "get" how Lido is the end of minimalism. If Lido is anything, it is the return of "thinking" golf courses and IMO that is big time great. Other "thinking" courses are TOC and ANGC before the changes to "Tiger-proof" it. And as of right now I would add Old Barnwell to that short list. These are courses that require tons of local knowledge to decipher and also require discipline to play where the course dictates. Golf was always meant to be played mostly in the 6" space between our ears, so we should celebrate course that require that!
Paul,
You read too much into my statement of fact. I didn’t intend to say The Lido (in any of its iterations) is not superb design.
Joe
-
Tim, is it possible that folks are raving about the Lido in part because it was delivered into a market where bold design has become de rigueur? Could it embolden the maximalists to take even greater liberties with design. Did Sand Hills not spawn an entire new design era? Could the Lido prove to be just as pivotal?
That said it remains the only golf course on my near empty bucket list.
No, it is unlikely that Lido will embolden, the maximalists to take more liberties.
It may encourage better creativity.
Lido itself is a one-off golden age incarnate. That level of intensity is not commercially, publicly, nor privately sustainable across the industry. It never plays the same twice for anybody.
There isn’t one retail Golf bone on the property.
All perceived GCA categories outside of Lido are perfectly safe. This did get Rory and Rudo lit up. Between the Packers Cowboys, Rams, Lions and now GCA, I have to go make some popcorn and pour some single malt
Go Pack Go
-
The Lido is the opposite of minimalism….it’s been built 3 times.
Ever think that it has been built three times because people thought is is a superb design?
Frankly I do not "get" how Lido is the end of minimalism. If Lido is anything, it is the return of "thinking" golf courses and IMO that is big time great. Other "thinking" courses are TOC and ANGC before the changes to "Tiger-proof" it. And as of right now I would add Old Barnwell to that short list. These are courses that require tons of local knowledge to decipher and also require discipline to play where the course dictates. Golf was always meant to be played mostly in the 6" space between our ears, so we should celebrate course that require that!
Old Barnwell is whimsical magic.
-
Tim, is it possible that folks are raving about the Lido in part because it was delivered into a market where bold design has become de rigueur? Could it embolden the maximalists to take even greater liberties with design. Did Sand Hills not spawn an entire new design era? Could the Lido prove to be just as pivotal?
That said it remains the only golf course on my near empty bucket list.
No, it is unlikely that Lido will embolden, the maximalists to take more liberties.
It may encourage better creativity.
Lido itself is a one-off golden age incarnate. That level of intensity is not commercially, publicly, nor privately sustainable across the industry. It never plays the same twice for anybody.
There isn’t one retail Golf bone on the property.
All perceived GCA categories outside of Lido are perfectly safe. This did get Rory and Rudo lit up. Between the Packers Cowboys, Rams, Lions and now GCA, I have to go make some popcorn and pour some single malt
Go Pack Go
Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?
-
Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?
David Kidd
Kyle Phillips
King / Collins
Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus before any of them
I won’t try to define it but I know it when I see it. I’ve even had to do it occasionally - as we are doing in Florida right now. But then in Texas, minimalism is alive and well.
-
Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?
David Kidd
Kyle Phillips
King / Collins
Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus before any of them
I won’t try to define it but I know it when I see it. I’ve even had to do it occasionally - as we are doing in Florida right now. But then in Texas, minimalism is alive and well.
Was the Rawls Course maximal or minimal or neither?
-
Kingsley is so minimal its maximal
-
Alive and well in Venus, Florida.
-
I always liked Jay Morrish's phrase, "necessitism." And, it is what most architects "should" do, i.e. evaluate a site, owner, and end users and come up with a design crafted for that unique situation.
If forcing a hole into unsuitable topo is wrong, wouldn't forcing a favored style on any and all sites be bad, too?
I also like Einstein's quote about making things as simple as they can be, but no simpler.
I also recall art classes, where they teach that just one too many brush strokes can ruin a great painting.
-
Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?
David Kidd
Kyle Phillips
King / Collins
Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus before any of them
I won’t try to define it but I know it when I see it. I’ve even had to do it occasionally - as we are doing in Florida right now. But then in Texas, minimalism is alive and well.
Tom,
Thanks. A related question:
Do you think there is anything significant about your recently completed Lido project in terms of trends in golf course design? Or is it really just a one off replica project that while brilliantly executed doesn’t say anything about design, i.e., the minimalism vs maximalism perspective some people apparently have?
Just to be clear, I’m asking about the course as golfers will play it, not the technology that went into making the Lido re-creation so good?
-
Do you think there is anything significant about your recently completed Lido project in terms of trends in golf course design? Or is it really just a one off replica project that while brilliantly executed doesn’t say anything about design, i.e., the minimalism vs maximalism perspective some people apparently have?
Just to be clear, I’m asking about the course as golfers will play it, not the technology that went into making the Lido re-creation so good?
Tim:
I've been asked this a lot lately, but usually in relation to the technology: will the tech we used to build Lido encourage other architects to be even more daring and build wilder stuff?
Lido was a flat site that was totally created wall to wall. Its origin doesn't really have anything to do with the technology; the whole design was done by C.B. Macdonald more than 100 years ago, and they used a physical, plasticine model to work out their ideas and create it, and they followed the model to the letter in building the golf course.
Likewise, I've heard that Steve Wynn insisted Tom Fazio build a detailed physical model of Shadow Creek before construction, so he could get a feel for it from a pinhole camera. [Computer graphics were a different animal in 1990 than they are today.]
There are always going to be golf courses built on sites that have little natural interest. There are a bunch of them being built right now in SE Florida [where I am tonight], virtually side by side. It's up to the designer whether to space the holes well apart and go back to flat, native vegetation between holes or to push the holes together and contour from wall to wall; the decision depends partly on each individual site. Our client here has very high goals, so we are taking the latter, more "maximalist" approach I guess.
It is entirely possible today to choose your 18 favorite holes [as long as they don't rely on an ocean or a huge slope or an 80-foot live oak], sort out how to cut and paste them all together, and re-create them on a flat site.
In a couple of weeks I'll go back to north Texas to work on our new project there, and that one is as minimalist as it gets, because there are green sites and good fairway contours out there already, created by Nature. Nature was not as kind to Florida!
Is one approach inherently better than the other? I think it depends on what you've got to work with, and what the mission is.
-
Tom,
Thanks. Your post got me thinking about my college thesis advisor, the late Professor Fouad Ajami, who once gave a lecture about what he called “attack from the right, attack from the left” to describe a political campaign strategy.
I seem to recall folks taking shots at you for espousing “minimalism”. Now it appears to be for “maximalism”. I guess.
I get the rationale for minimalism, but not the criticism of maximalism on a flat featureless site. The later seems to be about satisfying the client’s desires, not about making a personal statement about what is best for golf architecture generally.
-
It's worthwhile for me to make a case for minimalism, since the discussion is generally touting the highly engineered course.
The great minimalist course will always be superior to the engineering marvel. The minimalist course requires better land, and superior land is more perfect than man's heavy hand.
A great piece of untouched golfing land has been molded by evolution and environment for a very long time. The contours of the land have developed over thousands of years, and the things that live there are deeply connected to one another. Nothing trumps that beauty. You can engineer a course to make golf a delightful game, but it will never beat a minimally invasive course in an environment that makes sense.
-
So a great piece of land creates far more pressure.
-
Hi Mike,
I suppose the architect has an important responsibility to route the course in a way that optimizes the land's potential.
I don't know. I'm just shooting the breeze here, saying what I feel. Each plot of pristine land may have a greater potential for golf course "uniqueness".
I have boldly taken the coveted 25th reply spot.
-
It's worthwhile for me to make a case for minimalism, since the discussion is generally touting the highly engineered course.
The great minimalist course will always be superior to the engineering marvel. The minimalist course requires better land, and superior land is more perfect than man's heavy hand.
A great piece of untouched golfing land has been molded by evolution and environment for a very long time. The contours of the land have developed over thousands of years, and the things that live there are deeply connected to one another. Nothing trumps that beauty. You can engineer a course to make golf a delightful game, but it will never beat a minimally invasive course in an environment that makes sense.
I am with you, John. This is a well described couple of paragraphs.
I think the discussion is getting lost somewhere between designing a bold course on an uninteresting, flat piece of land (Lido, Whistling Straights, Castle Course for three very different examples); and “over-designing” features and eye-candy on an inherently good piece of land. Both are forms of “maximalism”. The first can be excellent or poor architecture, the second is an example of those extra brush strokes that ruin a great painting.
Going back to John’s post, I will always prefer the great minimalist course on great land. But I might admire the architecture of a well executed maximalist course just as much, even if for different reasons.
-
For me the appeal of a minimalist course over a heavily constructed one is that it blends into the surrounding landscape better. This isn't an absolute -- there are plenty of links courses where the course effectively occupies all the linksland, and therefore the surrounds of the course have very little in common with the course itself. But _most often_ a golf course is surrounded by land that resembles what the site of the course itself looked like before it was built. QED, if the golf is built with the lightest possible touch, it will blend in to its surrounds better. I generally am less fond of courses that appear to be islands (of whatever; greenness in a desert, undulation in flatland) because they seem to be imposed on the landscape, and I like playing golf in what at least _appears_ to be a natural setting.
The implication of this is something that has been discussed on here before: that, where construction is necessary, it is generally better to cut than to fill. It is when you build up above natural grade that the course appears to be most obviously imposed on the landscape.
It is for that reason that I have not liked some of the more obvious faux dune courses that I have seen.
I think this connects into the 'vernacular' thread. The definition of vernacular architecture is that it is authentic to the locality and uses local or regional materials. Which, in relation to golf design, it seems to me, means operating with a very light touch on the landscape, not trying to transform a site into something it is not, nor importing brilliant white sand from far afield or planting non-native species.
-
Covid brought in, or "restored", a lot of new golfers.
The Roaring teens and early (20)20's(at least for the already well "ass"etted)brought in a lot of new cash.
Combine that with social media, and lately drone shots......and subtlety.....an acquired taste....is pushed to the background by the more obvious and immediate gratification of big and bold.
It's not dead, but it's definitely not in vogue at the moment.
Let's hope this cycle doesn't end the way the last Roaring 20's decade did.
We're sure setting up for it.
-
Isn't it all about money? Given enough money you can build anything.....and it looks to me as if a lot of owners want to spend a lot of money to achieve something that will be talked about.
Course maintinence is no different, Given enough money every course can look like Augusta.
-
Alive and well in Venus, Florida.
Colin - when do things start at HG?
I grew up on the Lake Wales Sand Ridge in Babson Park, FL
And, did my L.A. Capstone project about redeveloping / re-routing a golf course on the LW Sand Ridge.
-
One last thing.
I mentioned a couple months ago that birdwatching is actually on my list of criteria to evaluate a golf course. We have lots of time to look around while we're playing and a diverse, natural landscape is filled with activity. Plants, animals and insects. The sound of the wind as it blows. Clearly, you can't let Canada geese ruin your golf course every winter, but a great golf course is rarely devoid of wildlife. If there aren't any birds or small mammals darting around and keeping their distance from the humans, then something's dead about the environment.
-
Covid brought in, or "restored", a lot of new golfers.
The Roaring teens and early 20's(at least for the already well "ass"etted)brought in a lot of new cash.
Combine that with social media, and lately drone shots......and subtlety.....an acquired taste....is pushed to the background by the more obvious and immediate gratification of big and bold.
It's not dead, but it's definitely not in vogue at the moment.
Let's hope this cycle doesn't end the way the last Roaring 20's decade did.
We're sure setting up for it.
Jeff,
This actually seems counter factual. There are some developers who prefer boldness and some in Florida who by necessity require earthmoving. But Doak and C&C seem to remain the preferred architects, and they seem to depart from mininalism only occasionally. That seems true as well for their proteges who are getting some good assignments.
So where is the evidence that it is not in vogue?
Thanks.
Ira
PS I have no theology on this topic. A good course is a good course whether "minimal" or "maximal".
-
So a great piece of land creates far more pressure.
A great piece of land is the opportunity of a lifetime. Anyone who feels that as pressure is in the wrong business (or not ready yet).
Pressure is a bad piece of land in a high profile location.
This is exactly the same in athletics. You can be nervous about the big game, or you can call it excitement. They’re the same butterflies, it’s all about whether you’re ready to handle them.
-
Just an honest question, but did anyone actually define minimalism before it dies, so we can have a proper eulogy? :)
I noticed a few years back that Gil and a few other architects started hedging their bets on at least the historic preservation aspects of minimalism, saying things like "balancing the past and future" to cover their design ideology, which was different than some earlier arguments that a course should be restored to exactly the way it was at its high point.
Building architecture had its minimalist period, which was rooted in the newer materials of steel and glass, but technology kept improving the cost effectiveness of "ornamentation" aspects and minimalism is certainly dead in buildings, at least if money isn't tight. Function may be the main way to judge a design, but ornamentation is of at least secondary importance. No one would want their house to be as spartan as a Russian prison, for example. As FLW said, "form follows function, but identity resides in ornamentation."
In golf, that might be different than structures, since nature is usually a bigger part, but the main design goal is always to give people an experience they enjoy, no matter what, over trying to employ a specific design style. If action movies and video games make us all a bit more visually oriented, it makes sense to me that going overboard visually at least by a bit may be a requirement of modern design.
IMHO, minimalism in golf was kind of the opposite, i.e. not based on what was possible but on what had historically been done with less technology. Personally, I believe the minimalism in building architecture was more "sincere." In architecture, I doubt a period where they just copied the past (i.e., greek columns, etc.) would be "utterly cryt down upon" as a very uncreative period of design, whereas in golf, we seem to think it cannot be done any better than a century ago.
And in any case, golf course design isn't much different than other aspects of modern pop culture, which is always looking to move on to "the next big thing" so it was probably time for something new to evolve, hopefully keeping the best parts of what has gone before, but tweaking them to be new and different.
-
Who are the maximalists? What is the definition of maximalism?
David Kidd
Kyle Phillips
King / Collins
Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus before any of them
I won’t try to define it but I know it when I see it. I’ve even had to do it occasionally - as we are doing in Florida right now. But then in Texas, minimalism is alive and well.
Any chance this uninteresting piece of land in Florida is a candidate for your Olympics design?
-
Just an honest question, but did anyone actually define minimalism before it dies, so we can have a proper eulogy? :)
I noticed a few years back that Gil and a few other architects started hedging their bets on at least the historic preservation aspects of minimalism, saying things like "balancing the past and future" to cover their design ideology, which was different than some earlier arguments that a course should be restored to exactly the way it was at its high point.
Building architecture had its minimalist period, which was rooted in the newer materials of steel and glass, but technology kept improving the cost effectiveness of "ornamentation" aspects and minimalism is certainly dead in buildings, at least if money isn't tight. Function may be the main way to judge a design, but ornamentation is of at least secondary importance. No one would want their house to be as spartan as a Russian prison, for example. As FLW said, "form follows function, but identity resides in ornamentation."
In golf, that might be different than structures, since nature is usually a bigger part, but the main design goal is always to give people an experience they enjoy, no matter what, over trying to employ a specific design style. If action movies and video games make us all a bit more visually oriented, it makes sense to me that going overboard visually at least by a bit may be a requirement of modern design.
IMHO, minimalism in golf was kind of the opposite, i.e. not based on what was possible but on what had historically been done with less technology. Personally, I believe the minimalism in building architecture was more "sincere." In architecture, I doubt a period where they just copied the past (i.e., greek columns, etc.) would be "utterly cryt down upon" as a very uncreative period of design, whereas in golf, we seem to think it cannot be done any better than a century ago.
And in any case, golf course design isn't much different than other aspects of modern pop culture, which is always looking to move on to "the next big thing" so it was probably time for something new to evolve, hopefully keeping the best parts of what has gone before, but tweaking them to be new and different.
I'm not sure Gil ever declared himself a minimalist; maybe he was just riding the wave because it was trendy and golf writers wouldn't know the difference. Or maybe being front man for the people who really wanted to tinker around [under the guise of restoration] was just a shrewd business move.
Anyway, count us out at your peril. [Oh, I guess you're retired, so you don't have a stake in it.] As long as clients keep finding interesting land for us, we start with a built in advantage.
-
Think about Golf architects as you would hairdressers. How do they compare? Well, if a good hairdresser only takes the really good looking women for clients she is going become known as a great hairdresser with superb styles. And then another hairdresser of similar talents has a lot of clients that we might describe as "homely". She can be creative as she desires but the babes are not as likely to come to that hairdresser.
The only way to get the flat dull sights to build maximalism golf is to have built a reputation from projects done on good land. It doesn't work in reverse. And that's ok....
-
Think about Golf architects as you would hairdressers. How do they compare? Well, if a good hairdresser only takes the really good looking women for clients she is going become known as a great hairdresser with superb styles. And then another hairdresser of similar talents has a lot of clients that we might describe as "homely". She can be creative as she desires but the babes are not as likely to come to that hairdresser.
The only way to get the flat dull sights to build maximalism golf is to have built a reputation from projects done on good land. It doesn't work in reverse. And that's ok....
Mike,
I could be wrong, but I thought Kings/Collins got their start with flat crap sites and building something interesting on them?
As to this topic, Minimalism vs Maximalism is not near as important as the end result. My preference will always be to play the course with the most interest and fun with options a-plenty, regardless if it started as a blank slate or a tremendous sandy/ocean-side site.
Most actual minimalist courses I've played are boring as hell with flat fairways, flat greens, shallow bunkers with added ponds to try to create interest... DS 1s at best.
-
I for one, never liked, understood or appreciated minimalism, I have always maintained that "EYE CANDY" was more important for me, but I know I'm in the minority on this site
-
Minimalism is rooted in the idea that nature creates the best land for golf, and the imperative of the designer is to juice the maximum potential from the site.
At the core, the philosophy demands a good site. And then where artificial features must be created, they should be built to mimic the natural features themselves.
Doak came along during an era in golf design when very few gave credence to the idea.
Now, today, we have a lot of designers on our hands who are pretty doggone gifted when it comes to making artificial features indistinguishable from nature herself. Whole courses even.
Does it matter to the golfer if it's natural or artificial? Not really, no. Is it probably less expensive and quicker to build a course when massaging nature, as opposed to creating it, probably true, yes.
Do some prefer artificial looking "golfy" features to natural "golfy" features, perhaps some do, yes. Does everyone? No.
But I don't think letting a great piece of land speak for itself will ever fall out of flavor, so minimalism will live forever.
-
A perhaps unexpected defender of minimalism can be found on a number of holes at the Tree Farm. By my count from a video flyover, there are 4 holes without a bunker, and 9 greens without nearby bunkers. Many of those greens appear to be at grade and rather lovely.
-
Minimalism is also about saving recourses and keeping course construction and operational costs within reason. Not a trivial component for planning many new golf courses.
-
I agree minimalism will always be around. Frankly, outside of the well known projects discussed here, for nearly every mid level course, minimalism is probably required just to meet the budget, which may be a bigger challenge now than ever before.
Most architects I know (and I know a lot of them) strive to follow the land and reduce earthmoving to meet the budget. They also probably limit features as well. For instance, my criteria for placing bunkers was always that they served multiple functions among strategy, hazard, guidance, separation, occasional "save bunkers", created or didn't block better views from surrounding housing or roads, etc. Otherwise, on an average budget course, they were extraneous, or at least not worth the money they cost for creating overall value for golfers.
As the old saying goes, some courses are minimalist out of necessity, and a few are just minimalist by choice of the architect. Obvious to all is that minimalism works far better on good to great sites. A few top names used it as a marketing phrase first of all to quickly describe a basic design approach. Most big names got famous for difficult courses (tour pros) while Faz and Jay Morrish made their name in high end circles on playability of their courses (Faz more than Jay, IMHO) TD and CC used a less obtrusive style to distinguish themselves in those high end markets, to good effect, I might add.
-
Goodness, this thread sure does carry a scent of modernist gatekeeping. There’s so many conflicting ideas on what minimalism even is that it’s hard to discuss its death. Is the premise that due to Sweetens, Lido, and some characteristics at a few other courses that the tenets of the style are gone? Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?
-
Goodness, this thread sure does carry a scent of modernist gatekeeping. There’s so many conflicting ideas on what minimalism even is that it’s hard to discuss its death. Is the premise that due to Sweetens, Lido, and some characteristics at a few other courses that the tenets of the style are gone? Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?
Ben,
I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).
-
Kalen,
I think you are confusing low budget courses with minimalist courses.
Ballyneal is a minimalist course that you couldn't stop raving about.
Your favorite Spokane area quirky course is a low budget course.
;)
-
Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?
Ben,
I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).
If I said that, I will take it back.
Really the only thing minimalism REQUIRES is land that naturally surface drains, so you don’t have to re-grade everything to get the playing surface to drain. (That rules out lots of Florida, where there are unfortunately so many courses, but few other places.)
After that, yes, more interesting land gives the designer more tools to wow you, but the whole idea that every course is going to wow (or meant to wow) is the topic of a different thread here.
The Legends, The Rawls Course, and now Sandglass (my new project in FL has a new name) were all dead flat sites that had to be contoured, and none of those clients were keen to build the low-key, Garden City like course I’d love to build someday. Every once in a while, when I have nothing more interesting to do, I’ll take on such a project and see what I can do with it.
But on a good site I can judge for myself if I’ve gotten the best out of it. On a blank site, there’s no such metric, and if you’re not a bullshitter, you’re always going to wind up disappointed. My imagination pales in comparison to Nature’s. And so, in my opinion, does everyone else’s.
-
Jeff, you asking to define minimalism. A $5000 well made gray suit is minimalism. A custom suit for NFL Draft night is maximalism. The drone is the worst thing for marketing golf design because has allowed some pure crap to be hyped as good. The one thing that has always been true in golf design as well as anything else is the statement " exclusivity is earned and it can't be purchased". It takes years to earn exclusivity and really I can only think of a couple of newer courses that have earned it...say Sandhills and Pacific Dunes. Whether maximalism or minimalism, much of the hyped stuff today will be out of the picture in 5 years. But I promise you, you could still wear your grandfather's gray suit today while Rodney Dangerfield's yellow leisure suit may not work for you...BUT it will get you noticed.
-
Question 1, is minimalism even a style of architecture or is it just good architecture?
Ben,
I think minimalism is good architecture, but it does require a good piece of land to start with, so the concept doesn’t fit for every project (as Tom Doak noted above).
If I said that, I will take it back.
Really the only thing minimalism REQUIRES is land that naturally surface drains, so you don’t have to re-grade everything to get the playing surface to drain. (That rules out lots of Florida, where there are unfortunately so many courses, but few other places.)
After that, yes, more interesting land gives the designer more tools to wow you, but the whole idea that every course is going to wow (or meant to wow) is the topic of a different thread here.
The Legends, The Rawls Course, and now Sandglass (my new project in FL has a new name) were all dead flat sites that had to be contoured, and none of those clients were keen to build the low-key, Garden City like course I’d love to build someday. Every once in a while, when I have nothing more interesting to do, I’ll take on such a project and see what I can do with it.
But on a good site I can judge for myself if I’ve gotten the best out of it. On a blank site, there’s no such metric, and if you’re not a bullshitter, you’re always going to wind up disappointed. My imagination pales in comparison to Nature’s. And so, in my opinion, does everyone else’s.
Tom,
[size=78%]Makes sense. I have long sung the virtues of golf in the Cleveland/Northeast [/size][/size][size=78%]area where there are many “mom and pops”, courses that don’t wow anyone but the average golfer enjoys playing.[/size]
-
Kalen,
I think you are confusing low budget courses with minimalist courses.
Ballyneal is a minimalist course that you couldn't stop raving about.
Your favorite Spokane area quirky course is a low budget course.
;)
Ha ha,
Well I did say most. Ballyneal certainly scores very high in my book and I'm not sure if any other course I've played surpasses it in the fun-factor category. I think my statement still holds that most minimalist courses are uninteresting.
As for that aforementioned Spokane course, sadly it closed a number of years ago, which is a shame. It had some unique holes and boat loads of quirk, in addition to one par 4 which was nothing short of superb.
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
However, my opinion is based in the aggregate of all the tens of thousands of courses worldwide. Even among the 125 or so I've played for every interesting one done in this style there are at least 5 or 6 others that were dull.
They key to minimalism seems to be as stated, do you have an interesting/compelling site to start with.
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
However, my opinion is based in the aggregate of all the tens of thousands of courses worldwide. Even among the 125 or so I've played for every interesting one done in this style there are at least 5 or 6 others that were dull.
They key to minimalism seems to be as stated, do you have an interesting/compelling site to start with.
Uninspired design on a non-compelling site is going to result in an average to poor golf course regardless.
You can do pretty good minimalism on poor land with a low(ish) budget if you have interesting green designs, playful bunker positioning and an eye for mixed vegetation and mowing lines. Might not be a world beater but it’ll be better than average.
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
I don't know where you think we moved much dirt at Rock Creek, but there was very little earthmoving or shaping in any of those fairways. We did bury a bunch of rocks at the base of the hill on #10 to make the downslope less severe . . . had to lose them all somewhere. And Eric did do some very clever cut and fill work in the landing area on #14, to make sure you could see through the slot at the end from a short tee shot. But that's all I can remember that we did.
-
Kalen,
::)
Ya, I know, hockey players are the best athletes. ::)
-
I’m not convinced a site must be compelling so long as the greens are.
-
Is there a place for constructing what I’ll call yee olde day minimalism? No smooth finishing, no elaborate polishing, no frills instead plenty of basic rustic and unsophisticated features that are rough and ragged around the edges with an obvious to the eye look of how the construction work was done?
Not sure I’m explaining this as well as I could but hopefully folks will get the drift. Kind of an earlier, in fact much, much earlier, generation of minimalism.
Atb
-
Is there a place for constructing what I’ll call yee olde day minimalism? No smooth finishing, no elaborate polishing, no frills instead plenty of basic rustic and unsophisticated features that are rough and ragged around the edges with an obvious to the eye look of how the construction work was done?
Not sure I’m explaining this as well as I could but hopefully folks will get the drift. Kind of an earlier, in fact much, much earlier, generation of minimalism.
Atb
Eddie Hackett was the closest modern version of that. Although you also get it from some in-house work sometimes.
It comes about from working (too) locally rather than expansively.
-
Is there a place for constructing what I’ll call yee olde day minimalism? No smooth finishing, no elaborate polishing, no frills instead plenty of basic rustic and unsophisticated features that are rough and ragged around the edges with an obvious to the eye look of how the construction work was done?
Not sure I’m explaining this as well as I could but hopefully folks will get the drift. Kind of an earlier, in fact much, much earlier, generation of minimalism.
Eddie Hackett was apparently a saint of a man -- the only American designer in my lifetime who did the work for close to free was Geoff Cornish.
Nevertheless, their work was built with modern equipment, and the lack of polish makes even the simplest artificial feature stand out as man-made. Why would you want to do that? The "rough and ragged around the edges" you are looking for is stuff that was built BY HAND or by horse and plow. Nobody does that anymore, so it doesn't come out looking that way unless you make a serious effort at it. And Eddie Hackett never did that sort of thing, because he wasn't getting paid to be there enough to do it.
EDIT: my first paragraph came out in 2-point type so I have resized it to be seen
-
Is there a place for constructing what I’ll call yee olde day minimalism? No smooth finishing, no elaborate polishing, no frills instead plenty of basic rustic and unsophisticated features that are rough and ragged around the edges with an obvious to the eye look of how the construction work was done?
Not sure I’m explaining this as well as I could but hopefully folks will get the drift. Kind of an earlier, in fact much, much earlier, generation of minimalism.
Atb
Like Mulranny, right?
-
I’m thinking even more minimal than Mulranny Garland and likely more so than Eddie Hacketts work Ally. Presumably Tom rough and ragged around the edges doesn’t have to be done by men with hand tools nor horses with scoops? Can’t it be done with say an excavator but without any finishing or smoothing later on? But as you say who would want to do it?
Much of the quirk and eccentricity beloved of some me included seems to have been done without much if any smoothing or polishing. The rough jagged edge stuff that is the earthworks at Yelverton being an example. The creation of decent sized hollows or deepened or enlarged existing hollows with the spoil dumped nearby in an erratic patterned hump or series of erratic humps of various different heights and widths and then left without any smoothing or polishing. Bit like using the earthworks of centuries old fortifications or former small quarry workings or a centuries old water channel like the Leat at Yelverton as unpolished features.
Atb
-
I’m still convinced that some of those rough and ready shapes you are talking about (I’m also thinking about green mounding at Kington) is just a poor, early attempt to make natural looking golf features.
It might look cool now (well at least to the small minority on here) but it was actually just very local shaping without the expansive tie-ins that come with modern day design and construction.
-
I’m still convinced that some of those rough and ready shapes you are talking about (I’m also thinking about green mounding at Kington) is just a poor, early attempt to make natural looking golf features.
It might look cool now (well at least to the small minority on here) but it was actually just very local shaping without the expansive tie-ins that come with modern day design and construction.
I don’t believe Hutchison thought for one second the green work at Kington looked natural. That guy was well versed in architecture. On the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if Hutchison wasn’t involved in the construction.
I look at some old Dr Mac work and think it looks awful. Not natural at all, but trying to mimic nature. I think his ideas were expressed much better over time.
Ciao
-
One contemporary defender of minimalism, and one that I wasn't at all expecting going in, is at Kye Goalby and Zac Blair's Tree Farm. By my count there are four completely bunker-less holes, and 9 bunker-less greens. Holes 3, 5, 6, 8-12 appear incredibly lay of land, relying on slope to dictate strategy and defend par, featuring green pads often seamlessly tied in at grade with their surrounds. Many of those holes could fit alongside what's at Pinehurst 2 or early era Augusta. I was quite taken by holes 5 and 6.
Yes, there is a style to the bunkering on the other 11 holes that scratches the itch of a different aesthetic, but the amount of understatement in Tree Farm's design is arguably a bolder decision to make today than building a redan. I really admire its "quieter" holes.
-
One contemporary defender of minimalism, and one that I wasn't at all expecting going in, is at Kye Goalby and Zac Blair's Tree Farm. By my count there are four completely bunker-less holes, and 9 bunker-less greens. Holes 3, 5, 6, 8-12 appear incredibly lay of land, relying on slope to dictate strategy and defend par, featuring green pads often seamlessly tied in at grade with their surrounds. Many of those holes could fit alongside what's at Pinehurst 2 or early era Augusta. I was quite taken by holes 5 and 6.
Yes, there is a style to the bunkering on the other 11 holes that scratches the itch of a different aesthetic, but the amount of understatement in Tree Farm's design is arguably a bolder decision to make today than building a redan. I really admire its "quieter" holes.
Building a Redan ceased to be bold at least 100 years ago, so your last paragraph is easy to agree with.
Fun fact: the holes I worked on in my brief visit to the site were 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. But I guess they changed #7 and went away from my green site. ???
-
One contemporary defender of minimalism, and one that I wasn't at all expecting going in, is at Kye Goalby and Zac Blair's Tree Farm. By my count there are four completely bunker-less holes, and 9 bunker-less greens. Holes 3, 5, 6, 8-12 appear incredibly lay of land, relying on slope to dictate strategy and defend par, featuring green pads often seamlessly tied in at grade with their surrounds. Many of those holes could fit alongside what's at Pinehurst 2 or early era Augusta. I was quite taken by holes 5 and 6.
Yes, there is a style to the bunkering on the other 11 holes that scratches the itch of a different aesthetic, but the amount of understatement in Tree Farm's design is arguably a bolder decision to make today than building a redan. I really admire its "quieter" holes.
Michael,
I haven’t seen The Tree Farm in person, but based on the drone video I have seen, it doesn’t appear that Kye Goalby and his team over did things. It is obviously a good property that the club’s members and guests should enjoy.
Happy to see you enjoyed your recent trip to Aiken. Obviously, it is now a very good place for golf assuming one can get access to the private courses.
-
So an interesting case for "minimalism" is Ladera GC in Thermal, CA. Hanse/Wagner admittedly moved more than they ever have to build this desert course. However, they did it in an effort to make it look minimal. Is this a new normal for design, where clients are now stating NO water features and NO palm trees to make it minimal?
The grand Fazio designs, Trump water features, Discovery Land brochures are being seen as too pretentious and unsustainable. Thus more rustic, minimal looking finished products are going to continue proliferating?
BTW the par 4, 15th looks like one of the best short par 4's in recent memory. A nod to a bunkerless Riviera, I think of the Gate hole 16th at North Berwick with a back pin as well. Short, bunkerless raised narrow greens add nice variety and not often found.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/ladera-golf-club-gil-hanse-jim-wagner-photos-video
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
However, my opinion is based in the aggregate of all the tens of thousands of courses worldwide. Even among the 125 or so I've played for every interesting one done in this style there are at least 5 or 6 others that were dull.
They key to minimalism seems to be as stated, do you have an interesting/compelling site to start with.
Kalen,
We didn't move as much earth as you might think at Sagebrush, either. I was on the job start to finish throughout construction and can only think of two fairways that required what might be described as significant earthwork. Guess which ones ;)
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
However, my opinion is based in the aggregate of all the tens of thousands of courses worldwide. Even among the 125 or so I've played for every interesting one done in this style there are at least 5 or 6 others that were dull.
They key to minimalism seems to be as stated, do you have an interesting/compelling site to start with.
Kalen,
We didn't move as much earth as you might think at Sagebrush, either. I was on the job start to finish throughout construction and can only think of two fairways that required what might be described as significant earthwork. Guess which ones ;)
Jeff,
IIRC it was 7 and 8?
-
Kalen,
It seems to me that Wine Valley and Sagebrush were built lay of the land, i.e., minimalist.
Also seems to me that you have raved about them. Come to think of it, count Rock Creek CC in there too.
Are you sure you aren't enthralled with minimalism?
Wine Valley I could see, but I suspect there was a large amount of material(s) moved at the other two to get them playable.
However, my opinion is based in the aggregate of all the tens of thousands of courses worldwide. Even among the 125 or so I've played for every interesting one done in this style there are at least 5 or 6 others that were dull.
They key to minimalism seems to be as stated, do you have an interesting/compelling site to start with.
Kalen,
We didn't move as much earth as you might think at Sagebrush, either. I was on the job start to finish throughout construction and can only think of two fairways that required what might be described as significant earthwork. Guess which ones ;)
I'm going to guess the 8th hole, and the 15th..?
-
I'm guessing the hole where Kalen took double digits, the 16th.
Maybe the 2nd.
I must admit, I don't remember the course that well. Had a look at
https://beyondthecontour.com/review-sagebrush-golf-club/
-
I’m not convinced a site must be compelling so long as the greens are.
Good point. IMO, Tillinghast made his career building superb green complexes on marginally compelling sites.
-
I’m still convinced that some of those rough and ready shapes you are talking about (I’m also thinking about green mounding at Kington) is just a poor, early attempt to make natural looking golf features.
It might look cool now (well at least to the small minority on here) but it was actually just very local shaping without the expansive tie-ins that come with modern day design and construction.
I don’t believe Hutchison thought for one second the green work at Kington looked natural. That guy was well versed in architecture. On the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if Hutchison wasn’t involved in the construction.
I look at some old Dr Mac work and think it looks awful. Not natural at all, but trying to mimic nature. I think his ideas were expressed much better over time.
Ciao
I've not been to Kingston but have seen photos and what I've seen reminds me a wee bit of some of the holes at Pitlochry that CKH worked on. I also don't think they look natural as such but they look like what passed for natural at the time.
With regards early MacKenzie, I totally agree. There was a refurb of Alwoodley a few years ago (Ken Moodie ?) which took it back to the very early style features. I only saw photos of the changes and I haven't been back to see if they are still there but it wouldn't surprise me if the club changed it back again because his early mounding with sand half way up the face didn't look clever.
Niall
-
We’ve been found wanting!
https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/)
I enjoyed this article. It is heavy with references that I found somewhat nonessential. But the author does a good job discussing post-minimalism in my opinion.
I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.
-
We’ve been found wanting!
https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/)
I enjoyed this article. It is heavy with references that I found somewhat nonessential. But the author does a good job discussing post-minimalism in my opinion.
I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.
I agree with the end of the article where he basically says that we need to give these younger architects a chance to grow into it. I agree with your final point as well Ben.
Beyond that, I felt it amounted to nothing more than "tastes change over time" which is both true and not saying much. Fair play on us sucking though!
-
We’ve been found wanting!
https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/)
I enjoyed this article. It is heavy with references that I found somewhat nonessential. But the author does a good job discussing post-minimalism in my opinion.
I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.
There's a lot to unpack here, and hopefully it does revive this discussion a bit more, because I agree that there seems to be a hinge point occurring in modern builds.
The problem with anchoring a thesis on analogies is that it can clump items together with a glossed over sameness and disregard the stark differences between these supposedly similar items. I can't comment on the music references, but associating Sweetens Cove, Old Barnwell, Landmand, Cabot Citrus and Tree Farm together, "who all play their architectural cards in-your-facedly," strikes me as an overreach of generalization. I appreciate the effort Zachary's making here, and hopefully he engages with us. I'll try to make time to look back at his other series he references. I will say, however, that for an article poking at post-modernism's tendency to be overly occupied with form, theory, and style, it seems to be a little too burdened by those same ideas at the expense of close reading.
-
Charlie,
Thanks for commenting.
I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.
The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.
I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses.
-
I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style.
I agree with that as well. Not just because it's a good way to design and build a golf course, but also because the golf culture and industry is now so much more mature than when it last (sort of) disappeared. Unlike in the 1940s, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of the golf courses that will ever be built have now been built. It's just a different world now.
I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses.
RE the bolded statement above, in a sense, it can be argued to be minimalistic. Especially when it makes for more exciting play. Pure naturalism looks beautiful, but I also doubt a place like Painswick suffers for having an iron-age fort right in the middle of it either.
-
Charlie,
Thanks for commenting.
I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.
The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.
I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses.
Ben,
I didn’t really get much, if anything, out of the beyondthecontour.com,
article, but do agree with your description of maximalism and minimalism being interspersed. It works pretty damn well.
-
Charlie,
Thanks for commenting.
I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.
The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.
I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses.
Ben,
I didn’t really get much, if anything, out of the beyondthecontour.com,
article, but do agree with your description of maximalism and minimalism being interspersed. It works pretty damn well.
How dare you --he's a noted skeptic
https://beyondthecontour.com/a-noted-skeptics-first-look-at-the-karoo-at-cabot-citrus-farms/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/a-noted-skeptics-first-look-at-the-karoo-at-cabot-citrus-farms/)
-
Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.
Is the way I see it.
-
Other than trying way too hard, it was a valuable slice into how to think about/assess different eras of a design form. Of course everything is a reaction to what has become before. The question worth asking is why any particular reaction captures the imagination, mood, historical circumstances, or culture of the time in which the reaction overtakes or overwhelms what came before it. My favorite example is Maya Lin’s design of the Vietnam Memorial.
However, what many of these analyses and analogies (including ones I have put forth) miss is that golf design must fulfill a specific purpose defined by the purpose of the game. That makes it both way more difficult and way more easy because the guard rails are narrower than other design forms.
Ira
-
I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.
Yeah, I wanted to write in to him about that myself.
However, "principal associates or key contributors" is doing a lot of work there. You might be giving them slightly too much credit.
They have learned what they are doing by playing for great teams, but there is always a tendency for outsiders to exaggerate the contributions of a particular player years later, as a result of their later success.
One great example would be me: there was only one Pete Dye / Perry Dye course where I made any significant contribution to the design. I suspect I would be getting much more credit for my participation at Long Cove if I hadn't made it clear that I was just a laborer who was learning a lot on the job.
Indeed, one of the things all these guys are up against is that our best projects were the result of teamwork, and it will be hard for them to compete with the work of those All-Star teams by themselves. However, I was surprised to learn last month that Eric Iverson went and shaped for a little bit at Old Barnwell, so maybe Schneider understands what he is up against!
-
I do see an analogy in residential construction in the Greater Nashville area. The 7,000 sf white modern design with all the bells and whistles is in vogue. By comparison I live in a 2,200 sf Craftsman cottage built in 1912 in a historic neighborhood. Perhaps architecture should be time tested.
What stands out about the Craftsman aside from simplicity of style is its efficiency. Would you say that so-called classic golf architecture is more efficient as well? Or is that a misnomer or irrelevant criterion?
As for the “Punks” article the author seems more intent on demonstrating his intellectual chops than debating golf course architecture. I get it - he has a big brain. I must confess I couldn’t finish reading it.
-
As for the “Punks” article the author seems more intent on demonstrating his intellectual chops than debating golf course architecture. I get it - he has a big brain. I must confess I couldn’t finish reading it.
Mike,
I was hesitant to chime in on this, but you're exactly right. He seemed more intent on trying to impress with flowery language and abstract analogies that just distracted and came off a bit pretentious.
I'm also in the camp of mixing styles, whether it be minimalism or maximalism. At the end of the day, its all about putting a compelling and fun-to-play course in the ground.
-
I scanned through this thread again, and there are some wonderful and thoughtful posts, particularly by Paul (reply 10), John (23), Ally (26), Adam (27), and others that I think adequately rebut the thread’s title. Yet isn’t the distinction between minimal v maximal as a construction process kind of silly? You’d have to pick some arbitrary threshold of cubic yards of earth moved to determine which course is minimal and which isn’t, right? That wouldn’t inform anyone about the quality of the course. How much earth got moved does not have a direct correlation to a course’s specific style, its strategy, nor how well or poor it ties into itself, its surrounds, or whether it’s going to suit the eye of a golfer. Hanse’s Ladera, as Jeff brought up, moved an amount of earth comparable to Jackson & Khan’s Other Course at Scottsdale National. Tom and his Renaissance associates have mentioned how a largely minimalist routing may need to be unlocked by a heavily manufactured hole to free the others to exist more naturally (Ballyneal 9, Old Barnwell 16). So I think the more valuable discussion pertains to style, the visual expression of a course’s holes, features, and hazards, regardless of how artificial or natural they may be.
One reason Zachary likely referenced our thread—apart from using it as an opportunity to take a swipe at its participants—is because in his linked post and previous blogs he takes this thread’s OP premise to be true, that minimalism is effectively dead. I’m interpreting that as a more stylistic claim, since his thesis hangs on the assertion that the architects early on in their original design careers (most of whom are veterans in the industry) are burdened, we are to believe, with the anxiety of influence of having worked for Doak, C&C, or Fazio, and that their design decision making must pass through a self-aware prism of how what they choose will either successfully or fail to differentiate themselves from their predecessors. I personally have always found that line of argument from critics—it is a very common one—to be too focused on interlinking practitioners into artificial groupings, or assuming that just because there’s a social, professional, or epochal association there must be a dialectical (or even more on the nose, Freudian) resistance within the younger practitioner. I find it to be too dismissive of the younger artist’s own practice and development, the limitless challenges of creating a new work of art, and of being responsible for that creation (see how easily Zachary is willing to write off a decade of work for Doak, David Foster Wallace, and others).
More erroneously, though, Zachary writes, “by wanting to escape the potentially smothering shadow of Doak and co’s golden generation, their [upcoming architects’] directions are slightly wayward: everything is slightly too big, too bold, too manufactured. It’s a fine line that must be toed, a fine balance that must be struck, and none of them have quite done so yet.” This is a blatantly unsubstantiated claim, because it’s unclear how many of these new builds he's played, and he specifically mentions not having seen Old Barnwell yet. While it’s completely fine to characterize this as an initial impression, it’s instead already being presented as a conclusion.
If Zachary has played Tree Farm, I’d argue he’s misreading a good number of its holes in the following statement: “golf’s “post-punks” whose courses, unlike the decidedly natural ones of their forefathers, are designed to draw the golfer’s eye towards its tricks and tropes. Rather than emphasize the surrounding beauty and integrate themselves into it, as Bandon Trails or Pacific Dunes or even Streamsong Black all do, they seek to stand out, as explicitly manufactured products.” Tree Farm shocked me for how absolutely anti-modern many of its holes appear. Holes like 3, 5, 6, 8-12. Many of them bunker-less. Seemingly lay of land. Quieter than what you find at Old Town, let alone Bandon Trails or Streamsong Black. Those holes are like Pinehurst 2 meets early Augusta without MacKenzie’s rambunctious greens. Yes, Tree Farm also has bolder shaping on most of its back nine, and those are the holes whose images proliferate Instagram, but it’s not the full story. On another note, I’d be curious how the Golden Age work of Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks fits into Zachary’s thesis.
Old Barnwell could even be considered a minimalist course, contrary to Zachary’s brief mentioning of it, insofar as its land wasn’t perceived as an obstacle or hindrance for the design, but served as the base foundation for determining the course’s best routing. The site was picked specifically for its landforms, scale, and soil profile. The built features of its holes correspond to the prevailing tendencies of its land. There are built features, obviously so, but again—the amount of earth moved likely pales in comparison to something like Ladera. The originality of Old Barnwell, I think, is that the course actually achieves a singular moment in American design. It’s not Old Macdonald, which are templates applied through a naturalist process; it’s as if you imagine NGLA without specific templates, but retain its construction style.
What I quite like about golf course design, and its small pool of practitioners we really talk about, is that, unlike other art forms, I very much doubt anyone in this industry has risen through the ranks with work that takes a satirical, ironic, distanced, or disdainful point of view. The same cannot be said for other arts. That’s why I’d much rather accept an invite to play Old Barnwell than one to Art Basel. I’d bet that King/Collins, Franz, Goalby, Schneider, Conant, and unnamed architects are each doing the best work they can do, in the style they think is truest to their vision. Fortunately for us, as players, the results of their work is varied, distinct, evolving, and open for us to experience, interpret, criticize and prefer. I admire the earnestness they have for their vocations.
For some parting fun, one dig Zachary makes at us is that we don’t consider golf courses enough in academically profuse (and simultaneously hollow) language like what he quotes from Klein: “A recent thread on Golf Club Atlas entitled “The Death of Minimalism” (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72569.0.html) is a perfect example of the inability of most “critics’ of golf architecture to actually consider golf courses not as a series of turfed mounds, humps, hallows, but as “aesthetic and cultural landscapes, with all that entails about their status as negotiated spaces mediating realms of territorial space, human cultural activity, and complex market relations transcending immediate regional boundaries,” to use Klein’s description. Unfortunately, as is common to the discussion board these days, the thread merely devolves into bickering, stock phrases, worn adages, and so it ultimately goes nowhere.”
Now, if I were to edit out the academic stench of the Klein quote it would translate to:
“aesthetic and cultural landscapes” = a built environment
“with all that entails about their status as negotiated spaces mediating realms of territorial space,” = on a piece of property
“human cultural activity, and complex market relations transcending immediate regional boundaries,” = designed for a game to be played (for a fee)
So: A built environment on a piece of property designed for a game to be played (for a fee).
And if simplified one more time for good measure: “A golf course.”
-
Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.
Is the way I see it.
Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?
Ciao
-
Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.
Is the way I see it.
Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?
Ciao
Potentially yes. But not necessarily, particularly on fairly average sites. It sometimes takes a lot of work to make things look like they haven’t been shaped.
For me, minimalism is about doing enough and no more to get the optimal product. Naturalism is about eradicating an obvious engineered / hand of man look.
Many people aspire to both but each has a different driver at heart.
-
Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.
Is the way I see it.
Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?
Ciao
Potentially yes. But not necessarily, particularly on fairly average sites. It sometimes takes a lot of work to make things look like they haven’t been shaped.
For me, minimalism is about doing enough and no more to get the optimal product. Naturalism is about eradicating an obvious engineered / hand of man look.
Many people aspire to both but each has a different driver at heart.
That’s fair enough. I had a guy like Willie Park Jr in mind. He wasn’t big on shaping, but his routings didn’t require such as was generally the case. But he would use obviously unnatural hazards. Colt wasn’t all that different, but as you say, he would use a naturalist style to cover the hand of man.
Ciao
-
Lots of cool stuff and this:
And if simplified one more time for good measure: “A golf course.”
I decided to truncate your post for ease, but it's well worth the time for everyone. I especially enjoyed your last line, made me laugh!
Thanks for taking the time on it Michael, I appreciate it. Lots of good stuff, but I especially liked the "artificial groupings" part, because this is always the problem. It's never as neat as that, though it's still worth trying sometimes. I just think he didn't quite get there.
Plus the overly-academic language... he's making Max look succinct!
-
I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.
-
I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.
Very much so. A lot of golf writing doesn't have the courage to have a stake in its thesis. There are a lot of anodyne reviews on social media that encourage little to no discussion. Zachary's article presents a deliberate point of view and a defensible position, regardless of whether we agree with its points or not. It's a successful article on the basis of that alone.
-
I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.
I'm glad too, and I don't think it was too much of a pile-on. Just a little dig in kind for the most part.
-
I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.
Charlie,
I remember the old days. This discussion has been pretty tame by comparison.
Tim
I'm glad too, and I don't think it was too much of a pile-on. Just a little dig in kind for the most part.
-
Well, as I mentioned in the related thread, Zach is a friend of mine and he understands that an article like the one he wrote is apt to provoke such counter-punches. He doesn't take it personally and knows that it'd be hypocritical not to accept criticism considering he's done a quite a bit himself when it comes to Canadian Golf especially. He does apologize for the "swipe" and knows that it probably should have been worded differently looking back.
But he's glad that his article produced some very thoughtful responses, especially from Michael and Tom and Ben S, and they have made him reconsider some aspects of his piece. I know that he's looking forward to seeing Old Barnwell especially and as with CCF's Karoo he's more than willing to be proven wrong in his initial impression of it
-
Well, as I mentioned in the related thread, Zach is a friend of mine and he understands that an article like the one he wrote is apt to provoke such counter-punches. He doesn't take it personally and knows that it'd be hypocritical not to accept criticism considering he's done a quite a bit himself when it comes to Canadian Golf especially. He does apologize for the "swipe" and knows that it probably should have been worded differently looking back.
But he's glad that his article produced some very thoughtful responses, especially from Michael and Tom and Ben S, and they have made him reconsider some aspects of his piece. I know that he's looking forward to seeing Old Barnwell especially and as with CCF's Karoo he's more than willing to be proven wrong in his initial impression of it
Ben,
When Zach sees Old Barnwell, he will observe a course that is big, bold and does have manufactured features. What people question is whether it is “too big, bold and manufactured”.
For discussion sake, let me offer an example of where the line may have been crossed: the original version of what is now the 12th hole on the Cashen course at Ballybunion. Supposedly, RTJ thought of it as comparable to the famous 16th at Cypress Point. Indeed there was a bail out to the left or one could go directly at the green.
I first played it with my friend Kevin Frost, the person who hit balls for Mr. Jones when the Cashen was being designed. Going for this green struck me as kind of insane, but Kevin didn’t hesitate.
Eventually the hole was changed largely in response to complaints from older members who just found the course (and that hole in particular) too difficult to walk.
So yesterday I walked most of Old BarnwellI and tried to view it through that lens: is there anything that members are likely to push to change in years to come? Honestly, nothing came to mind except I probably won’t care to play the back tee on #9 very often and might like to hit from a spot right behind #16 green for my tee shot on #17.
All things considered, IMO those relatively small things don’t add up to “too big, bold or manufactured”. Put another way, I think Brian Schneider and Blake Conant did very well achieving “finality” which for me would be a pretty good test of whether a course was “too big, bold or manufactured”.
-
If you’re going to quote Band names, at least get them right.
Methinks, the lad could do with a game or two in Scotland with a few Scotsmen.
F.
-
I was certainly in the minority when Minimalism was in its heyday.