Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ben Stephens on November 21, 2024, 02:37:30 AM
-
Dear GCA,
The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.
Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.
My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?
Cheers
Ben
-
In purely design terms (not beating on it as it potentially "grows the game") ...
Top Golf
Blatant, obvious, artificial, loud, brash, with prescribed targets.
-
In purely design terms (not beating on it as it potentially "grows the game") ...
Top Golf
Blatant, obvious, artificial, loud, brash, with prescribed targets.
Was looking from a physical golf course standpoint not a virtual one however you are right the golf course designs are much easier to be different in the virtual world.
Top Golf haven't created their version of a proper 'physical' full length golf course yet - one wonders what it will be like :)
However they have brought in a new generation of golfers and it will be interesting to see how the TGL venture goes whether they will pull it off or not. A friend of mine has raved about Top Tracer which was £12 for 100 balls they said it was worth it.
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.
I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.
So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.
Ciao
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.
I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.
So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.
Ciao
We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.
I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras
Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.
Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.
Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar
Ross and Flynn are similar
CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.
Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.
I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.
So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.
Ciao
We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.
I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras
Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.
Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.
Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar
Ross and Flynn are similar
CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.
Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.
Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.
Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?
Ciao
-
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Who are the worst teachers at your school? Who is the doctor that you wouldn't trust with a scalpel?
-
"Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.
Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?
Ciao"
I agree Sean, this shows the folly of trying to categorise any GCA's (ODG or Present Day) work as synonymous.
That is part of the human condition to wish to order things, but when dealing with different sites, budgets, clients and time periods it's even harder to force similarity.
This is especially the case for under-appreciated Braid, who did great work on all terrains and budgets.
I think IMHO that in itself is reason that his reputation should be higher than some might acknowledge, regardless of the scale of his body of work (530+ design credits)
Braid worked on courses from 1896 (Romford) right up until his death in 1950 (Stranraer & Home Park) he also had progression/change and adjusted to the styles, fashions and best thought of the day. Just as his prolific peer Donald Ross did in the US.
He also collaborated, thus assimilating others inputs, as a previous thread I discovered (w. Adam L) he worked (Routing) with HS Colt (Bunkering) at Bishops Stortford (in order to help Douglas Rolland out at a point of need).
Across his work I have seen work that certainly could be described (by others) as akin to Colt's and/or Simpson's in style and quality.
Sometimes even mistaken for the others one way or the other (Sherwood Forest for instance).
I have also seen images of Braid bunkering that The Good Doctor would be extremely proud of too (Ryl. Blackheath).
But of course closer inspection by experts and fanatics (I count myself in that) of one designer or another might see (or seek exhaustively) the subtle differences...which of course are there...they are all artists of great skill who we should appreciate and celebrate and not strive so hard to differentiate or worse than that try and rank!
Cheers
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.
I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.
So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.
Ciao
We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.
I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras
Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.
Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.
Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar
Ross and Flynn are similar
CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.
Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.
Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.
Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?
Ciao
Colt Braid and Simpson courses look similar however play a bit different only a few of us will notice it not the everyday golfer - sometimes the similarity could be down to construction approaches that they had at the time working within their limitations. These days a lot more can be done construction wise.
The opposite - it probably would be artificial - look at the proposed buildings in Saudi Arabia - Gidori for one - building wise however the course is being done by Nicklaus which is not a golf course version of the proposed building
https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori (https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori)
This building proposal made me jump out of my seat as a student Peter Eisenman's Musee Du Quai Branly competition entry - it was 2nd in the competition which was won by Jean Nouvel that was built. However its forms created by computer and we do have construction techniques to form these shapes I have often though could this form create one or a few holes
https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999 (https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999)
There are other design ideas from Zaha Hadid, Charles Jencks, Piet Oudolf with nature and Enric Miralles with artistic land forms.
https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/ (https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/)
This may be far fetched for many on this site. There are other design influences like car bodywork and product designs.
-
Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
-
"Colt Braid and Simpson courses look similar however play a bit different only a few of us will notice it not the everyday golfer - sometimes the similarity could be down to construction approaches that they had at the time working within their limitations. These days a lot more can be done construction wise.
The opposite - it probably would be artificial - look at the proposed buildings in Saudi Arabia - Gidori for one - building wise however the course is being done by Nicklaus which is not a golf course version of the proposed building
https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori (https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori)
This building proposal made me jump out of my seat as a student Peter Eisenman's Musee Du Quai Branly competition entry - it was 2nd in the competition which was won by Jean Nouvel that was built. However its forms created by computer and we do have construction techniques to form these shapes I have often though could this form create one or a few holes
https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999 (https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999)
There are other design ideas from Zaha Hadid, Charles Jencks, Piet Oudolf with nature and Enric Miralles with artistic land forms.
https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/ (https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/)
This may be far fetched for many on this site. There are other design influences like car bodywork and product designs."
The resurrection of Desmond Muirhead beckons?
Or perhaps the return to Victorian exagerrated Geometric design?
I am suprised that such approaches have not been attempted/returned to but it would take a very brave (& wealthy) developer to do something so out of the norm.
Perhaps in the Virtual design sphere (TGL, Simulators etc.) this may come in, think Video Game Super Mario meets Muirhead?
But too far away for the real world I suspect.
-
Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.
I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box
-
"Colt Braid and Simpson courses look similar however play a bit different only a few of us will notice it not the everyday golfer - sometimes the similarity could be down to construction approaches that they had at the time working within their limitations. These days a lot more can be done construction wise.
The opposite - it probably would be artificial - look at the proposed buildings in Saudi Arabia - Gidori for one - building wise however the course is being done by Nicklaus which is not a golf course version of the proposed building
https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori (https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori)
This building proposal made me jump out of my seat as a student Peter Eisenman's Musee Du Quai Branly competition entry - it was 2nd in the competition which was won by Jean Nouvel that was built. However its forms created by computer and we do have construction techniques to form these shapes I have often though could this form create one or a few holes
https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999 (https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999)
There are other design ideas from Zaha Hadid, Charles Jencks, Piet Oudolf with nature and Enric Miralles with artistic land forms.
https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/ (https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/)
This may be far fetched for many on this site. There are other design influences like car bodywork and product designs."
The resurrection of Desmond Muirhead beckons?
Or perhaps the return to Victorian exagerrated Geometric design?
I am suprised that such approaches have not been attempted/returned to but it would take a very brave (& wealthy) developer to do something so out of the norm.
Perhaps in the Virtual design sphere (TLC, Simulators etc.) this may come in, think Video Game Super Mario meets Muirhead?
But too far away for the real world I suspect.
Is that the future of golf course design in virtual simulators like in Star Trek the Next Generation?
Wasn't Keiser brave to put a young DMK to work on Bandon? Who knows who will be the next ones to do it in a different way.
The younger generation have been influenced by computer games and different things - will golf survive in 50 years time with the similar numbers or more will move towards a virtual world with dynamic and unusual golf course designs.
Not many know that Desmond Muirhead helped to design the first iteration of Muirfield Village with Nicklaus and used in 1987 Ryder Cup.
I personally feel too many golf course designs are too safe and conservative in approach would be fortunate if someone comes up with something different and radical in my lifetime.
Has anyone seen Augustin Piza's proposals for a par 5 temple hole for TGL? - https://www.tglgolf.com/videos/2024/10/29/hole-strategy---temple (https://www.tglgolf.com/videos/2024/10/29/hole-strategy---temple)
-
I propose that this question is not a qualitative one but a methodolical one. This, of course, requires a knowledge of the methodology. And the acceptance that the antithesis may live within the three architects proposed. What are the best designs that are the antithesis to the methodology of those three?
BUT
10 years ago scale was getting larger and larger and out-of-control and now that is swinging back to a more modest presentation.
Sedge Valley is as much the antithesis to Streamsong Blue as one could find in that regard. Sand Valley and The Backward at McArthur are another example.
-
Is that the future of golf course design in virtual simulators like in Star Trek the Next Generation?
Would virtual courses such as those be sustainable? We would have to reopen dismantled nuclear reactors just to power such frivolity.
I say this because before I watch a glorious Gladiator II this afternoon I will have to sit through a lecture on the sustainability of AMC laser technology.
-
I am just gonna do Canada
Glen Abbey -
Start of Stadium golf and the return of the golf professional signature architect.
The National -
Tom Fazio's first credited course and purely exists to torture the golfer.
Dakota Dunes-
Probably one of the most naturally gifted sites in Canadian golf butchered into bland golf that doesn't represent the land. Which is representative of golf in Canada post WW2.
I can do architects as well, but I think it can be reductive to reduce one person's work to be solely bad.
I know of a few architects that I wonder how they keep getting work but it's not my place to completely body bag people for feeding their family. That being said Les Furber has never built a good golf course. Gary Browning's work is the golfing equivalent of a sleeping pill and the costs associated with most signature architects for the quality they put out is not worth it.
-
I would say Jim Engh's courses are the farthest removed from the Doak/C&C/Hanse designs that I have played. I haven't played a ton of his courses, but I did really like Snowmass and Fossil Trace.
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for.
Thank you, Sean. I do try.
When I go to see one of Bill & Ben's new courses there are usually at least a couple of holes where I think, I never would have thought of that. I don't think our product is all that similar, but I do think the ethos is.
I don't really think there are a lot of others who really want to be minimalists. There are a lot of architects building wide fairways and rugged bunkers, trying to look like the courses we have built that have been successful. Meanwhile I try out way different bunker styles for different courses. Minimalism is not about bunker styles, it's about what you don't do.
Of course there will be a trend after minimalism, but it's useless to predict exactly what it will be. Someone has to just do it, instead of lamenting that it isn't being done.
-
I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for.
Thank you, Sean. I do try.
When I go to see one of Bill & Ben's new courses there are usually at least a couple of holes where I think, I never would have thought of that. I don't think our product is all that similar, but I do think the ethos is.
I don't really think there are a lot of others who really want to be minimalists. There are a lot of architects building wide fairways and rugged bunkers, trying to look like the courses we have built that have been successful. Meanwhile I try out way different bunker styles for different courses. Minimalism is not about bunker styles, it's about what you don't do.
Of course there will be a trend after minimalism, but it's useless to predict exactly what it will be. Someone has to just do it, instead of lamenting that it isn't being done.
Tom
This is one of the best responses on GCA I do agree with you on the word ethos which is probably a better word than similar in a generalistic way - you never know what's around the corner when and which is the next design style that eventually becomes popular.
Regarding your comment on C+C - the Architecture equivalent for me is Herzog De Meuron - their buildings always seem to exceed expectations - I was in 'fairy design land' when I saw their completed building work for Prada in Tokyo with my own eyes and saw things and said 'wow I never thought about that' - https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/projects/178-prada-aoyama/ (https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/projects/178-prada-aoyama/) which is the Antithesis what a retail store 'should be' having worked in retail architecture for a couple of years.
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.
I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box
My guess is you don’t really know what is the opposite of what is being built now. The building architecture references don’t help me understand where you are going with this thread.
I believe we have a wider variety of architecture now than has probably ever existed. All sorts of stuff from true minimalism to complete build from scratch to geometric to naturalism to flat to mountain to desert to reversible to short yardage to long yardage etc etc is happening. I guess you are difficult to satisfy.
To be honest, there is so much happening right now that I can’t even keep up let alone try to play most of these courses.
If you are talking about a trend to take over, again, I don’t think I want a new trend. What is happening now is awesome and extremely varied. I have no desire to see the current trend end because I don’t know what will come next and what we have is outstanding. I played a reversible 9 hole course which can also be played in multiple ways in terms of jumping around. Short grass everywhere. Seriously small property. Built from nothing. I am not too worried about bunker styles. 😎.
Ciao
-
Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.
I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box
My guess is you don’t really know what is the opposite of what is being built now. The building architecture references don’t help me understand where you are going with this thread.
I believe we have a wider variety of architecture now than has probably ever existed. All sorts of stuff from true minimalism to complete build from scratch to geometric to naturalism to flat to mountain to desert to reversible to short yardage to long yardage etc etc is happening. I guess you are difficult to satisfy.
To be honest, there is so much happening right now that I can’t even keep up let alone try to play most of these courses.
If you are talking about a trend to take over, again, I don’t think I want a new trend. What is happening now is awesome and extremely varied. I have no desire to see the current trend end because I don’t know what will come next and what we have is outstanding. I played a reversible 9 hole course which can also be played in multiple ways in terms of jumping around. Short grass everywhere. Seriously small property. Built from nothing. I am not too worried about bunker styles. 😎.
Ciao
Hi Sean,
Tried to use a different reference which I am more used to as I work as an Architect and have a keen interest in all sort of Architecture. There is much more design evolution in buildings as there is a lot more of them around and they have been around a lot longer than golf courses.
There is much more variety in terms of golf course layout more than ever before - reversible 9s, 18s and 4 no 6 hole loops, more disabled golf facilities, short game areas, Top Golf etc and so on.
However it is more the look/aesthetics that still looks similar like a housebuilder's home in the UK more like Toyland in Noddy which I am querying about - why does it all look so similar where there are other different shapes and looks that are possible.
Zaha Hadid used to say - 'there are 359 other degrees why only use one?' buildings tend to be square and common. Golf course design tends to be 'too common' lots copying each other.
There is a square green and square water hazard on one hole in Noria GC in Morocco - I thought hey that's different not the norm some may not like it and others will why isn't there more of this.
There is not that many geometric courses - are they disliked, harder to maintain or puts off golfers playing it because it looks awkward - one example is Bob Cupps Course at Palmetto Hall.
Also there is not many copying the style of Pete Dye is this out of respect or cost/not a safe option to attract golfers as Dye courses reputation is that they are hard for most golfers.
There is something in architecture called Parametric Architecture I guess that has not transpired across to golf course design yet. Zaha Hadid and Peter Eisenman who I have been interested in have moved Architecture forward in that respect and it has created a new design style.
Also there is flood resilient architecture where flood prevation/floating/amphibious houses are created which I have been working on - is there an amphibious golf green where the green moves upwards when flood waters come into the golf course has that type been constructed yet? Climate change is a factor and new ways will be needed to prevent golf courses being closed. Maybe one day we will see an amphibious golf green :).
Cheers
Ben
-
Zaha Hadid used to say - 'there are 359 other degrees why only use one?'
I suspect Zaha Hadid's engineers would reply, "Gravity".
-
Ben
Amphibious green? Sounds like a fancy way of saying island green.
I don’t worry about the aesthetics of design. That is small beer when compared with the bigger picture of land use. Aesthetic styles come and go. The issue is more some trying to copy an aesthetic style on land not suited to naturalism which is often parkland sites. To be honest, I am not sure there is a right aesthetic for parkland golf. I am more interested in the placement, angle, number and size variety of bunkers than I am about the style. Beyond that, I wish more earthwork shaping was used instead of bunkering or to enhance bunkering.
Ciao
-
"Also there is flood resilient architecture where flood prevation/floating/amphibious houses are created which I have been working on - is there an amphibious golf green where the green moves upwards when flood waters come into the golf course has that type been constructed yet? Climate change is a factor and new ways will be needed to prevent golf courses being closed. Maybe one day we will see an amphibious golf green :) .
Cheers
Ben"
Coueur d'Alene?
-
"Also there is flood resilient architecture where flood prevation/floating/amphibious houses are created which I have been working on - is there an amphibious golf green where the green moves upwards when flood waters come into the golf course has that type been constructed yet? Climate change is a factor and new ways will be needed to prevent golf courses being closed. Maybe one day we will see an amphibious golf green :) .
Cheers
Ben"
Coueur d'Alene?
That's a floating island green not an amphibious one.
Amphibious is where the green sets on land when it is dry and then it floats up and down in case of flood. Will send you a PM
-
Dear GCA,
The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.
Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.
My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?
Cheers
Ben
The premise needs some economic context as gca is a commercial endeavor. These projects are not pop up art galleries in SoHo or Santa Monica.
Most clients retain these GCA’s with expectation of the delivery of design styles that the lead the pack and marketplace. These clients are not seeking splattered paint all over a Topo map masquerading as evolution.
Many artists evolve subtly, others, like one of my former bosses, the late musician Prince thrived on creative disruption.
The “triumvirate” have evolved and experimented in their tenure. Your premise that they ‘have not’ seems to be searching for an unrealistic level of seismic disruption. That is not a prerequisite of evolution, especially in a successful business.
Contemporary GCA clients of today are not retaining “the triumvirate” for millions of dollars to deliver pop up golf art. It is a production driven marketplace and clients hire the leading producers to deliver hits.
-
Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.
I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box
My guess is you don’t really know what is the opposite of what is being built now. The building architecture references don’t help me understand where you are going with this thread.
I believe we have a wider variety of architecture now than has probably ever existed. All sorts of stuff from true minimalism to complete build from scratch to geometric to naturalism to flat to mountain to desert to reversible to short yardage to long yardage etc etc is happening. I guess you are difficult to satisfy.
To be honest, there is so much happening right now that I can’t even keep up let alone try to play most of these courses.
If you are talking about a trend to take over, again, I don’t think I want a new trend. What is happening now is awesome and extremely varied. I have no desire to see the current trend end because I don’t know what will come next and what we have is outstanding. I played a reversible 9 hole course which can also be played in multiple ways in terms of jumping around. Short grass everywhere. Seriously small property. Built from nothing. I am not too worried about bunker styles. 😎.
Ciao
Sean,
I agree. The building references don’t do anything for me.
Tim
-
One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
-
I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue
Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.
-
Dear GCA,
The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.
Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.
My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?
Cheers
Ben
The premise needs some economic context as gca is a commercial endeavor. These projects are not pop up art galleries in SoHo or Santa Monica.
Most clients retain these GCA’s with expectation of the delivery of design styles that the lead the pack and marketplace. These clients are not seeking splattered paint all over a Topo map masquerading as evolution.
Many artists evolve subtly, others, like one of my former bosses, the late musician Prince thrived on creative disruption.
The “triumvirate” have evolved and experimented in their tenure. Your premise that they ‘have not’ seems to be searching for an unrealistic level of seismic disruption. That is not a prerequisite of evolution, especially in a successful business.
Contemporary GCA clients of today are not retaining “the triumvirate” for millions of dollars to deliver pop up golf art. It is a production driven marketplace and clients hire the leading producers to deliver hits.
Spot on. Let’s not lose sight that the “prevailing” trend is barely 30 years old and was driven by the economic success of Sand Hills, Bandon, etc. King and Collins seem to be having a good run with a different design ethos. If those projects are successful, you are likely to see more developers adopting that approach.
-
The floating green in Idaho does move in relation to lake elevation.
-
I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue
Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.
It is the nature of the press that there always has to be a "Big 3" for some reason. I have always wondered whether it's because less than three would be playing favorites, or because it gives them all a chance to nominate their own candidate for the third position.
-
One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
-
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
Successful workers CAN become successful managers. They may not want to, but as Steve Jobs once said, they do it when they realize they have to do it, in order to move the project forward to where they want. On my own team, Eric Iverson is certainly one of those guys who has taught others in order to move the overall company forward . . . and he also taught some of the guys who work for Bill Coore now.
But you are right about the pressure [self-imposed or Instagram-imposed] to be an IMMEDIATE success. In the pre-Internet era, it took me a dozen courses of trial and error to build my team and build some good courses and some so-so courses, to be ready for my shot at the big time. Getting good at something requires a lot of reps in practice. Brian Schneider has gotten a lot of practice at design and shaping while working on my projects, but running the show is something you can't really practice until you are doing it yourself.
-
One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
Zach (do you prefer Zachary? Sorry if so),
I suppose I should stop beating this horse. I’ve been pretty deferential to associates and interns for a long time. I’m no dummy. Kirby Smart is who delivered my Dawgs to the promised land and not specifically Dan Lanning or Todd Monken. The program starts with Kirby just as Renaissance starts with Tom. Like him—I always feel the need to remind everyone that it’s a team effort and talent has to come from all contributors not just the top.
But yeah, sorry if it looked like I was taking a swipe over that topic again.
I don’t like the premise of this thread. It seems to fail a basic test of knowledge about what’s actually happening in the golf architecture world. Ethos and aesthetic are being conflated in an unhelpful way. Bottom line, there’s A LOT of projects that are new and open or about to be open. There’s talent to be deployed and that talent doesn’t always have to build what they used to for Tom or Bill. Being antithetical for the sake of being antithetical seems a way to fail miserably at being a golf architect. Good golf is good golf no matter what it looks like.
-
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
Successful workers CAN become successful managers. They may not want to, but as Steve Jobs once said, they do it when they realize they have to do it, in order to move the project forward to where they want. On my own team, Eric Iverson is certainly one of those guys who has taught others in order to move the overall company forward . . . and he also taught some of the guys who work for Bill Coore now.
But you are right about the pressure [self-imposed or Instagram-imposed] to be an IMMEDIATE success. In the pre-Internet era, it took me a dozen courses of trial and error to build my team and build some good courses and some so-so courses, to be ready for my shot at the big time. Getting good at something requires a lot of reps in practice. Brian Schneider has gotten a lot of practice at design and shaping while working on my projects, but running the show is something you can't really practice until you are doing it yourself.
Yes, I should’ve mentioned more clearly that it is possible to be become a successful boss or head coach. But it’s difficult. And sometimes it’s the ones no one expects, like Dan Campbell!
-
One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
Zach (do you prefer Zachary? Sorry if so),
I suppose I should stop beating this horse. I’ve been pretty deferential to associates and interns for a long time. I’m no dummy. Kirby Smart is who delivered my Dawgs to the promised land and not specifically Dan Lanning or Todd Monken. The program starts with Kirby just as Renaissance starts with Tom. Like him—I always feel the need to remind everyone that it’s a team effort and talent has to come from all contributors not just the top.
But yeah, sorry if it looked like I was taking a swipe over that topic again.
I don’t like the premise of this thread. It seems to fail a basic test of knowledge about what’s actually happening in the golf architecture world. Ethos and aesthetic are being conflated in an unhelpful way. Bottom line, there’s A LOT of projects that are new and open or about to be open. There’s talent to be deployed and that talent doesn’t always have to build what they used to for Tom or Bill. Being antithetical for the sake of being antithetical seems a way to fail miserably at being a golf architect. Good golf is good golf no matter what it looks like.
Zach or Zachary. Whatever. Been called worse!
It’s no problem at all. Like I said before, If you write things that everyone agrees with, then you probably didn’t write anything worthwhile!
Maybe in time I’ll be proven wrong. In fact, I hope I am because it’ll be better for all of us
-
Perhaps it wouldn’t count as the antithesis of the modern trio’s work but a full length, totally flat course with short grass everywhere without any hazards or obstacles at all could be ‘interesting’. :)
Atb
-
Perhaps it wouldn’t count as the antithesis of the modern trio’s work but a full length, totally flat course with short grass everywhere without any hazards or obstacles at all could be ‘interesting’. :)
Atb
I call this the "meta-course" for architectural thought experiments.
Ask a room full of golf pros what they would shoot on such a course.