It's not always about the architecture...

[ChasLawler]

Pat Mucci made a comment on another thread that:

 It’s not always about the architecture - it’s about the money.

This was in response to hearing that developers at El Dorado Golf Club in Los Cabos had asked Jack Nicklaus to move 5 oceanfront holes further inland, in order to accommodate condos which would offer both ocean and golf course views. While I certainly can’t argue with Pat’s statement, it makes me wonder if a similar argument couldn’t be made that:

 It’s not always about the architecture - it's about the view.

Should the ocean have anything to do with architecture? I wonder how many courses could have been routed better if they hadn’t been trying to maximize the view on as many holes as possible. While it’s quite obvious that in the above case with El Dorado, the intentions of the developers were purely money driven, does anyone know of any situations where an architect or a developer (in the pre-construction or construction phase) has recommended a routing of the course away from an ocean, lake, mountain view, etc... because the land away from that “view” offered a better routing with better golf holes?

It seems there is always an interest in maximizing the view. I wonder how often the routing has sufferred as a consequence, and the golf course itself is worse for it.

[A.G._Crockett]

The view would be another way, besides housing, of making the money, wouldn't it?  It would still be about something other than the architecture, such as marketing through magazine pictures, etc.  I'll be curious to hear examples.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

Doesn't the very defiinition and concept behind LINKS golf courses upend your proposed theory ?

That the land closer to the sea is the better land for golf ?

[ChasLawler]

Pat – wasn’t the land closer to the sea originally used for golf only because it wasn’t really good for anything else?

I know. I know, the sandy soil happened to be very conducive to delivering optimal golfing conditions, so I see your point – as it relates to links golf…. but here in the Americas can you really make that argument?

Regardless, I’m talking about small distances…. Yards - not miles. Not that this would be a good example, but my question is more geared toward something of the sort as to whether Pebble Beach could have been routed better if they weren’t trying to maximize the amount of waterfront golf? Just to clarify – I’m not making that argument – as I’ve never even been to California.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

My guess would be, that if better land existed but a few yards away, it would have been used for the golf course, and the land closer to the sea left, unobstructed for the views.  That way you get the best of both worlds.

[ChasLawler]

Pat - what if the better land just a few yards away had a view that was obstructed by something like...trees?


From what I've read about Friar's Head, it sounds like that might be one place where the architects put the architecture before the view.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

Your comment would fit in nicely with my "most favored nation" theories, but I don't think you've gotten it right.

This in another area where the information you have may be inaccurate.

Are you familiar with the dwarf beech, and the environmental restrictions associated with it, site specific ?

Perhaps Professor Naccarato or Ken Bakst can be of assistance.

[ChasLawler]

As for Friar's Head - I figured environmental issues may have been at hand.

Please remind me why this is another area where I may be innacurate?

Still Pat- you didn't answer my first question from my previous post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

Go with the assumption that those Dwarf beeches are indigenous, ONLY to the bluff that Friar's Head sits on.

If that assumption is accurate, how easy do you think it would be to eradicate them, especially within the environmental context that understands the level of scrutiny that Friar's head was subjected to ?

C&C built a marvelous golf course at Friar's Head, but let's not deify them for not cutting down trees to get an enhanced view, when other forces may have been in play.

I don't see how you can say I didn't answer your question.

[ChasLawler]

Mr. Mucci, I previously admitted that you must be correct about the environmental restrictions at Friar's Head. Maybe I wasn't clear, but thanks anyway for the details.
I really didn't start this thread to get into a bickering contest with you. I posed a question, innocent enough, and you have chosen to spin my comments to fit your agenda – whatever that might be. I typed that with a big smile on my face.

The question I asked was what if the better land just a few [hundred] yards away had a view that was obstructed by something like...trees? This is a general question – not specific to one course and not directed at just Mr. Mucci. Perhaps it’s a stupid question and a pointless exercise, but Mr. Mucci’s comments on the other thread just got me thinking about the value of holes with a “view” – specifically lakefront or oceanfront.

My guess is that just about every course in America built adjacent to a large body of water has been routed so as to maximize the view of that body of water. And I’d venture to guess that was pretty high up on the owner/ developer’s priority list. In many cases the result may have been the best possible routing, but in many cases, maybe we’re just not creative enough to think about what could have been.

I’d be curious to know where the “view” stood on the priority list when the original links courses of Scotland and Ireland were routed. Sure the ocean was right there, but were they as obsessed as we are today about getting in as many holes as possible with a “view”? My guess, and I could very well be wrong, is that they weren’t, and many of those courses are better, architecturally, for it.

[Mike_Sweeney]

As much as I love Carne in Ireland, Eddie Hackett could have used the ocean fronting land a little better. I have heard that he had many restrictions with money and equipment.

I think the same was true of Enniscrone as Hackett avoided some massive dunes due to cost. I have only seen the course after the Donald Steel renovation, and now it appears to my eye to maximize the waterfront land.

[guesst]

. . . it would still be about something other than the architecture . . .   I'll be curious to hear examples.

Okay, here's one.

The masterful Armenian was kind enough to let me play caddy the last time he was in Vegas.  One of the courses he gave me the opportunity to see was Cascata.  (Thanks, sweetie!)

The course is in the mountains above Boulder City, and has expansive views of the desert alternating with majestic mountain views.  Over and over again.  Over and over again.  Over  and  . . . .  

The routing basically goes back and forth, like a teeter totter, with the focus of each hole on the surrounding view.  It took effort to pull my eyes off of the horizon long enough to really examine the course.  Every hole, with the exception of one intimate par three with the green nestled against a granite face, felt grand.  

There were no "interior holes," but rather the layout was overwhelmingly back to front, then front to back.  This optimized the views, but at what cost?  There were no ridge to ridge shots, nothing that took advantage of the rugged terrain to set you back on your heels.  Nothing to make the heart pound or the spirit soar.

The holes that quicken my pulse are the few I've seen that have it all . . . starting with the stuff God put there, and ending with the shaping and contouring added by man.  Most holes don't have enough sense of place for my meager skills to catalogue and file them away.  Most courses don't even have even one hole that demands a place in my archives.  

The holes that do use a natural feature in such a way that it overwhelms the senses and delights the eye.  It has no jarring notes to jerk the mind out of the moment and remind one that a bulldozer did that.  At the same time, it offers choices of strategy and forces the player to think, "How am I going to get around/over/through/that and over there?"  

I wish I had my Armenian's gift for remembering the number of every hole he sees.  I'm lucky to remember the name of the course we're on at any given moment.  But I'll bet he (and probably most of you) know every hole I love.  There's one at Pebble.  I haven't seen it for twenty-two years, but I still hold its picture in my heart.  There's one at the course where the KP was played last year . . . a hole where the ladies tees are in front of a cavernous hazard off the tee, but the gents get to be overwhelmed and challenged simultaneously.  There's one outside of Truckee where the Lettuce Cup was played last year.  There are a couple in Hawaii.  

That's it for me; my entire list.  Five holes.  I've seen probably 25 or 30 courses, and I've fallen in love with five holes.  All of which have a view of some kind, but the view is an integral part of the hole.  No doubt, as I have more opportunity and experience, my list will grow.      

I'm letting you in on a little secret.  This is the main thing that interests me about GCA.  I trek around golf courses mainly for the joy of those few magnificent holes where everything natural and unnatural comes together.  I can always see and comment on bunker style, green contour, trees, rough, fairway, layout, etceteras.  But it's the rare holes that make me whisper, "Wow . . . ," that fuel my interest in tagging along every chance I get.

Perhaps that's a post for a new thread:  "Guesst's wishlist:  The Holes that have it all . . . at the same time."

As for Cascata, it's a good course.  In Armenian (Glibspeak), "It's not total puke."  If you're looking for an expansive clubhouse, extravagant water, and excellent refreshments, it's a wonderful course.  The lady's lounge is a 17 on a scale of 10.  But I have to mourn the waste.  They spent a lot of money, and had an pretty incredible piece of mountain from God's hand.  It's a pity I didn't find another *Wow* to keep warm in my heart.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

Look at it differently.

Ask yourself this question.

What developer, in his right mind, would buy the land you allege is best for the golf course, and leave the strip that borders the Ocean for others to buy and develop ?

Then, if you think that the prudent golf course developer would buy that strip of a few yards, now expanded by you to a hundred of so yards, why wouldn't they want to build the best golf course on the best land, but also open up the vistas to what has been described as invalueable and highly limited, Ocean front property.

This isn't personal, it's common sense.

[TEPaul]

This is a good time to throw an historic fact out there regarding perhaps what might be golf's most ideal land. Admittedly, this might not have much of anything to do with today but all should know that the glorious linksland of Scotland where golf virtually began, was, in that early time, land that was virtually useless for any other purpose but golf.

There was certainly no competiton to use the linksland for ocean views and the possibly little know fact is the linksland had no competition whatsover from farming!

Why? Because the soil of the linksland was so acidic that no agricultural crop could possibly grow on it! Basically nothing could grow on that linksland except two hardy grasses---a hardy form of bent and a hardy form of fescue! These two natural grasses were the only two grasses that could survive in that naturally acidic linksland soil. It also happened to be an ideal vegetative surface to play golf on!

When golf moved out of those linkslands, sweetening the soil by liming it was the thing to do basically causing all kinds of things to grown but also creating competitive vegetative problems we're still dealing with!

How simple it all once was and how much we've complicated things for reasons that may never have been as necessary as we thought and still might think!

[Art_Schaupeter]

Cabell,

I don't believe that "the view" was the primary factor in the routing of the Scottish or Irish links courses.  In fact, I think there are plenty of examples where views aren't maximized, because the best use of the land dictates otherwise.  I am thinking of some of the holes on courses like Ballybunion, Royal Aberdeen and Cruden Bay.  There are views on these courses, but there are a lot of holes that don't have great views because of how the dunes and the holes lay.  I think the priority on a well-designed golf course is going to be with the quality of the golf itself, the strategies and options that are presented to the golfer.

Besides that, I think that TEPaul and Pat are correct in that there wasn't any other use for these areas, and they made for outstanding playing conditions for golf.

In the United States, while Pebble and Cypress, for example, have wonderful views of the ocean, the ocean holes are also some of the best holes in terms of strategy, drama and interest.  Those holes are unique to their site and are there because they create the best possible golf.

Regarding the question of any other projects in which the developer or architect turned their back on the big site views of either lakes, oceans, mountains, etc., I know of two.  The first is a project similar to El Dorado, in which the architect's desired routing used up most of the developer's lake front property.  It was an inland version of Pebble Beach.  The developer refused it, and forced the architect to reroute the golf course, saving the majority of the lake front property for development.  The built golf course ended up with just the final four holes being on the lake.  It's still a very nice project that has done very well since it opened.

The second project is one I finished this past fall in Colorado called Highland Meadows.  It will be opening this summer.  On the front range of Colorado, the only view that matters is the one to the west, looking at the mountains and the continental divide.  The site I had to work with had very little character, with one exception.  There was a deep canyon/arroyo that ran along the eastern edge of the property.  This canyon is about 50 feet deep and maybe 200-300 feet across.  A fairly substantial feature on a piece of ground that otherwise doesn't have more than 20-30 feet of elevation change to it over 600 acres.

From an architect's standpoint, I immediately gravitated to this area as the location for the best possible golf holes.  As a result, the routing is oriented towards the east, which is the lesser view.  By focusing as many holes as I could along this canyon, I was only able to create three or four distant views to the mountains, and they will be minimized by the eventual development.  This also caused the clubhouse orientation to be towards the east, which I was afraid the owner wouldn't like.  Thankfully the owner is happy with the overall layout because it created a mix of development premiums, some with mountain views to the west, and others with golf views to the east.  The clubhouse siting was a bit of an issue, but it has a real nice view down the first and ninth holes, so it's not a total loss.  In this case, the routing was driven by a desire to create the best golf holes, not the best views, and as a result, the overall development is hopefully improved for it.

Interesting thread, hope this is the type of example you were looking for.  

Art

[ChasLawler]

Tom - thanks for the story. Taking a cue from Mr. Mucci - wasn't that just a long way of saying what I said in reply #3 though?

Thanks Art and Darva for your examples. Just for clarification Art - it's my feeling as well that many of the original Scottish and Irish links courses were designed without the view in mind.

My assumption is that the view, as priority #1, is a somewhat modern phenomenon – perhaps aided by the advent of modern construction equipment making earth moving and tree clearing much easier.

Art – it sounds as if you took the high road at Highland Meadows, and the golf course is better for it. That’s exactly the kind of example I was looking for. Thanks!

[A_Clay_Man]

Art- Great Post about your colorado project. I know we all can use any excuse to get closer to Nebraska.

 Speaking of which, It would be interesting to see DD's reaction to Sand Hills. Probably the exception that disproves the rule, having the sandy soil to grow the linksland-like turf, the vast expansive views to elicit WOW's from us peanut gallery types.

[guesst]

It would be interesting to see DD's reaction to Sand Hills. . . .

I will promptly move Sand Hills to the top of my "Nag-an-Armenian-To-Take-Me-There" list.  The problem is, now when he wants to get away for a weekend with the boys scott-free, he has to go somewhere I've already been so I don't feel left out . . . !  

Poor, poor Gyro . . .

[Tags:]

Tags: