...he told me I would be really pleased with it, that they made it look about as natural as you could for water in the desert.
You're welcome to bash the waterfall all you want, of course, but I don't really see the point. Features like this really don't have much to do with the quality of the golf, pro or con ... so the only reason to rip them is if someone thinks they are actually an important feature. In the case of Stone Eagle, the water feature isn't even the main feature of the fourth or fifth holes. The ravines and the rock outcroppings are the feature.
Tom D., is it just me, or are you starting to sound totally commercial, brand architect oriented, and server to the mega developer-mega project bombastic designer who wants to be the Tom Fazio of the 21rst century? If that is your goal, just say so.
How about looking at the first quote and change it around a little. Say; ...he told me I would be really pleased with it, (planting 10000 sugar maple trees to border the fairways of Barnbougle and Pac Dunes), that they made it look about as natural as you could for water (autumnal and seasonal Vermont) in the desert (barren coastal dunesland).
My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Why would you want to make a fantasy, artificial waterfall feature in the desert if only for expensive eye candy and gimmick? It ain't natural, minimal, nor logical! How does it serve to advance golf course design?
Second quote: Thanks for giving permission to bash the waterfall all I want, I think I will do so some more. My point is along the same lines as Ron Whitten made in his article.
...While he was designing Dallas National, Fazio told an assembled group of founding members, "Whatever your expectations are, we'll exceed them." That's an unreasonable goal, particularly when you're spending other people's money achieving it, and ultimately an unhealthy one if we want to keep golf from becoming a game for the elite few.
With prices still rising and participation still dropping each year, I wish Fazio (and the rest of us in golf, including this magazine and our America's 100 Greatest survey) would be a little less pretty and a little more practical. This is vital if we expect the game of golf to remain viable as a pastime, not just for this generation, but for generations to come.
Tom D., when you say above that the water feature "isn't even the main feature of the fouth and fifth hole.." I can only conclude it is superficial and expensive. While your clients at Stne Eagle may have given a large budget and decided they want this, it only raises expectations that it is almost natural and normal to want waterfall and babbling brook features where none exist in nature, and it becomes conventional wisdom or keeping up with Jones' mentality that new courses must obligatorily have them. Thus, the 6 digit membership fees, and 3 digit green fees that Ron Whitten speaks of are the only future that developers can fathom. The obligatory water fall or feature is just another freaking ho-hum feature, nothing to do with golf, everything to do with branding the designer- raising the design construction bar. Why not incorporate water features like babling brooks, water courses or falls, only when they exist in nature. Allow them to be RARE, and thus appreciated, not expected for your $300 green fee or $150K membership.
I'm sorry to say, that reading Ron Whitten's article, in many cases, arguments, and comments RW makes about Tom (Fazio), one might substitute (Doak), where TD's thoughts seem to be trending as I have interpreted them recently.
Would Tom Doak have made these observations quoted above in 1995? Tom, are you evolving or succumbing to the lure of mega developer-project expectations?