News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« on: January 31, 2006, 07:56:43 AM »
Geoff Shackelford has posted an interesting opinion piece on Golfobserver.com about the plight of Musselburgh Links, one of the most historic golf courses in the world. Turns out that race track developers want to significantly alter the course to expand their track and a fight has ensued between the developers and those that want to protect this historic links. I was struck by the fact Donald Steel is the architect who is being asked to make the alterations to the course. Isn't Steel supposedly a golf historian of some note with great interest in Scotland's links? Why would he even be involved in such a project? Given his work at St. Andrews' Eden course, I'm not hopeful that his changes will replicate the existing features, as he says they will. But more to the point, even if they are paying him terrific sums for the work, why put himself in the position where it appears he has little interest in protecting the game's heritage? Isn't there a point where an architect shouldn't offer to get involved in a project which is clearly detrimental to the game of golf?


Geoff's story can be found here:
http://www.golfobserver.com/features/geoff/musselburgh_013106.html

Steel's alterations can be found here:
 http://www.musselburgh-racecourse.co.uk/development-improvements.asp
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2006, 08:01:34 AM »
Oor Donald is also planning to improve Turnberry, apparently. I really think adding 44 bunkers to it will really improve the golf course, really. No, really.

http://sport.scotsman.com/golf.cfm

You'll need to register to read the article, but it's easy.

FBD.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2006, 08:19:51 AM »
Martin: Apparently Steel doesn't really use much discretion when it comes to the projects he picks. Maybe he can do the bunker job at Turnberry well -- but his work at the Eden course made me wonder about his abilities. I've seen one of his new courses -- Redtail in Ontario -- and it is quite good. Even minimalist. But I think he's one that should stick to new work and out of the reno/restoration world.
How has he developed such a reputation? Is some of his reno work better than the Eden?
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2006, 08:35:37 AM »
Steele will build a modern "Championship" course with some lip service paid to homage of the historic former course.

They'll build a Hotel with a spa and the well heeled masses will come. If it's glitzy,green, has plenty of fake water features,and most importantly,room for multiple corporate tents, they may even play a Ryder Cup there. :(
green fees may rise a bit from the current 9 pounds.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kyle Harris

Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2006, 08:36:22 AM »
Sounds like the town of Musselburgh made a decision and they're sticking to it.

If only golf clubs could do that.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2006, 09:17:42 AM »
When I was last in Musselburgh this past June I played The Old.  What a treat!  The course often gets treated like a baby brother, but I think it is much better than that and it has to be considered the bargain off Scotland.  There are five really good holes and if one leaves the driver in the boot, they are all good.  

I saw the proposed changes on the starter's hut wall.  Nothing looked too outrageous, but of course plans are nothing more than a menu.  The recent green keepers have already added at least a few bunkers.  They were easily recognizable.  I don't know if the these bunkers were replacing filled in ones or not.  

More shocking was the additional nine holes.  There is the possibility that the original nine (though the sequence has changed the routing is the same) holes could be broken up.  I think this would be criminal.  If the project can't guarantee the original nine reamaining as a nine hole loop everything should be done to stop it.  Once the original nine are broken up I have no doubt that there will be little reason to preserve The Old in any state.

My advice to anybody travelling to Scotland would be to play Musselburgh Old before it becomes new.  

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2006, 09:52:37 AM »

After playing the Carnegie Links at Skibo Castle I also wondered about Steel's rep.  His original routing was so suspect the club decided to change it, even at the cost of imposing some mystifying walks between green and tee.  I got lost twice.  

Several of Steel's holes were so non-distinct that they were replaced altogether.  Now the club is feverishly trying to add interest to other holes by, you guessed it, adding bunkers.  

I'd be interested in what others think, but the Carnegie Links did a lot to sway me toward the opinion that minimalism as a goal unto itself can be detrimental.  Much of the "minimalism" at Skibo struck me as lazy golf design.

Could there be an analogy to the "free jazz" movement that started as refreshingly minimalist, but devolved into a quagmire of hackery that Wynton Marsalis had to clean up?

Is minimalism in all of its forms vulnerable to fakery?

Sorry if I've gone too far afield, but if one needs to move a little dirt for the sake of interest, why not?  Are too many style points being award for moving the fewest cubes?

THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2006, 09:57:05 AM »
sounds like some rich guy better come in to buy the place in order to save this museum piece
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Brent Hutto

Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2006, 10:04:23 AM »
Is minimalism in all of its forms vulnerable to fakery?

As soon as people started believing that "minimalist" courses are great simply because the builders didn't move a lot of dirt, then "minimalism" became vulnerable to fakery.

When the label becomes as valuable as the object, then the market will find a way to apply that label to as many objects as possible. Now in reality, the label "minimalism" as applied to golf courses isn't nearly as valuable as labels like "Fazio" or "Nicklaus" so we're not talking about a major incentive to fakery. But the possibility is there whenver we confuse labels with actual products.

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2006, 10:25:58 AM »
Brent wrote:

As soon as people started believing that "minimalist" courses are great simply because the builders didn't move a lot of dirt, then "minimalism" became vulnerable to fakery.
===============

To that I would add that any discipline where one can profess to be doing "something" by doing "nothing" can be especially fertile ground for quacks.
THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2006, 11:28:25 AM »
This design as nearly nothing to do with Donald Steel as he is probably about 90% retired.

from his website:

Donald Steel closed down the operation of his Company on March 31st 2005 although he is still remaining active. He is in the process of producing his own personal website at www.DonaldSteel.co.uk and www.DonaldSteel.com which will be up and running soon. However, he can be contacted via e-mail Donald@DonaldSteel.com

For other enquiries, you can get in touch with Mackenzie & Ebert at http://www.mackenzieandebert.co.uk

If MacKenzie & Ebert did not take the job then someone else would.

I personally do not think it should be touched at all.  It one of not that many courses in the world that it doesn't matter that it is so short. You play it for the history and that you are playing greens that Old Tom played on.

What tourist is going to be bothered playing a course that used to be untouched but now has MacKenzie & Ebert all over it (with no disrespect meant to them)...just isn't the same to me.

Brian.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Brent Hutto

Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2006, 11:36:24 AM »
Brent wrote:

As soon as people started believing that "minimalist" courses are great simply because the builders didn't move a lot of dirt, then "minimalism" became vulnerable to fakery.
===============

To that I would add that any discipline where one can profess to be doing "something" by doing "nothing" can be especially fertile ground for quacks.

Did you see the thing in the news recently about the guy who took a hammer to Marcel Duchamp's famous store-bought urinal? He claims that if Duchamp could make a urinal "Art" just by slapping that label on it then by the same token his bashing it with a hammer was "Performance Art". I believe the erstwhile performance artist is currently pefecting his act in the slammer.

ForkaB

Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2006, 12:04:04 PM »
This design as nearly nothing to do with Donald Steel as he is probably about 90% retired.


Brian

I think you're wrong on this one.  Steel and M&E split up, but the former is doing work on his own, one of which is the Musselburgh project.  The Musselburgh web site says so, and M&E have no mention of it on theirs.  Of course, it is I who could be worng..... :)

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2006, 12:21:29 PM »

Brent,

I missed that one.  Mediocracy as "art" can assume all kinds of forms, can't it?  For whatever reason, I just thought of Stockhausen's ludicrous claim that 9/11 was "art."

I do think there's a golf context.  I'm all for the minimalist impulse.  The Sex Pistols saved rock, and I can't wait to play Sand Hills.  But when does minimalism become devaluation.. without people noticing?

Are there examples (golf) out there?

On Skibo.. here's part of Ran's review:

"he (Steel) didn't do the unpardonable- i.e. shift a lot of land around in order to fake some interest."

Ran (you're the man) WRONG!!!








THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2006, 03:12:59 PM »
The Musselburgh Links Golf Course should have an Ancient Heritage Site slapped on it. As with other such sites they should remain undisturbed. Would the Scottish Authorities allow a construction to encroach on the site of the Battle of Culloden? A new club committee at Prestwick once tried to introduce some improvements to Prestwick but the astute members chucked out the ideas and the committee with them. Unfortunatly a  lot of our quirky championship Links are being altered each time there is a new championship – including St. Andrews Old Course where Hell’s Bunker no longer resembles it’s former glory. The humps and hollows surrounds of the original revetted bunkers have been evened out in persuit of easier maintenance.
At Carnoustie the random quirk of former bunkers have been replaced with “cut and paste”  perfect circular revetted bunkers.
Fortunatly the courses not on the championship circuit have remained relatively unchanged and the natural unconventional movements of the terrain haven’t been altered in homage to the triplex. One of these was Musselburgh Links although a number of bunkers had been filled in and the gorse had encroached a lot. The first Tee was a disgrace for years and they didn’t even bother removing the fence crossing the first fairway when the racetrack was not in use.
East Lothian Council have profited from the golf course for years and have put very little back into it. If marketed and maintained properly the Musselburgh Links could become a “must do” for hundreds of thousands of golfers around the world and bring more profits than a racetrack that is only used a few times a year.


John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2006, 03:13:41 PM »
It is difficult to see how Donald Steele’s new positioning of the third green will be an improvement. The original 3rd green was one of my favourites embedded in a small hill, exuding the charm of a traditional links course. The new position places it perilously close to the 6th Green taking away from the individuality of each of the greens. An architectural clanger IMHO. ???

The proposed practise area will also impinge on the existing site quite strongly so the feeling of ancient links will be reduced to the ambience of a “local municipal” à la Silverknowes,

Personally I think the proposed new track should be given to the golf course so that some old “dunes” could be reintroduced to capture the ancient history of the Links.

Good luck to the conservationists and please every lover of traditional golf send off an email to East Lothian Council.  

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2006, 03:56:41 PM »
This design as nearly nothing to do with Donald Steel as he is probably about 90% retired.


Brian

I think you're wrong on this one.  Steel and M&E split up, but the former is doing work on his own, one of which is the Musselburgh project.  The Musselburgh web site says so, and M&E have no mention of it on theirs.  Of course, it is I who could be worng..... :)
Rich,

My information is that M&E bought the rights to Steel's name/company etc .  They have not split up just that Mr Steel is semi-retired and anyway M&E have done most of the work if not all of the work the last few years.

Someone told me that Steel live in Australia now but I do not know if that is true and I do not know M&E to be able to ask them.

Would be nice if one them could chime in here.

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2006, 10:55:07 AM »
I decided to jump into the fray based on Shackelford's urgings and have had the exchange of emails below.  Given how much angst there is among people on this website, I am surprised that there has not been more discussion on this issue.

For those that have direct experience with the Links, I would be interested in knowing if I am out of line with my comments or if people disagree with my views.  

Mr: McGregor:
 
Thank you for your reply to my letter and I can appreciate that you face many competing pressures in making decisions about what to do with your Links.  I also recognize that there are competing interests at work in this debate that have nothing to do with the golf course.
 
Perhaps I overstated my position if it conveyed the inference that the course remains unaltered since the 19th Century.  My understanding of the amount of change at Musselburgh comes from the index at the end of the book British Golf Links: A Short Account Of The Leading Golf Links Of The United Kingdom, by Horace Hutchinson.  That book, written around 1905, contains a wide array of descriptions and photographs of leading British courses at that time.  At the end of the most recent version of the book is a description of the extent to which the various courses have been altered over the years.  Musselburgh is indeed unique, in that it is one of the few courses that has not been altered to any significant extent.  
 
I disagree that it is desirable to see that "the golf course adapts itself to the modern game and demands of golfers."  There are countless courses around the globe and in your area that have taken such an approach.  Much of the uniqueness of Musselburgh would disappear based on that strategy.
 
I agree with your sentiment that it is important that people still play golf at Musselburgh.  I think Musselburgh could become a unique tourist destination by presenting customers with the the opportunity to experience the game in the manner it was played in the 19th Century.  I do not know the extent to which hickory clubs or gutta percha balls are available for hire to play the course, but challenging a tourist to compare himself with the performance of the winners in the past would be a unique opportunity that I think would be attractive.
 
Best of luck in dealing with the decisions you face.  I appreciate your thoughtful response to my correspondence.
 
Jason Topp


 
-----Original Message-----
From: mocgc [mailto:mocgc@breathemail.net]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 6:26 AM
To: Topp, Jason
Subject: Re: Musselburgh Links


Dear Mr Topp
 
I have had your email forwarded to me.  I am currently the Club Secretary and fully aware of the developments of which you speak.
 
I should advise that I am a keen golfer and historian and do understand very much the historical implications whenever our golf course make alterations or improvements.
 
I can assure you that we have consulted eminent golf historians, the R&A.and other golfing authorities to discuss the potential impact.  Can I first of all state unequivically that the golf course will continue to maintain its authentic claim as an historic and antique golf course.
 
I note that you are under the perception that the golf course is untouched and the layout as it was at the turn of the twentieth Century.  I do not hope to disappoint you but the course has seen many alterations over the last century and not all of these were beneficial.  I can point to the ninth hole which is a complete new hole built only ten years ago.  The original hole was replaced.  Other changes include the relocating of the third green in 1987 and the realignment of the Fourth fairway.
 
Personally I do not believe that the course 'is as it was'.  What is true is the layout remains similar in the sense that the holes continue to run in the same directions as before.  With the new development that would continue to be true.    However we at the Club have insisted that only top quality architechts and ground care specialists are involved in the alterations necessary.  Having met the technical team hired for this project I am certain there is more than enough expertise to provide the golfers here with a course similar to that which we are used but much improved in terms of its playability and cosmetic look.  I am certain the plans will allow the course to continue to develop itself in line with its historic past and even allow the possibilty of new history being written as the golf course moves into a new era. It should be remebered that very little has happened here for 100 years and the course has suffered as a result. A second phase plan allows for the course to be extended to 18 holes with new facilities which would include a Musselburgh Golf Heritage Centre. The opportunity to educate golfers about Musselburgh's place in the game would be well represented by such a project.
 
It will not be possible to hold another Open championship but I am certain the golf course would regain some of its lost reputation in the golfing scene.  I think what is paramount to remember is that the golf course can only retain its claims if people still play golf here.  It is therefore imperitive that things the golf course adapts itself to the modern game and demands of golfers.   Musselburgh racecourse needs to do similarly for its patrons and as a result both facilities can mutually benefit by the initiative of the Racecourse.
 
East Lothian council, the administrators of the area see the potential and have backed the project with considerable funding. We believe we can emerge from the project with a much improved golf course and one that will allow its past to be celebrated in a manner which is long overdue.  
 
If you require more information please contact me.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Robin McGregor
Secretary
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin McGregor
To: mocgc@breathemail.net
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: FW: Musselburgh Links








========================================
Message Received: Feb 08 2006, 07:53 AM
From: "Farnsworth, Bill"
To: "Robin McGregor (E-mail)"
Cc:
Subject: FW: Musselburgh Links


FYI
 
Bill.
-----Original Message-----
From: Topp, Jason [mailto:Jason.Topp@qwest.com]
Sent: 07 February 2006 20:06
To: annpicking@email.labour.org.uk; annpicking@email.labour.org.uk; susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk; Forrest, Andrew; McNeil, John; Murray, Norman; Ross, John; Talac, Maureen; O'Donnell, Pat; Farnsworth, Bill
Cc: hool@malie.demon.co.uk
Subject: Musselburgh Links


I am an American golfer who has traveled to Scotland twice and hope to do so again many times.  
 
Over the last five years I have spent a great deal of time studying golf course architecture and golf history.  Nearly every course identified and described in the seminal book by Horace Hutchinson have been altered beyond all recognition.  Musselburgh is a treasured exception.
 
In my next visit to Scotland, I would be greatly interested in playing the Musselburgh Links. I would love to experience and to be able to show my children how golf was played long ago.  If the course is altered as planned, I would have no interest in playing the course.
 
I would think that it would be more financially beneficial to the community to put more effort into promoting the course, as opposed to expanding a race course that is used only a few days per year.  Ideally, modifications could be made to the race course without impacting the links.
 
I urge each of you to be creative in determining a way to keep the golf course intact.  
 
Jason Topp




CHrisB

Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2006, 11:53:57 AM »
Jason,

I am very impressed by the response that Mr. McGregor gave you. It would be very easy for someone in his position to dismiss you as an American tourist and a neophyte historian and architecture student, and clearly he sees you as someone who wasn't fully knowledgeable about the history of the Musselburgh links...but he took the time to reply and explain everything to you in a detailed and respectful way. I'd say you got about the best response you could have gotten from him.

Thanks for sharing that exchange. Very very interesting.

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2006, 12:06:23 PM »
Sure I think the response to Jason was polite and addressed some of his issues -- but if you've seen the work Steel and co. did at the Eden course at St. Andrews, you'd express a great deal more concern for the fate of Musselburgh.

Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's responsibility -- Steel's dilemma
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2006, 02:14:21 PM »
Sure I think the response to Jason was polite and addressed some of his issues -- but if you've seen the work Steel and co. did at the Eden course at St. Andrews, you'd express a great deal more concern for the fate of Musselburgh.


Robert,

Although I disagree with what is happening at Muss.  I think it is very unfair to judge the team based just on what happened at The Eden course.

The team have done many wonderful restorations/redesigns over the years.

I really wish that Tom mackenzie would pipe in here and let us know who is doing it.  If it is Steel I am stunned, I am surprised he can still drive... ;) (no offense Mr. Steel)

Mackenzie or Ebert...you both lurk here so please put us out of our misery...or at least let someone know.

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back