Do minimalist features necessarily mean minimalist architecture???

[Mike_Young]

Reading the "natural vs. manmade" thread got me to thinking.  I think there are many sites where one may strive for a look of minimalism and yet move a large amount of earth.  For example:  TD..would this be the Rawls course..I haven't seen it so I don't know???
But I do know I strive for features with a minimalist look yet many times earth movement is required.  I think The key is to create long flowing earthforms that are not abrupt and "moundy".  Some of these forms can be several hundred feet in length..yet the average golfer will not know they were placed there.  
So IMHO in striving for a minimalistic look you may not necessarily design a minimalist golf course.  Yes or No?

[Scott Witter]

Mike,

Do you mean that if a site has good minimalist features... does that mean one will end up with a minimalist design?  I guess that depends on the architect and the construction crew and if they know to leave well enough alone.   Having a site with minimalist features, or discovering them and then using them as a basis of the total design approach/philosophy throughout the project, IMO, is quite different than trying to 'create' them, albiet in a minimalist "style" or "look" via earthmoving.

Though to go a bit deeper, moving earth to one architect can mean something very diferent to another.  As I mentioned in the other thread, moving earth, IMO, can be done to create features that many golfers will not know originally existed.  However, taking that to the next level to achive a look that appears as 'minimalism' is something different again.

So, IMO it seems more likely that when moving a lot of earth and striving for a TRUE minimalist look as the goal, it will not be accomplished.  To me, the pure minimalist look is too closely tied to the undisturbed natural ground and what nature created and therefore, our attempts to recreate that, while an admirable gesture it might be, will usually fall short.  Now, will anyone really notice, a few maybe, but not the masses.  An example that comes to mind is TD's Stonewall where they apparently moved around 300,000 CY in select areas, but overall it is difficult to know where.  There are many other architects who have done the same...where they trying to be minimalists?  Maybe just smart architects who recognized the overall quality in the site, or maybe a budget that didn't allow them to move mountains.

[Mike_Young]

I am calling features, tees greens and bunkers etc.....
If one needs to move earth to create earthforms that resemble the surrounding land I think one can still acheive a minimalist look.  Bt the tie ins have to be very discreet..JMO

[Scott Witter]

Mike,

That's not what you proposed at the start of your thread and it certainly changes things.  If you are going to separate tees, greens and bunkers from the remaining ground with respect to your approach regarding earthmoving then I think you may have a better chance of getting closer to a minimalist look, but I also believe it will still remain difficult.  However, to do so IMO, it would seem that you already have found a very good site and therefore, would it be necessary to move the earth to create the primary features you note?

It's a good discussion topic, but I think it has also been beaten up in the past and I have to go a play for my daughter so I am out of time.

[Mike_Young]

Scott,
Don't mean to confuse but I think that is what I was expalining in my original post.....
Sorry to confuse....

[Kyle Harris]

To answer the original question: No, not at all.

Now: Just what is a minimalist feature? Looking like a Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Renaissance Golf course?

Or the result of not moving much terrain?

[Sean_A]

Now: Just what is a minimalist feature? Looking like a Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Renaissance Golf course?

Or the result of not moving much terrain?

This was my question.  What is a minalmalist feature?

Ciao

Sean

[Mike_Young]

Now: Just what is a minimalist feature? Looking like a Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Renaissance Golf course?

Or the result of not moving much terrain?

This was my question.  What is a minalmalist feature?

Ciao

Sean

I would describe a minimalist feature as one that fits into the surounds  in a natural manner without looking as though it was placed there.

[Ted Kramer]

Now: Just what is a minimalist feature? Looking like a Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Renaissance Golf course?

Or the result of not moving much terrain?

This was my question.  What is a minalmalist feature?

Ciao

Sean

I would describe a minimalist feature as one that fits into the surounds  in a natural manner without looking as though it was placed there.

So fiitting that definition . . . the placement, playability, and strategy of a feature doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is minimalist. According to that definition, describing something as a minimalist feature, refers to nothing other than its look.

One greenside bunker has square edges and a very abrupt/severe look while another is built to look very natural. Both bunkers play exactly the same. The first isn't minamalist while the second is. They both force the same thought, offer the same options, and create the same penalty.

I'd be surprised to hear that many of site's biggest contributor's fascination with minamalism is about a look as opposed to playability.

Design details and strategy like width, angles, options, etc. can certainly be built into a course without having them look "natural". Is the GCA.com cry for minimalsim about a look or about playability, or am I confusing the issue?

-Ted  

[Mike_Young]

Ted,
I think the term minimalism has been defined on this site as placing the holes in a routing where the minimum amount of land disturbance has to be done in order to create a course that is both strategic and playable....
And yes a square bunker could be as minimal as a blow out bunker...
Was Raynor a minimalist?
JMO

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,
I think the term minimalism has been defined on this site as placing the holes in a routing where the minimum amount of land disturbance has to be done in order to create a course that is both strategic and playable....
And yes a square bunker could be as minimal as a blow out bunker...
Was Raynor a minimalist?
JMO

I do not think that Raynor was a minamalist nor do I think that minimalism is the be all end all.

-Ted

[Mike_Young]

Ted,
I think many on here would describe Raynor as a minimalist.....I think I would....JMO
Mike

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,
I think many on here would describe Raynor as a minimalist.....I think I would....JMO
Mike

Very interesting.
-Ted

[Mike_Young]

Well, the way I see it he did not shape fairways and moved minimal dirt...just had abrupt engineered look to his features..but still minimal land disturbance....

[Dave Bourgeois]

From Bill Coore in T&L Golf Magazine.

"We've never applied the label "minimalism" to our work, although others have. Ultimately, I think the style that some call minimalism is really more of a return to the design concepts and philosophies of the 1920s and '30s. When architects didn't have the means to move earth like we can today, a premium was placed on finding good natural sites, and golf courses were laid out, as Ben likes to say, "very quietly on the ground." "Minimalism," though, has become a catchword, and I don't believe you can define it in any absolute way."

That's a very broad definition. In that case I suppose Raynor was a minimalist.  

[Sean_A]

Now: Just what is a minimalist feature? Looking like a Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Renaissance Golf course?

Or the result of not moving much terrain?

This was my question.  What is a minalmalist feature?

Ciao

Sean

I would describe a minimalist feature as one that fits into the surounds  in a natural manner without looking as though it was placed there.

Mike

According to this idea what makes minalmalism different from most other ideas of architecture?  Loads of guys have tried to mimick nature from before bulldozers were ever used.  I am at the point now where the term "minimalism" has no meaning because it has no acknowledged definition.

Ciao

Sean

[Jeff_Brauer]

At this point, minimalism is nothing more than a sales tag that might get one gca a job over another......

Even in technical terms, minimalism is a matter of degree, always.  For example, if it is defined as mimicking nature, if there are no sand blow outs on a given site, does that mean there would be no bunkers? Fewer than normal? Or that the bunkers would have a certain style?  

Many here opt for the last defintion, usually picturing the Sand Hills blowout bunkers, but those are natural there, not natural anywhere else. If you had a Wisconin or Texas course, would the model for the bunkers be the artifical stock tanks that dot many properties.  While not natural, they are the most dominant site feature in many cases.....

I always lean towards the definition of using every natural feature first, and adding the minimal amount of artificial features to create a fine course.

The second part is creating those features to blend with the landscape. Years ago here on GCA, a Euro based architect said that when he had to move dirt in the fw for drainage, he would follow the existing swales and increase the grade for drainage. I think he also said he would never exceed double the existing grade for any feature  (If a green sat on a 10% slope, no grades around it would exceed 20%) as a good starting guide for his work.

Sidebar - is following the contour as above the best route once you have admitted the need to grade a fw for drainage?  What if the swale occurs in the prime landing area?  Would it be just as acceptable to move it out of play, perhaps challenging or forcing the distance control of a longer hitter as opposed to leaving everyone who hits the main landing are with a hanging lie in the name and mantra of "minimalism?"  

While granting that the swale in any location will affect some play, and in often unpredictable ways, should the goal of golf design be to leave it as is, or to locate it (through routing if possible but earthmoving if not) to a location where the the odds of it influencing play become greater?

And, as you can see from the above, and my natural vs man made threads, I am not sure I care about minimalism at all!  The end result needs to look good, play well, and not be a real burden for the Owner in maintenance (which can vary a lot from project to project in definition)

[BCrosby]

Jeff's got it about right.

Minimalism is about the look of the end product. It is not about construction technique. How much dirt you move to get there is largely irrelevant. (Though, at least in theory, an end product that lays naturally on the land should require less earth-moving.)

I have to strongly disagree that Raynor is in any sense a minimalist. Or if you want to claim he is, then the term "minimalist" ceases to have much meaning.

Your first sight of Biarritz or a Short ought to be all it takes to convince you that a Doak and a Raynor have little in common in terms of style.

Bob  

[RJ_Daley]

I have to agree that minimalist as a goal onto itself is fleeting and nearly impossible to achieve on most sites.  If it means moving very little dirt as a sole definition.

Achieving natural appearing and well designed features seems to almost require maximum construction.   Where in nature do you find endless rows of willy nilly mounding?  You might see long and rippled rows of sand blown ridges or glacier formed ridges.  But they aren't so much segmented.  Where do you find short and abrupt ridges that are just long enough to set a green atop them?  They are usually associated with a bigger landform and tied into a hillside, etc.  To place a greensite on its own butte or platform, like Raynor did is not natural.  Is it minimal?  Maybe... if he used only the minimal dirt necessary to create the green platform.  The same with bunkers.  A hump and bunker using just enough dirt to create it in an otherwise flat unremarkable field is minimal.  Is it natural, I doubt it.

I think we have to judge each course based upon what was there and what was designed.  If it was done with minimal construction, thus saving a client much $$$ and passing it on to the customers, that is an achievement onto itself.  Yet, if a lot of dirt was moved by the designer and yet he created a natural and appealing course, because nature isn't all that easy to create minimally, then that is OK too, I think.

[Mike_Young]

RJ and Bob Crosby,
You have hit on what I am trying to say....Naturalism or minimalism....big difference....
Raynor was not a naturalist but I consider him a minimalist...I think that is where much of our confusion in discussing minimalism arises....Natural doesn't mean minimal amd minimal doesn't mean natural...