Andy,
I think the point about fallingwater or any other FLW design is this: FLW was one of the greatest self promoters ever and would not hesitate to describe himself as an architectural genius. A legitimate criticism of an architect, particualrly a self proclaimed genius of architecture, is whether or not the creation, no matter how unique or beautiful, actually functions.
I do believe the purchaser of fallingwater (a Dr. from PA?) was none too pleased with the functionality of FLW's masterpiece.
In fact, Fallingwater may even be on the historic register now, in which case your tax dollars are paying for the architect's mistakes.
Getting back to my original thread:
I have seen every hole and I think the course is bold and dramatic. I have never seen greens that big, sloped or surrounded on multiple sides to that degree before. The bunkers are very distinctive as well. I think it would be a very fun course for a good golfer to play.
I applaud Jim Engh for a truly original and unique addition to Atlanta (actually 1 1/2 hours east) golf that I would describe as a sea of sameness. So, thank you Jim Engh for the courage to be different.
I have just two criticisms:
1. On the drive back while discussing the course it was hard for my group to remember individual holes. I remember the first and last holes but the mounding, bunkers and greens did seem to blend together in our memory--I don't think that's a good thing.
2. IF the maintenence budget is as high as we are discussing, I think it is a legitimate point of discussion re: the architecture of the course. From Ross, MacKenzie, Thomas, Wethered & Simpson and almost all othres who have written on the subject, a key component of successfull architecture includes economy of maintenance.