Do big-canvas sites require big-canvas features? And is Whitten MAD about it?

[Dan Kelly]

I'm just asking.

In another thread, I asked Tom Doak why he had put so many big bunkers on a hole. His answer began: "The big bunkers are there because the scale of the course is enormous and we didn't think smaller features would fit."

Disregarding that hole and that course, and taking Tom's statement as a general "rule," I wonder:

Do you agree?

(Thought I might get some response if I changed the title.)


 

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, Without admiting or denying butt boy status, I would have to agree on principle.

Courses that have a perfect balance of scale may not be noticable. But those with features that somehow feel out of place, might have a scale problem.

[Rick Shefchik]

Isn't the most important scale in golf the size of the ball and the size of the hole?

A big bunker, to me, is just more sand for the little ball to find on its way to the hole, and more sand to rake.

[Joe Hancock]

(Thought I might get some response if I changed the title.)

So, that matters, does it? I'll have to go back and jazz up a couple thread titles I tried in the past couple days. I have found if I try to start a serious thread, no one takes me seriously. Hard to figure...

Best of luck, and I'm the wrong guy to ask if size matters...how would I know?

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

I think there is a lot to be said for "scale", but I am getting pretty tired of this style of bunker...the hairy, minimalist, blown out look that Doak. C&C, and just about everyone this side of Engh  uses now days...

[Dan Kelly]

So, that matters, does it? I'll have to go back and jazz up a couple thread titles I tried in the past couple days. I have found if I try to start a serious thread, no one takes me seriously. Hard to figure...

Yes, Joe, I'm sure that does matter.

Just by way of example: If, instead of "Does this relate to golf in any way?," you had titled the thread "Does this relate to Michelle Wie in any way?," the replies would be well into the double digits by now.

Michelle Wie. Ron Whitten. Golf Digest's 100 Best (or whatever it is). The White Faces of Merion. John Kavanaugh. You've gotta know your hot buttons and punch them shamelessly.

Best of luck, and I'm the wrong guy to ask if size matters...how would I know?

I suppose you wouldn't. But you'd know if lack of size matters, wouldn't you?

[Joe Hancock]

I suppose you wouldn't. But you'd know if lack of size matters, wouldn't you?

She told me to say "yes".

(smiley, with hairy bunker in the forehead)

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dan,
I think the big canvas does require large features...but not at the expense of smaller features as well. I think you could go to just about any large natural feature...say the Grand Canyon, and still find lots of micro movement with in the larger natural features.
All the little bumps, humps, ridges, spines, depressions...etc...That are on the larger landform is what makes it look natural.
One with out the other doesn't work.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan
I'd say yes, and Adam's and Dan M's post together argue for it better than I can. But, since that's never stopped me before, I'll add this:

that, at least intuitively, it seems pretty clear to me: small features on a large canvas would tend to highlight the canvas (i.e. nature); large features on a small canvas would tend to highlight the features/course (i.e. the man-made); large features on a large canvas would tend to balance the natural with the man-made, i.e. all that surrounds the course with the course itself…and that seems to me a very good and pleasant look, if nothing else.

But I'm curious: what are your views on this? I think you might be questioning that general rule of thumb/prinicple. How would you counter my brilliantly intuitive argument?  

Peter
(I can't do it, Dan. I just can't avoid using the emoticons.)

[Tom_Doak]

I think you guys (Craig and Rick in particular) are misunderstanding some of the realities of the architecture here.

I am not doing "hairy" bunkers because I love hairy bunkers.  In many places we have naturally "hairy" rough which is going to be a stark transition to mowed grass, and we use those big bunkers as a transition element so that you don't look at the artificially-painted, mowed-and-irrigated-grass-against-native-grass line all the way around every hole.  Look back at that picture of Rock Creek again and look at how your eyes are not distracted to the edges of the hole.

As for size, as I explained on the other thread, the big bunkers are infinitely more playable than the rocks and native rough at Rock Creek (or the marram grass at Barnbougle or the desert at Stone Eagle), so we use the bunkers to make a playable transition area and to reduce the size of the actual unplayable tongues which jut into the fairway.  Big bunkers are way LESS expensive to build and to maintain over time than are a similar acreage of irrigated turf.

I understand that some people are getting tired of big features.  I'm getting tired of them myself.  I loved doing the little clusters of bunkers we just did in Scotland.  But there are some locations where big bunkers just make sense and it would be stupid to make them smaller because some people don't like those.

[Anthony Butler]

As for size, as I explained on the other thread, the big bunkers are infinitely more playable than the rocks and native rough at Rock Creek (or the marram grass at Barnbougle or the desert at Stone Eagle), so we use the bunkers to make a playable transition area and to reduce the size of the actual unplayable tongues which jut into the fairway.  Big bunkers are way LESS expensive to build and to maintain over time than are a similar acreage of irrigated turf.

I understand that some people are getting tired of big features.  I'm getting tired of them myself.  I loved doing the little clusters of bunkers we just did in Scotland.  But there are some locations where big bunkers just make sense and it would be stupid to make them smaller because some people don't like those.

Two factors at play here: Firstly, the sense of scale in design and how that plays into our preconceived notions of beauty and form. And, as Tom Doak mentions, the more practical notions of playability and maintenance (not to say Tom does not also consider the first factor in all his designs.)

As a advertising art director of 20 years, choosing the correct scale is an incredibly important factor in achieving what I would call 'maximum recognition' for any design. I just put a 25 ft high version of a logo in the lobby of client's building in suburban Boston. It is sited on the side of the building, however, so you first notice it when you turn the corner from the main road, thus providing a 75 yd drive at 10-15mph to take it all in.

As Ran often mentions in his reviews, your first glimpse of a feature usually provides the context through which you subsequently regard it. In that setting the logo looks almost "print sized" on a building approximately 60ft high and 300ft long.  If it was placed it so it was first seen from the lobby itself, it would overwhelm the other, smaller new branding features also located in the lobby area.

Due to the flatness of many links courses in the UK, the correct size for most bunkers is small because 1) A large hazard is largely blind from the fairway in many cases 2) Your first look at the feature is often greenside–a more intimate setting than the wider view of the hole.

On the other hand, the receptionist loves the 25ft logo because it blocks the afternoon sun...

[TEPaul]

If by big canvas features on big canvas sites you're thinking of sand bunkers I might question if all of them need to be big canvas features.

I think the answer to that probably lies in nature itself so all we need to do is look at it to come up with an answer to this question (in a naturalistic sense).  

There's a stretch of land along the coast below Amelia Island Florida that has some of the most beautiful interior dunes blowouts and such that some of the most natural bunkers one could ever find would be representative of. The area runs for about five miles and can certainly be described as a big canvas site (large scale).

Are all of those blowout sand dune bunker look-a-likes also big scale features?

As natural formations are almost always random, some are big scale features and some aren't.  

[Matt MacIver]

I think it depends on what you're "looking" for -- a nice view, or a high quality golf course.  For the view, I would think big begets big.  

But for a good golf course, I'm not so sure.  With all that width, surely options came be created to test the golfer, other than big bunkers.  For repeat players wouldn't it be fun to have a few tiny bunkers out there that look impossible to get in, but opps they're gathering bunkers from even 50 yards away....

[Craig Sweet]

Tom...I have no problem with the scale and the use of large "hairy" bunkers, but it does seem as if EVERY new course has bunkers that look like those at Rock Creek....ragged edged, hairy, flash/blown out bunkers....seems like a trend to me.

[TEPaul]

"....but it does seem as if EVERY new course has bunkers that look like those at Rock Creek....ragged edged, hairy, flash/blown out bunkers....seems like a trend to me."

Craig:

Good. I hope it is a trend.

That style looks a whole lot more natural to me than most of these "ultra artistic" bunkers of one kind or another we've seen for so long. The more bunkers look like a good representation of the real thing the better I like 'em. And that's one of the primary reasons I don't at all mind the bunkers that Merion East has now.  

[Tags:]

Tags: