Why did architecture go off the rails in the 1950-70s?

[Ran Morrissett]

The War brought to an end The Golden Age of course design. When it resumed in earnest in 1950, why were the lessons/philosophies that were taught from 1900-1935 completely ignored? I can appreciate a few architects going astray but the whole lot of them? Was the fifteen year break of such magnitude that, when coupled with The Great Depression, the architects had lost all sense of the past? Had lost a sense of what worked and why it worked so well?Or is it because Jones was in effect "it," and the other few felt compelled to emulate him? If that is the case, why were their convictions so weak? It would mark the first time in history that architecture didn't attract strong willed men.I was asked this question and had no real answer, so I am curious as to people's feedback.

[Bill Vostinak]

Housing and housing developments, perhaps.I think the argument that the best land went for housing is a little specious, but golf courses became the scenery for the housing developments.I also agree with you that Jones and hard became it. Jones was the first to get notariety for designing courses.  "Oh, its a Robert Trent Jones course, it must be good", was the first statement of its type I had ever heard as a kid, and that was all I heard until I heard "It's a Ross". ( Not too many of those in South Florida a carpenter's son could get on to play.  Kids like me didn't know beans about Seminole and Gulfstream in the mid sixties).

[T_MacWood]

1)None of the greats survived and unfortunately very few of the their proteges were left to pick up the pieces. There were no followers of MacKenzie, Macdonald/Raynor,Tillinghast,Thomas/Bell and Ross. In this country we were left with Jones and Wilson.(the British faired better)2)The early work of Trent Jones is very interesting, Stanley Thompson's influence is evident. The same with D.Wilson's early work, much more like Flynn than his later stylized efforts. For some reason they changed for the worse(too much work; not enough competition,I'm not sure why).3)Augusta National was the model. Regrettably it was a Trent Jones influenced Augusta. The artistic MacKenzie bunkers were softened and water was made more prominent(especially on the back-9 which were the only holes televised).4)If you look at the art and architecture of this same period, it also was very bland. What the hell were they putting in the water?

[mingay]

It is a strange question? I've also heard that during the 1950's the design and construction processes became extremely divided. No longer was the architect involved heavily in the construction of his course. And we know the results of that: inferior product. Also, Trent Jones declaration that water is the best hazard certainly had an influence -- a negative influence that is. In turn, the architecture left the strategic and entered the penal, or heroic as Jones liked to say, period. Maybe that's the answer: the overall change of philosophy -- from strategic to penal.We've now found out that it does work as well, similiar to those oval stadiums that were built during the same era in Pittsburgh, Cinncinnati, St. Louis, and Philadelphia. Now we're building Camden Yards, Coors Field, and Comerica Park in Detroit. Back on the right track?

[Jim_Nagle]

Could the equipment have had an adverse effect on progress?  Couple the Jones effect together with the ability to finish projects much faster, therefore the abiltiy to do more and more in a years times.  The hard rugged contours of plateaued greens and gnarley bunkers were being lost due to the change of equipment.  The evidence can be seen even in Ross' work.  His post war work definately had a different feel from his pre-depression work, although much better than what was done in the 50's.There probably are a multitude of reasons; housing, the almighty dollar, time, machinary, irrigation and i'm sure others.

[Dave_Axland]

Art does seem to travel in circles doesn't it. Random thoughts:1)Less is less during a depression or a war. Less is still less during post war prosperity. When does less become more? 2)The post-war effort to bring power to rural america inspired the use or over use of water/lakes as a golf course feature.3)The pioneering spirit implies that the way to deal with the frontier(property) is to change it. Changing the land is improving it. More is better.4)The good Capitalist must always make progress. Industry gave us big tractors, we needed to use them. Why have Paddy the bunker man hacking out erroded, craggy edges armed with a shovel and pint of scotch when a tractor can do it much cheaper and prettier?I enjoyed Jims comments regarding machinery. It became much easier to "beat up" a site."Economy of effort" when moving dirt was probably not as big a factor. The sprit of this discussion group suggests that the best way to proceed is to study where we have been. Many thanks.

[TEPaul]

Interesting question and answers!The dates certainly define an "era" in golf architecture.Whatever the factors; heavy machinery, water, heroics and target golf, stylisation, high production etc., there are a few common threads; all the old guys and their influence were dead and gone (what would Ross have done if he lived another twenty years) and all of the factors seemed to emerge off of one man's pallet; Robert Trent Jones.

[Sam Spade]

I say, call a spade a spade. The talent of the architects was evidently less then. Also, they had the "burden" of starting to grapple with all the new technology that was at their disposal. It took several decades before they learned that less was more and by then, a new breed were returning to the past for a valuable history lesson.

[Tom_Doak]

You've identified two of the leading causes -- the interruption was so long that most of the leading architects and their proteges died, and the new reliance on heavy equipment took a lot of the detail work out of the process.But a third reason is simply that because of the Depression and the War, hardly any young men "grew up" in golf and came to love it for its traditions and architecture.  This was largely gone from the 1920's through 1950, so it was only after 1965 that some young men broke back into the profession with a love for the game.Pete Dye told me years ago that is also the reason why Europe suddenly started producing great golfers again in the 1970's -- over there, two world wars had [literally] gotten in the way!Maybe that's why there aren't many good Euro golf architects, too.

[John Sessions]

I think a set of unconscious rules -  a "to do and not do" list (based loosely on Jones's work) - was formed and originality and creativity bit the dust for thirty-five years.

[Bill Brightly]

Did this get properly answered 8 years ago?

[Norbert P]

Wow. I didn't realize this was an old post and about plotzed when I saw some names from the old days. Great stuff and Axland's is a gem.

[TEPaul]

Man, that's some pretty good tight stuff from back in that day---eg the beginning. Do you think anyone who's been on here less than seven years should be immediately dumped?  

Bill Brightly asked today;

"Did this get properly answered 8 years ago?"

BillB:

Yes, it did!  

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I think the answer lies beyond the world of golf.  The 50's  were an era were everyone looked ahead to the future, with everything modern being touted as "good", and the past wanted to be forgotten.  Historic buildings torn down to make way for "progress": Big cars, skyscrappers, appliances in the household, commercial jets, urban sprawl... It was all big and bold.  

Minimalist design and the art of golf course architecture were victims of the love of modern times and technologies.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think Tom D has it. But what must also be consideered is that post war USA was an era of Optimism. I think that in all areas of creative endeavour folk really believed that they Could and Should come up with something Better than the previous generation. So they had to be different...

[Willie_Dow]

Implements (something used in a given activity) and Balls (any round object) took over Architecture.

It is still happening!

[Jon Wiggett]

I think that the people putting up the money have alot to do with it. If the people paying to have the course built have no idea about the game and what makes a good golf course or just don't care, then they will not demand a good product. If the golfer hasn't seen a good course and therefor doesn't know any better he won't complain about poor courses. Maybe a case of the blind leading the blind.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think Jeremy is on to something.  Everything pre-war was eschewed.  It was the time "Little Boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky tacky"  Bigger and inexpensive is better.  Move to the suburbs and live the American dream in Levittown and play on a brawny golf course.  What happened to architecture in general? Some of the most godawful schools and municipal buildings were created in that time span.  The churches that were built in the sixties were the product of an architectural joke.
People wanted new.  Let's face it, I like the fifties corvette and the 57 chevy but even car design stunk.  It took a while for "new" to get good.  The fifties and early sixties were the birth pangs of a new kind of golf course design.  Pete Dye was the progeny of the unholy union of TRJ and Dick Wilson.  

[harley_kruse]

As mentioned above machinery ie the advent BULLDOZER and also I like Tom D's comments about the wars interruption to the design profession.

Perhaps also the post war optimism was very cautious at first so cheap sites were found and not too much money was spent on design or building the courses.

The bulldozer allowed quick and cheap construction at first. And hey how many people in the fifties and early 60's actually knew how to shape with these machines. There wouldn't have been much in the way of a 4 way blade back then I assume

[Jeff_Brauer]

I favor the big picture theory, looking at some of the trends outside of golf design, which probably has never been a leader in design trends.  I would have liked to see some 50's style huge tail fin equivalents in golf design, though!

I sense the 50's and the move to suburbia was also about bringing golf to the middle classes.  They probably had enough of the fancy country clubs for the wealthy, which filled back up, but guys like Dedman were looking for ways to bring that generalized experience down to the middle class, in an affordable way (much like suburban houses were miniature versions of English estates)  

In essence, many compromises were made to make that happen in a cost effective way.  If machinery is a culprit, I think its maintenance machinery. Remember, one of the dominant trends heading into the shutdown was the RB Harris thing of two man maintenance, and that idea came out of the other end of WWII as well, IMHO.  As new machinery, like bunker rakes, came on the market, bunkers responded primarily to these, (i.e. boobs and butts that were easy to machine rake) rather than any Golden Rule of Aesthetic proportion.  Ditto riding greens mowers which required 8' to turn around.

Looked at in the vein of finally making golf affordable and available to the middle class, and that most of us here got our start in golf as a result, maybe we can forgive the architecture of the period at least a little bit!  It truly was design for the times, IMHO, as per a recent thread I started.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy Glenn:

As a sort of generalized truth I think your post above is really accurate about the feeling and "ethos" of that era (1950s-1970s).

That era just had to be a hard snap about face from the previous app 15-20 years that came before it.

I've just reread the book Franklin and Winston about the personal relationship during the war years between Roosevelt and Churchill and the other night at dinner I sat next to a 93 year old English LADY (the countess of Bessborough) who lived through it. It's so interesting to pick the brain of someone like that who went through that entire era particularly in England.

She is certainly one of the most upbeat people I've ever met but she explained what the life and death daily purpose did to those people back then. Amazingly she said she thinks particularly the British people may never have been happier in how they fought the good fight. And she said that feeling was not in retrospect but remarkably right in the middle of the crucible. She said in her opinion Churchill was full of all kinds of wild and crazy ideas but for a purpose---eg to keep the spirit and she said she thought both the British and even the Americans (eventually) were prepared to follow him into Hell and back.

But when it was over and the Allies were victorious the entire mood and "ethos" just completely changed and the result was a generation that for a time was just totally tired and beat and they even threw Churchill out because he completely represented everything about that time and apparently not the next.

They wanted to forget that Hell that even 17 year olds knew nothing but and get on with the business of an entirely new future.

And so they did.

I'm 63 now and I was never able to learn much of anything about that entire era from those who went through it. Even into the 60s and 70s and 80s they didn't seem to want to talk about it of even think about it.

Finally, a guy like Brokaw wrote the hugely popular book "The Greatest Generation" and we all began to understand that time and that ethos and admire it.

Cycles and cultural cycles are most interesting to me and you are right that beginning just before and around 1950 so many just did a quick snap "about face" just to forget what they'd been through for nearly a generation.

[BCrosby]

Good thread. Two things to note.

The number of courses in the US did not recover to the 1930 figure until about 1965. I don't have the number handy, but several thousand courses disappeared between 1930 and 1945.

That's a whole lot of new courses built and a whole lot of courses remodeled during the post-war period.

Yet there are amazingly few courses from that period ranked in the top 100.

For all of RTJ's prodigious output and gigantic reputation, remarkably few of his orignal designs are ranked.

My bet is that RTJ will be remembered more for his contributions to the business of golf architecture and less for his design product. My other bet is that a similar fate awaits Fazio and some other moderns, but that will be farther down the line.

Bob

[Philippe Binette]

because they died...

golf architecture turned from art to business

[Gary Slatter]

I think the answer lies beyond the world of golf.  The 50's  were an era were everyone looked ahead to the future, with everything modern being touted as "good", and the past wanted to be forgotten.  Historic buildings torn down to make way for "progress": Big cars, skyscrappers, appliances in the household, commercial jets, urban sprawl... It was all big and bold.  

Minimalist design and the art of golf course architecture were victims of the love of modern times and technologies.

Jeremy, I think you have it right!!!   I personally feel Jones and Dick Wilson were great, same as the new guys now. They did their thing instead of repeating history, they were "progressive" as were the times.  The public would not have gone along with more 20's courses.  
And there are good Euro designers, and similarly IMHO I don't think they could get away building copies of classic courses, and right now some of the worse courses in Europe are US designs.

[Kirk Gill]

golf architecture turned from art to business

Are the two mutually exclusive?


A couple of questions pop into my mind, reading the excellent post above by Mr. TEPaul - first of all, if you are in some way rebelling against something that is excellent, aren't you in some way doomed to failure? As an analogy I think of how many kids, in their teenage years, desperate to rebel against their parents, end up rejecting much that is wonderful in life in an attempt to create an identity of their own. It's only later, when the reactionary impulse seems less necessary, that some of the things held dear by mum and dad start to look a bit better, in retrospect. Did GCA go through a similar process?

And secondly, if you buy into the notion of the Hegelian dialectic where a thesis leads to an antithesis, and the battle of those ideas leads ultimately to a new idea, the synthesis........is this a notion that can be applied to the development of GCA? Was the "off the rails" period an antithesis to the "golden age," and did Pete Dye and everything that flowed from his appearance on the scene constitute a new synthesis?

Just reading that I feel that I am utterly full of shinola.