Is minimalism a tangible or intangible?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike / Paul:

I think we are really running in opposite directions now, unless your standard of "a really good golf course" is VERY high.

I think there are a lot of sites where a very good golf course can be built without moving dirt in the fairways of more than a couple of holes.  There are hundreds of older courses that fit the bill; and of the 25 I've built, less than ten really needed much work other than greens, tees and bunkers.

That's why another definition of minimalism could be "restraint".  I think there are a lot of sites which COULD be approached this way, but most architects believe they could make them even better with a pinch here, a tweak there, and so on all the way through.  Eventually, you reach a point where it's all so perfectly worked out that you can feel it's no longer natural at all.  As Mike said earlier, you have to give people "long natural earth forms" in order to win them over, and it's not as hard to do as everyone thinks.

You know how most shapers tend to over-polish their shapes?  Architects over-polish their designs, too.

[Mike_Young]

TD,
I agree with your post 25.......where do I seem to say different.....long day....car reservation wrong and no room when arrive at hotel.....maybe have misread myself...

[Peter Nomm]

Tom - years down the road, is there ever any regret (maybe too strong a word) about using too much restraint, or about not using enough?

Or is it more a case of wondering or imagining what any differences could have been?

[paul cowley]

Mike / Paul:

I think we are really running in opposite directions now, unless your standard of "a really good golf course" is VERY high.

I think there are a lot of sites where a very good golf course can be built without moving dirt in the fairways of more than a couple of holes.  There are hundreds of older courses that fit the bill; and of the 25 I've built, less than ten really needed much work other than greens, tees and bunkers.

That's why another definition of minimalism could be "restraint".  I think there are a lot of sites which COULD be approached this way, but most architects believe they could make them even better with a pinch here, a tweak there, and so on all the way through.  Eventually, you reach a point where it's all so perfectly worked out that you can feel it's no longer natural at all.  As Mike said earlier, you have to give people "long natural earth forms" in order to win them over, and it's not as hard to do as everyone thinks.

You know how most shapers tend to over-polish their shapes?  Architects over-polish their designs, too.

I feel we are in agreement.....my use of the word massive was probably just a little too.... massive....and overstated...and overpolished .

Of late I have been formulating in my head "Design Manifesto ll...Land Forms and Feature Development".... and I plan on posting it here first.....as soon as I can figure out how to download it.