News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Eye Candy or a representation of Nature? New
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2008, 10:56:50 PM »
"I'm not sure that all features don't have some affect at least. Imagine a fairway bunker on the left side, in the actual fairway but only a hundred yards off the tee. Wouldn't you and I and most other golfers wonder -- at least for a little while -- what it was doing there and what it might mean (e.g. perhaps as some directional aid, hinting at the preferred line)? Is a bunker a hundred yards off the tee 'strategic'? Not in any practical sense,  and yet we can't help pondering what it might 'mean'"

Peter:

I think a website like this one with contributors who are so into all the details of golf course architecture are going to have to get used to the reality that even the best architects did not necessarily make or place their architectural features, including some bunkers, solely for "strategic" purposes.     

Some of the best architects used bunkering for reasons of scale, some for perspective (reasons like "tying in" and over-all "look") and some for probably just practical reasons such as they needed fill to build something nearby and they just got it by cutting into the earth near to where they needed the fill and it probably seemed more reasonable in some instances to put sand in it and make a bunker than to just leave a hole in the ground. ;)

« Last Edit: March 22, 2008, 11:22:39 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Eye Candy or a representation of Nature?
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2008, 11:14:03 PM »
TE -

I keep trying to get to the sunlit uplands and join the rarefied crowd there... but I guess it's rarefied up there for a reason  :)

I keep stumbling on practical realities like the need for fill.  I thought they were doing something "important", like being random

Peter   
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 11:18:22 PM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

Re: Eye Candy or a representation of Nature?
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2008, 11:48:52 PM »
"I thought they were doing something "important", like being random."

But they were being random, Peter, in that strategic considerations were not exactly ALL they were thinking about when they did the things they did! That they were doing everything ONLY for "strategic" reasons seems to be some recent ideal vision of addicted golf architecture purists. Those who are really interested in all this----eg most of the contributors on this website, would do very well in enhancing their architectural education by spending as much time as they possibly can on sites during the design and construction phases. If they did that I think they might be both disappointed and amazed at what goes on out there and why!  ;)

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy or a representation of Nature?
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2008, 08:18:05 AM »
The list of supplies that were purchased for the early golf courses, is interesting:

Manure - by the box car load
Grass seed
Dynamite - for blowing up tree stumps
Oats, straw, and hay - for the horses
Lime - for sweetening the soil
Clay tiles
Stone

And sand.

Sand was already being used as an important ingredient for making concrete, and its supply was readily available. Most of the haulage firms that moved materials for road and building construction were already quarrying and hauling sand virtually everywhere.

So I guess it was not too much of a stretch to incorporate sand as a material for golf course development. Even Dunn was laying it in the trenches of steeple chase bunkers.

From the very begining sand was associated with what is a golf course, and while it may have been a foreign material to nearly every site where golf courses were being built, it was not a foreign material to people in the construction and architecture community.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Eye Candy or a representation of Nature?
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2008, 11:12:52 PM »
"I thought they were doing something "important", like being random."

But they were being random, Peter, in that strategic considerations were not exactly ALL they were thinking about when they did the things they did! That they were doing everything ONLY for "strategic" reasons seems to be some recent ideal vision of addicted golf architecture purists. Those who are really interested in all this----eg most of the contributors on this website, would do very well in enhancing their architectural education by spending as much time as they possibly can on sites during the design and construction phases. If they did that I think they might be both disappointed and amazed at what goes on out there and why!  ;)

Thanks TE - a cool post, and very clear.

I think I've got it now. Well, at least until I don't again....

Peter

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back