Is subtlety underrated in modern design?

[PCCraig]

Minimalism is all about using the land and its interesting features given to the architect to build strategic golf holes that blend into its surroundings. When chasing future projects, minimalist designers seem to seek out dramatic sites with which they can lay out their design strategy without moving much dirt.

However, now with the minimalism “movement” more in vogue with the golf industry as a hole, my opinion has become that designers have begun to force minimalist ideas onto their various projects and onto land that perhaps is not best suited for that type of design.

In doing so, designers have begun to build big, bold, features on courses: extremely wide fairways, big undulating greens with severe slopes, bunkers with features that are supposed to look “natural” to the environment, numerous wide teeing areas that create more angles, etc…

This should be a good thing, however I feel as though subtlety has become overlooked in modern design. Many of the much talked about and highly regarded new designs over the last decade have either been on dramatic sites (ocean, dunes, and expensive views) or built on less interesting sites featuring bold features to excite the player. So few could be considered “low key” without any defining feature.

So, is subtlety underrated in modern design? Can a great strategic course be built without a dramatic property or bold features throughout the course?

Or does subtlety breed boring golf courses?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,

Subtlety is very underrated ... Because many people are not sharp enough to see it.

We minimalists do not feel that we rely on dramatic sites as a crutch.  We are happy to build on more subtle sites as well, when they are presented to us.  However, I will say that many developers of such subtle sites think they need a different sort of architect to create more features, and that minimalism won't work on a subtle site.  You can refer back to the Common Ground thread for an example of what happens when we take on such a job.

Also, the hard truth is that subtlety doesn't work so well among the distractions of a large development ... most people just can't focus on the golf features.  In fact, there are many on this site and on the ranking panels who consider any course with housing inferior by nature.  And those are just the projects that rely most heavily on subtlety, because the dramatic views are all reserved for the lots.

[Sean_A]

I think subtlety is hard to sell ffor a few reasons.  Folks like visual impact regardless of its impact on play.  Archies feel an overwhelming desire to prove their worth.  Finally, folks are not patient enough to accept that there may be only key feature to hole.  They want want obvious individual challenges on each successive shot and thus don't treat holes (and courses!) as an entirety and instead treat each shot as an end in and of itself. 

Ciao   

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm not quite sure what subtlety implies.  On my home course I can think of a couple of examples of what I would consider subtleness.
My course has some deep green side bunkers and thick rough.  On some of the longer par fours the designer shaped the land so that the player can run up a shot onto the green.  A lot first time players seem to miss this.

Second example is the 18th hole.  It is a par five where the second shot is key.  If you can't get the second shot to the top of a plateau you will have a blind third shot. Again many first time players don't get it and complain that they can't see the green on their third shot.  I just tell them that is because their first two shots were poorly hit.

Are these subtleties about which we are speaking?

[Mac Plumart]

Tommy...I can conceptualize better with specific examples.  Subtelty in golf course architecture is NOT the 17th at TPC Sawgrass.  Hit the green or else!  No one can miss that aspect of the hole even if it is your first time playing it.  The best example of what subtelty is in golf course architecture to me is almost any Donald Ross course, perhaps we can identify with Pinehurst #2 most readily.  Off the tee, the best strategy may not be easily recognized as the fairway looks wide open.  But you need to look at the green complex, where are the bunkers, where is the flag, can you see if the green angles, what is the best way to approach that green, is it shallow, wide, etc...?  These are examples of subtelty to me as many players will miss that aspect of a hole the first few times they play it.

Pat...is it under-rated in modern design?  In most cases, absolutely.  For another example, ask people the best hole on Kiawah Ocean.  I'll bet 9 out of 10 average golfers will say hole 17.  But 2 would be over-looked.  If you want to build a golf course as business, you need people to want to come back and the wow factor that 17 brings to the table will get them right away and most likely make them want to come back.

[jeffwarne]

Minimalism is all about using the land and its interesting features given to the architect to build strategic golf holes that blend into its surroundings. When chasing future projects, minimalist designers seem to seek out dramatic sites with which they can lay out their design strategy without moving much dirt.

However, now with the minimalism “movement” more in vogue with the golf industry as a hole, my opinion has become that designers have begun to force minimalist ideas onto their various projects and onto land that perhaps is not best suited for that type of design.

In doing so, designers have begun to build big, bold, features on courses: extremely wide fairways, big undulating greens with severe slopes, bunkers with features that are supposed to look “natural” to the environment, numerous wide teeing areas that create more angles, etc…

This should be a good thing, however I feel as though subtlety has become overlooked in modern design. Many of the much talked about and highly regarded new designs over the last decade have either been on dramatic sites (ocean, dunes, and expensive views) or built on less interesting sites featuring bold features to excite the player. So few could be considered “low key” without any defining feature.

So, is subtlety underrated in modern design? Can a great strategic course be built without a dramatic property or bold features throughout the course?

Or does subtlety breed boring golf courses?

Subtlety doesn't sell at retail prices.