[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


As to construction equipment, someone did build a course with horse and scoop in the last decade, maybe Ray Hearn or Paul Albanese, just don't remember.  For most, we may want to roll back the equipment, but hold off on rolling back our equipment.....


I was taken to task for this once, by one of the more unpleasant former posters here, but I have thought about the question of how much feature design I consider when routing.  In general, very little.  Routing is really fitting holes together.  There are only so many things we can think about at once.  There will always be a few obvious ones, like a Cape Hole over a pond, Redan green on a reverse slope, etc. 


And, I usually take a quick "head count" of shot types on any routing, and sometimes use that to compare to other routings prepared in the preliminary phase to see which might yield better holes.  Do I have substantially more dogleg lefts than right?  Do I have inherently hard holes at 1, 2, 10, 11? How many greens bend with prevailing wind, vs. against it, natural hazards left, right, short, long, etc.  Not that there is a strict right answer to any of those or more. 


After routing is set, I use a head count and my general design ideas to start fleshing out all the features.  Again, some fairways and greens scream for one design, while others can be quite flexible, and I use those to try to attain close semblance to attain my "ideal" balance of holes.


Not sure that answers your questions, but it is an attempt to make a circular process into a more easily described simple answer.

[Sean_A]

I wonder...unless the site really stands out as unusual or terrific, isn't it really the finishing touches and man-made aspects of designs which give courses their shine...no?  Tons of sites are similar and produce similar courses.  Using Colt as an example, many of his lesser light courses look and feel similar to each other.  This is partly because he often used the same builder.  Its also because its the same guy designing over similar landscapes without trying to alter those landscapes.  Finally, Colt designed a lot of courses.  I don't know the magic number before a sense of deja vu sets in, but it will eventuall set in.  Consequently, we get many well designed Colt courses (I would argue the same for Ross), but many which don't significantly differentiate from each other. The only way to separate these courses is to change they way they look or perhaps in the case of water or OOB, use these features a bit differently.  That may mean using a different builder, working differently with a design associate, some courses where a lot more bunkers are placed, use of water, breaking ones own rules (for example utilizing blind shots) etc. Eventually, most archies who make it to designing more than a handful of courses will try to break from their mold a bit because they sense things are getting stale.   

This is where I am consistently amazed by the work of Fowler.  The man just didn't build two courses which are visually similar except for possibly Walton Heath and Berkshire.  Yep, his designs are a bit more erratic in terms of quality than that of Colt, but often times his designs are more interesting as well. I think this is mainly due to his willingness break up the lines of nature with in your face man-made elements.  It is for this reason I don't really buy into the "nature is best" mantra.

Ciao 

[Adam Lawrence]

As to construction equipment, someone did build a course with horse and scoop in the last decade, maybe Ray Hearn or Paul Albanese, just don't remember.  For most, we may want to roll back the equipment, but hold off on rolling back our equipment.....

Yes, it was Paul. He wrote a piece about it for us, here:


http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/courses-for-horses

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


They say Tillie didn't build similar courses, but rather than be a good trait, I always thought it was because he worked with different local contractors and didn't make many site visits.  Could be wrong, because I wasn't there.


But if you see is redo of SFGC (with its fabulous Bell bunkering) if he had seen the result, would he have built a pretty bland Golden Valley and others the next year?


With Ross, I think the courses of his Chicago office tended to look more modern than those of his Pinehurst associates.  I bet if you really studied any designer, you could pick out some traits based on which associate designed it.  As I opined a while back, some of it is wrist radius or drafting style.  Others would be them putting in their pet ideas (we all have them, and associates seem determined to design it their own way...can't tell the number of sketches I have done that have been changed in final drafting.....)

[Tom_Doak]

I bet if you really studied any designer, you could pick out some traits based on which associate designed it.  As I opined a while back, some of it is wrist radius or drafting style. 

Wrist radius?  For my designs that would only apply if it changes how they curl the bucket of the excavator ... but I think that's based on the physical limits of the machine, not the operator !

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, that is what Dick Nugent used to say.  And yes, for an office that at least starts in plan.


And, it was true in all the years I saw people drawing plans. Some tended to draw in long flowing curves. Others were very uptight, the wrist anchored firmly to the drafting table, and thus, they tended to draw tighter, herky jerky curves.


Of course, being able to see in "3D" helps too, whether drawing plans or working in the field. I had one former (short term) associate who just couldn't believe bunkers could (and to a degree, should) be 4, 6, 8 or even 10+ deep.  So, his grading plans always had bunkers raised to a foot or so from the green surface.  We would go on field trips, and every time he was in a bunker, I would say "See, not 2 foot deep!"  He never changed his habit, so he was a layoff when work got slow. 


Another always put a contour line in front of the bunker, so instead of a nice flow on the bottom of the bunkers, his tended to be very flat on the bottom.  Even Dick Nugent himself tended to draw a contour line along the back of a green, which looked better on plan to him. Of course, a gently rolling top skyline edge usually looks better in real life than a flat green.


I drew a green (15th at Glencoe, about 1980) more like a Colt and Allison green, where the rises coincided with the outside curves of the green shape. (placing a mound on the inside corner of any green shape was typical in 1977-1983 for most architects)   He hated the plan, vowed to change it in the field, but liked it when he saw it.  But, he wouldn't change the plan style, and it was one reason I eventually left the firm.

[Thomas Dai]

As to construction equipment, someone did build a course with horse and scoop in the last decade, maybe Ray Hearn or Paul Albanese, just don't remember.  For most, we may want to roll back the equipment, but hold off on rolling back our equipment.....

Yes, it was Paul. He wrote a piece about it for us, here:
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/courses-for-horses

From Ran's profile of RM(W) - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/australia/royalmelbourne1/


atb

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, that is what Dick Nugent used to say.  And yes, for an office that at least starts in plan.


And, it was true in all the years I saw people drawing plans. Some tended to draw in long flowing curves. Others were very uptight, the wrist anchored firmly to the drafting table, and thus, they tended to draw tighter, herky jerky curves.


Of course, being able to see in "3D" helps too, whether drawing plans or working in the field. I had one former (short term) associate who just couldn't believe bunkers could (and to a degree, should) be 4, 6, 8 or even 10+ deep.  So, his grading plans always had bunkers raised to a foot or so from the green surface.  We would go on field trips, and every time he was in a bunker, I would say "See, not 2 foot deep!"  He never changed his habit, so he was a layoff when work got slow. 


Another always put a contour line in front of the bunker, so instead of a nice flow on the bottom of the bunkers, his tended to be very flat on the bottom.  Even Dick Nugent himself tended to draw a contour line along the back of a green, which looked better on plan to him. Of course, a gently rolling top skyline edge usually looks better in real life than a flat green.


I drew a green (15th at Glencoe, about 1980) more like a Colt and Allison green, where the rises coincided with the outside curves of the green shape. (placing a mound on the inside corner of any green shape was typical in 1977-1983 for most architects)   He hated the plan, vowed to change it in the field, but liked it when he saw it.  But, he wouldn't change the plan style, and it was one reason I eventually left the firm.

Jeff:


Thank you for providing the most articulate answer to the question of why golf courses should never be built to plan!  I've always suspected much of the earthmoving I see is the result of silly little drawing quirks, but I've never really cared enough to sort out exactly what was wrong!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


No one has ever disagreed that working in the field for the final result is a requirement for a good course, and "plans only" should be limited, if at all, to the low budget muni where getting built on time and on budget is the only concern.  It seems obvious that the best 3D visualization comes in the real world, after some rough shaping, and that is when the final details should be fleshed out.


That said, plans are what architects have drawn since the dawn of time, and they have many useful purposes.  It doesn't matter exactly when the designer fleshes out the basic ideas, and there are many good arguments that sooner rather than later has advantages.


Still, the end result is in the ability and ideas of the gca, no matter where he starts. Its about where it ends.  There are some limitations (mostly repetitive thinking by the gca) that apply to any method.


I post that just to show that the really good architect must (Clint Eastwood voice....) "Know his limitations" as well as the limitations of his methods.  If he/she does, it helps in achieving a good product.

[Joe Hancock]

Shouldn't a reputable architect do enough drafting work to KNOW what amount of earth NEEDS to be moved so the client isn't screwed by insufficient planning and funding? It doesn't make someone a lesser architect or person if they do some math...honestly.

[Niall C]

Homogeneous design has always existed.  The entire concept of the classical age of architecture is really about this because that is when design was being codified.  Look no further than the heathlands...folks can't tell me there isn't more than a passing similarity between the famous heathland courses.   

Innovation does attract negativity.  Jeepers, just look at what happened in Cardiff when Zaha won the Opera House commission. The idiot funders wouldn't financially support the project so it was pulled.  I bet all involved in that decision regret it now!  Okay, Zaha is a high profile success story and and I don't see golf architecture getting anywhere near as out of the box as her stuff, but there is still a kernal of truth to be learned from.   It will be interesting to see how the works of Strantz will be perceived in 20 years.  Like most golfers, I am a traditionalist at heart and like to experience traditional architecture.  Once archies figure out how to deliver innovation in a sustainable and player friendly package the way it was done 90 years ago there is a chance for there to be some movement in the look of courses.  Still, we must all remember that it is much more important about courses is how they make golfers feel and think (F&T).  The eye candy is lovely and does contribute to F&T, but its easy for archies to get lost in eye candy at the expense of other important aspects of design....and one of those aspects should be innovation...at least sometimes. But...perhaps it is wiser for archies to seek out innovation on sites which aren't quite so well blessed...hence my comment about it taking a brave archie to get radical on a sandy site.

Ciao

Belatedly catching up on this thread and intrigued at the mention of Zaha Hadid. Her unfortunate demise was newsworthy and inevitably as a result of her celebrity how much she left in her will was also newsworthy. Clearly from the news report it was evident that she was fairly successful.


However I think I am correct in saying she also had a bit of a rep for outlandish designs that didn't get built. Perhaps Cardiff was one such example. To my eye her designs were of a similar style if not exactly the same shape ! I suspect that certain architecture critics could pick out that style the same way some people can spot Colt's style or MacKenzies.


One of her designs that did get built was the new Transport Museum in Glasgow. The old one was in the Kelvin Hall, just round the corner from where I lived. I always enjoyed paying a visit and the building, while not former railway sheds as such, had enough of the industrial about it to make you feel like you were in a railway shed when you stepped up on to the plate of an old locomotive.


The new building in contrast is........well look it up on the internet and you will get the idea. The biggest sin is not what it looks like outside, which I actually find quite attractive, but how it is laid out internally. None of the exhibits exactly feels at home and many of them, including small cars and motorbikes are hung up on the wall above each other as though they were paintings. I kid you not. There seems to be no thought as to the purpose of the building. To me it's ego design ie. all about the look and not about the function. The best architecture surely caters for both with that being true in building design and of golf courses.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

I recall the comment "What is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend."

Atb

[Tim Gallant]

I wonder...unless the site really stands out as unusual or terrific, isn't it really the finishing touches and man-made aspects of designs which give courses their shine...no?  Tons of sites are similar and produce similar courses.  Using Colt as an example, many of his lesser light courses look and feel similar to each other.  This is partly because he often used the same builder.  Its also because its the same guy designing over similar landscapes without trying to alter those landscapes.  Finally, Colt designed a lot of courses.  I don't know the magic number before a sense of deja vu sets in, but it will eventuall set in.  Consequently, we get many well designed Colt courses (I would argue the same for Ross), but many which don't significantly differentiate from each other. The only way to separate these courses is to change they way they look or perhaps in the case of water or OOB, use these features a bit differently.  That may mean using a different builder, working differently with a design associate, some courses where a lot more bunkers are placed, use of water, breaking ones own rules (for example utilizing blind shots) etc. Eventually, most archies who make it to designing more than a handful of courses will try to break from their mold a bit because they sense things are getting stale.   

This is where I am consistently amazed by the work of Fowler.  The man just didn't build two courses which are visually similar except for possibly Walton Heath and Berkshire.  Yep, his designs are a bit more erratic in terms of quality than that of Colt, but often times his designs are more interesting as well. I think this is mainly due to his willingness break up the lines of nature with in your face man-made elements.  It is for this reason I don't really buy into the "nature is best" mantra.

Ciao

      Sean,
 
I agree with your first point, that unless it is a really stand-out or terrific site, it will come down to aspects of design to give a course its shine. While I haven’t played the course, the example that comes to my mind is Royal Worlington & Newmarket. I don’t know if that site is much different than a lot of other places, but the routing and use of natural features is acclaimed around the world.
 
Where I disagree is that I believe (for the moment at least) that the way that Raynor kept any two of his courses from feeling entirely monotonous, despite his standardised use of templates, was by working on sites that were drastically different – Yale was different from Fishers was different from Lookout Mountain.
 
In Fowlers case, the two courses I have played, Walton Heath Old and Eastward Ho! feel, in my mind, completely different from one another, despite possibly having similar design principles attached to both. I can only think that this comes down to: he had two diverse and terrific sites to make his courses feel distinct. Whereas Colt didn’t necessarily have that luxury, often called upon by clubs around the UK to build or fix what was already existing (thus, no say on the site).
 
But I don’t think it is JUST about the site, but rather to ensure that the design ideas a given architect applies for a particular course utilises the unique traits of a site rather than bend the site to fit their ‘plan’.
 

[Mark_Fine]

As some here know, there was talk of building "replicating" Lido as the fourth course at Streamsong.  That is not going to happen now but clearly bulldozers would have been the main tool of choice and the land would have been raped to force fit the design.  Thoughts?


Also I have not yet played Old Mac (trip is booked this June) but what are people's thoughts on that one?

[Mark_Fine]

Not sure if he has been mentioned yet in this thread or not but one of my favorites "modern" architects (and one of the best there ever was) is Pete Dye.  I consider him a friend. We have talked often and he was kind enough to write the foreword for my book on hazards.  I have to laugh, however, when I hear him say that he tended to "find" his courses more so than build them     Take Whistling Straits for example.  The only thing Pete found there was a big bag of money.  The dedign is an amazing feat of vision and engineering but he sure didn't find that golf course - he built it.  And the same goes in my opinion for most of his designs.  Pete never had a problem jumping on a bulldozer and knocking a hole into shape.  Pete could hardly draw or sketch and despised detailed plans (waste of money).  He envisioned what he wanted and just built it.  I am a huge fan!  Pete is maybe the best example outside of Raynor/Macdonald/Banks of a great architect who could build something special and somewhat unique on most any site.  Did Pete have design patterns/preferences he liked to use - for sure.  Most every architect does. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()