Following Nature and Appearing Natural

[DMoriarty]

We've recently had some discussion about whether or not golf architects should and/or do "follow the land" when designing.   A related but distinct issue is whether their final product appears natural upon completion.  

I thought it might be interesting to graph various courses and/or architects to see where they have actually come out on these two issues.

The X-axis represents what role, if any, the existing landscape and conditions play in the architect's design.   I suppose that that the extreme on the right would be a truly "Wild" course where the architect did nothing more than route.  On the other end of the spectrum, there would be a course with no ties to the previous landscape or conditions.

The Y-Axis represents whether or not the final product appears natural.  This one might be more tricky, as it necessarily depends upon one's perspective (For example Shadow Creek might appear natural to some, while others might not be able to suspend believe enough to disconnect the course from the broad desert setting.)

I've also labeled the quadrants, clockwise from top left, to aid the discussion.  Something like this:

                                   Natural
                                 Appearance
                                        /\
                                        l
                                        l
                A                       l                      B
                                        l
                                        l
                                        l
Ignore                                                       Follow
natural    < --------------------------------> natural
lanscape                                                    landscape
                                        l
                                        l                                        l
                      D                 l                   C
                                        l
                                        l
                                        \/
                                  Unnatural
                                  Appearance


For example,  I would have thought that Max Behr would have been a strong B (meaning strong positive X and strong positive Y), at least in philosophy.  But if I understand TEPaul correctly, he would classify Behr as a strong positive Y who was relatively indifferent to the X axis.  So my characterization of Behr's philosophy would be a point high and right in the B quadrant, while TEPaul's would be a horizontal line well above the X-axis.

For another example,  I would place the Lido in quadrant A (---X, +Y), since the course pretty much ignored the landscape and since there seems to be a concensus that the course must have appeared at least somewhat natural.

So, where on this chart would you place various noted courses and architects, past and present?
 

 

[TEPaul]

David;

This looks like a good and potential subject and thread but for me, I'm sorry, I can't think in graphs--I can't translate into graphs or even read them very well. To me golf architecture is probably a series of developing visual images, made up of natural building blocks I guess I'd call natural "lines"--on a raw site "lines" that are sort of the twists and turns of the site's topography--no matter how small or large they may be.

But the site's natural topography, even all of it on the actual site is only just part of the discovery and only part of the job of "following Nature and Appearing Natural", in my opinion. A really good architect in the context of what I believe to be someone like Behr's "Natural School of Architecture" must do more than that. He must match the useable natural topography for golf of an actual site with all that's visible elsewhere from anywhere on that site.

What would I mean by "useable" natural topography for golf? That to me is where an architect really needs imagination and talent to put his eventual architectural product together well in both an overall routing sense down to the small and more miniscule little shots of golf, even if it's as small as a little putt or chip!

To me it really is a massive jigsaw puzzle if following Nature and truly appearing Natural is an architect's goal. It's a jigsaw puzzle from the extremely large overall visuals of all that anyone would ever see from anywhere on the site down to something really small that could or would have some interesting effect on a golf shot somehow.

I'd imagine that no raw site ever gave any architect a complete golf course given the inherent prerequisites of the "game" of golf such as balance, variety, rhythm, harmony and emphasis--basically the loose requirements of so-called "art principles" as they're expected to fit into the sort of format of golf and a golf round.

So if Nature isn't fitting into the "game's" requirements somehow you have to alter it, enhance it, whatever, and when you do that to stay with following Nature and continuing to appear Natural what you make has to somehow match all those natural "lines" of the site, and work for interesting golf shots too, drain well, mow well, blah, blah, blah.

To me following Nature and appearing Natural is an enormous jigsaw puzzle in continuing observation and imagination and execution.

Of course one doesn't have to do that. One can always just create whatever you want anywhere so long as it drains well, mows well and works for those basic requirements of golf and a round of golf. It won't follow Nature and its "lines" in a larger sense that way, though, and probably won't appear very natural either in a larger sense, although it might in a smaller confined sense regarding Nature's "lines" (at least Nature's "lines" somewhere in the world).

Shadow Creek is probably an excellent example of the latter. The smaller manufactured "lines" might appear as a very good imitation of the "lines" of Nature, perhaps in Oregon. But in a larger sense the "lines" of Nature in Oregon don't look right to me in an overall Nature sense against the larger more distant visible "lines" of the Nevada desert and its distant mountains.

But Wynn/Fazio meant to create a visual fantasy out there, I guess--a virtual mirage so to speak--and they did a beautiful job of that, for sure.

But perhaps you might be driving at a larger question and a larger answer. For instance, does following Nature and Appearing Natural in either a small or large sense regarding any site really matter? Does it really matter to golfers today? If architects could and did suddenly offer golfers courses that really did follow Nature comprehensively in a large and small context would golfers even notice and even if they did what would be the overall difference in effect to them?

I guess another way of asking might be is the philosophy of a Max Behr who believed in the "Natural School of architecture" for a whole host of reasons really necessary?

To be completely honest I suppose I'd have to say I just don't know!

[T_MacWood]

One of the differences between Lido and Shadow Creek is that Lido was attemtping to emulate the environment that would/could be found on that site naturally; SC attempted to create a fantasy of mountainous NC (I believe that was what they were going for) in the desert. To complete the image SC imported a great number of plants, I take it, wouldn't be found naturally (and perhaps wouldn't survive without extraordinary assistance--of course grass being one of those plants). I assume Lido grew native grasses to stabalize the dunes.

[T_MacWood]

I've always been under the impression that Max Behr could create (man-made features) with the best of them. Isn't the experiment conducted by Golf Illustrated (UK) between Simpson and Behr an example of how and under what circumstance he would alter the landscape?

[paul cowley]

.....when nature and the site give you alot it becomes an exercise of unwrapping the package .....when nature gives you very little , creating the package becomes the challenge.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It is. It's an interesting series of articles that Charles Ambrose did comparing Behr's "American solution" to Tom Simpson's "British solution" of building a putting green on a 1 to 6 slope. All I have are Nos 22, 23, 24. Unfortunately, I don't have Behr's response (including sketch) to Simpson's response and solution.

It looks as if Behr in no. 23 is simply trying to deal with structural integrity by guarding against what he calls the "forces of Nature---eg convexity is stronger and more naturally (and otherwise) effective than concavity!

But Behr talked nothing about playability for golf as Simpson did really well. Perhaps Behr did that in no. 25 which I don't have. Simpson's drawing certainly looks more natural to me than Behr's sketch, but Behr's first sketch may be presented only to exhibit what structural integrity is all about. Perhaps in no 25 Behr did talk about the playability of his solution and offered a sketch that looks more natural as well.

Do you happen to have no 25 or know where it can be found?

[TEPaul]

".....when nature and the site give you alot it becomes an exercise of unwrapping the package .....when nature gives you very little , creating the package becomes the challenge."

Paul;

The challenge of creating the package when nature gives you very little is pretty clear--certainly and excercise in some kind of unfettered imagination.

However, when nature gives you a whole lot on a site it often becomes a greater challenge, in my opinion, to figure out how to use it and the obstacles (restraints) it can create to acheiving many of those required prerequisites of golf--such as variety and balance---eg, variety needs to fall in particular places generally for golf, certainly in the first step of routing.

On a site where nature offers little it generally restrains little too. Unfortunately the same cannot always be said for sites that offer a ton of natural interest. With that does come restraints from nature too in getting what some believe golf courses need to be good golf courses.

With a ton of natural interest that an architect uses for golf in an attempt to really follow Nature and appear Natural certainly can come a ton of quirk and off-beat design in all kinds of ways. Some like that but there's little doubt today that some don't like it!

[paul cowley]

tom... .i feel the design challenges are equal,but vary in the way one goes about achieving success.

sand hills and lido ....the thrill of creative discovery compared with the pleasure of making alot from a little.