News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2004, 04:15:03 PM »
Tom MacW:

The bottom one is the miniature. I've seen some short courses but never a miniature scale course. It sounds like an interesting novelty but not something I'd think would capture much public interest.

I believe the greatest of the naturalist golf architects were the likes of Mackenzie, Maxwell, Hunter, Egan, Behr, perhaps Tillinghast and a few other Americans and many of the heathland crowd such as Colt, Alison, Fowler and perhaps some others with whom I'm not that familiar. These were the ones who dreamed the most, I believe, that the art would reach new heights in naturalism in the future. CPC, although slightly stylized, was perhaps the greatest effort in melding the man-made to the natural site to extinguish the demarcation of the one from the other I know of. And I believe that Mackenzie was probably the greatest of them all in this way.

T_MacWood

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2004, 05:33:50 PM »
TE
Egan? Could you give us one "naturalistic" course Egan designed other than his design work at PBGL (in collaboration with MacKenzie and Hunter)? Were any of the gentlemen you list influenced by FL Olmsted?

What about Billy Bell, Stanley Thompson, CB Macdonald, William Flynn, Walter Travis, Tom Simpson, and Donald Ross?

Its not important if the garden courses are interesting novelty or not. You said: Scale has nothing to do with this. Scale is just an architectural technique whether it be building, garden or golf course design. But if a golf architect is to minimize the impact and observability of his "parts" (his man-made features) to meld them better into the whole (natural scene as far as the eye can see) he pretty much has to do it by matching Nature's own scale of her commensurate "parts" with his own.

They are both minature...Tom Simpson's design at Windlesham Moor, the private estate of William Clark in Surrey. IMO the photograph also illustrates the naturalistic form of the English garden of that period...the golf course appears to be in its natural environment, if you didn't know better, you would never geuss its within a garden.

TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2004, 06:01:06 PM »
TE
Egan? Could you give us one "naturalistic" course Egan designed other than his design work at PBGL (in collaboration with MacKenzie and Hunter)?"

Tom MacWood:

Yes Egan. I don't care if Pebble was the only thing he did. The strength of his imitation sand dunes as naturalism are good enough for me.

"Were any of the gentlemen you list influenced by FL Olmsted?"

I have no idea. Perhaps they were, particularly as there appears to me to be a strong correlation in something they all were trying to accomplish artistically.

"What about Billy Bell, Stanley Thompson, CB Macdonald, William Flynn, Walter Travis, Tom Simpson, and Donald Ross?"

Perhaps I should include Bell but I don't know that much about him. I think I should've included Thompson from the photos I've seen of his work. I wouldn't include Macdonald except perhaps from the little I've seen of The Lido. William Flynn---maybe, he'd be close. Travis, probably not, don't know enough about Tom Simpson to know and Donald Ross, I'd say no. I shoud've included George Thomas in my list though.

"Its not important if the garden courses are interesting novelty or not."

Maybe not, but one does need to look at the impact of an art form. Miniature golf architecture inside English gardens probably didn't have that much impact on the naturalist golf architects I'm speaking of but perhaps I'm wrong about that.  Perhaps the miniature golf course inside English gardens was the single biggest motivator of their hopes and dreams for the future of truly naturalistc golf architecture on a bigger scale! ;)


"You said: Scale has nothing to do with this. Scale is just an architectural technique whether it be building, garden or golf course design. But if a golf architect is to minimize the impact and observability of his "parts" (his man-made features) to meld them better into the whole (natural scene as far as the eye can see) he pretty much has to do it by matching Nature's own scale of her commensurate "parts" with his own."

"They are both minature...Tom Simpson's design at Windlesham Moor, the private estate of William Clark in Surrey. IMO the photograph also illustrates the naturalistic form of the English garden of that period...the golf course appears to be in its natural environment, if you didn't know better, you would never geuss its within a garden."

That's interesting. No, from that photo on top above I probably wouldn't have guessed that was a miniature course inside an English garden. I may not have guessed the bottom one was a miniature either except for the fact the two players on the green look to be about 20 feet tall!!   ;) Did nature create anything in those miniature courses or was it all man created?

I subscribe to Behr's remark that the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth. Obviously, when he mentioned that in one of his articles he was referring to the 'forces of Nature' but the scale of a particular natural site could've been just as usefully used, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2004, 06:12:51 PM by TEPaul »

ian

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2004, 08:15:57 PM »
Capilano

The Guinness family (of beer fame), decided to invest in land on the North Shore. In 1932, they purchased 4,000 acres of West Vancouver mountain side through a syndicate called British Pacific Properties Ltd (or possibly British Pacific Securities Ltd.). They hired Olmsted to plan the community (and a copy of that plan is in the office of the manager at Capilano). The road network is brilliant on such a harsh setting. The golf course was done by Thompson. At some point the two firms must have had contact on this massive project. The Lion's Gate Bridge was built as part of this project for around 5 million at the time!
« Last Edit: December 26, 2004, 08:29:41 PM by Ian Andrew »

TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2004, 09:54:55 PM »
Ian:

That would have been Frederick Law Olmsted's son. His son or the firm was intimately involved with the planning of Fishers Island and Mountain Lake both with Seth Raynor and a Baltimore developer by the name of Frederick Ruth. I believe that Mountain Lake may've been one of the first wholly planned residential/golf communities in the world---1915.

Top100Guru

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2004, 10:50:48 PM »
TE;

I believe this also to be true!!!!

TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2004, 08:15:17 AM »
I've never actually studied in detail what-all the actual Olmsted "land plan" or "residential land plan" is of both Mountain Lake and Fishers Island but I think it's safe to say, particularly with Fishers Island's Olmsted's residential land plan, that its never been completely used in the sense of being completely done or maxed out to the original plan. And that to me is most interesting. It says a lot about what a club is willing to do in a sort of aesthetic/club morale sense. Just like PVGC that could've had up to 100 lots all these clubs chose not to use it all. I guess they all felt it would negatively effect the overall atmosphere somehow.

T_MacWood

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2004, 08:43:51 AM »
TE
The Olmsted Brothers land plan for Fishers Island is in the FIC History...the plan called for 36 holes for the FIC if I'm not mistaken. Their plan for Gibson Island is in the Macdonald book, for Pasateimpo in 'The Pasa Story' and their plan for ANGC is in 'The Makeing of the Masters' (also not fully executed).

Like I said before, just because I don't see it, doesn't mean FL Olmsted wasn't a major factor in the development of golf architecture. Perhaps in your research you will find some interesting connections of thought and philosophy, and a means (like books, articles, direct contact) for FLO's philosophy to get into the hands of those golf architects.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2004, 08:48:17 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2004, 08:54:32 PM »
I'm pretty sure Olmsted brothers did the land plan for Yeamans Hall Club as well ... and it's one of the best I've experienced.

TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2004, 09:23:25 PM »
"TE
The Olmsted Brothers land plan for Fishers Island is in the FIC History...the plan called for 36 holes for the FIC if I'm not mistaken."

Tom MacW:

Yes it did. I have the history book and the second 18 was just to the west (obviously) of the present course. One of the last few holes had a real heroic carry across Barley Field Cove. According to the history book the second course plan (1925) was discovered in a drawer in the Olmsted Bros offices in 1993.  

TEPaul

Re:Frederick Law Olmsted......
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2004, 07:31:22 AM »
"Like I said before, just because I don't see it, doesn't mean FL Olmsted wasn't a major factor in the development of golf architecture. Perhaps in your research you will find some interesting connections of thought and philosophy, and a means (like books, articles, direct contact) for FLO's philosophy to get into the hands of those golf architects."

Tom MacWood:

That would be nice if there was some book or article or direct contact established between Olmsted and some of the golf architects truly dedicated to imbuing their golf architecture to the fullest extent with some overall natural "tie-in" of the man-made and what naturally existed on a site but given the gap in time between Olmsted's retirement (1895) and the onset of the dedication to real naturalism of man-made features in golf architecture that may not have happened.

And I really don't know how dedicated Fredrick Law Olmsted's son (or anyone else in that firm in the 1900s) was to applying Olmsted's principles of minimzing "parts" (decorative and ornamental things such as plants and trees) to enhance a more natural looking "whole".

But the point is their individual but similar ideas and principles on this particular point are well enough recorded to establish some true similarities, whether or not one actually directedly influenced the other.

I think the thing we should probably look at and focus on is that two different but somewhat parallel art forms (landscape architecture and golf course architecture) were beginning to concentrate on and even do some things that were similar and probably for the same basic and broad reasons (perhaps for cultural reasons) although they may not have been doing them in direct concert with one another! Or let me just say, they may not have been doing similar things in such direct concert that they felt constrained to actually write about them at the time.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2004, 08:23:48 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back