Was minimalism always minimalism?

[Mike_Young]

After reading the 90% thread.....and seeing some of the courses I have seen in small towns across the country and overseas.....I would wager that many of the classics that we consider minimal would not have been considered minimal at the time of construction.  Considering the construction equipment that was in use at the time and the amount of earth used to push up greens and other features vs. some of the unknown projects of the era, I would say they were probably considered extreme.  Yes or no?

[C. Squier]

Mike, I totally agree.  What seems pretty low impact today was likely seen as earthmoving in decades past (pun intended).  I'd believe that some of the things Raynor did, for example, were pretty darn innovative.

In 50 years from now when bulldozers are unmanned (at least for rough shaping) and everything is GPS mapped, what is happening today will likely seem mundane as well. 

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

Like mom says, "there's nothing new under the sun."

That includes golf courses.  Your bonanza would've been the heat back in the 1920's.  Today, it's just a solid private airplane.  How many different ways are there to build an airplane?

New links, new minimalism, whatever you want to call it; its all been around.  It takes different guys to bring forth ideas that seem new, but there's not forty thousand different ways to build a golf hole.  With that said, how many ODG golf holes were you thinking about when you built Long Shadow?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Like mom says, "there's nothing new under the sun."

That includes golf courses.  Your bonanza would've been the heat back in the 1920's.  Today, it's just a solid private airplane.  How many different ways are there to build an airplane?

New links, new minimalism, whatever you want to call it; its all been around.  It takes different guys to bring forth ideas that seem new, but there's not forty thousand different ways to build a golf hole.  With that said, how many ODG golf holes were you thinking about when you built Long Shadow?

I don't know....just sort of all ran together

[Joe Hancock]

No.

[Adam Clayman]

Was minimalism ever minimalism?

Seems like the definition of the GCA term is not a direct translation.

[Joe Hancock]

I would say minimalism came about after the advent of machinery that allowed for vast quantities of dirt to be moved with considerably less effort. Before that time, minimalism was a necessity and not a goal.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

It was minimalism in those little towns in Scotland, anyway; and it was minimalism for some of the old pros who emigrated to America and started laying out courses over here.

But, it wasn't minimalism at Banff or Augusta or a lot of other courses built in the 1920's.  Those guys moved a lot of earth considering what they had to work with.

[Bill_McBride]

I would say minimalism came about after the advent of machinery that allowed for vast quantities of dirt to be moved with considerably less effort. Before that time, minimalism was a necessity and not a goal.

Joe

So what about the courses in the early days where a lot of dirt was moved?  Here I'm thinking of NGLA, Yale, the Lido.....there were courses built where the founders had sufficient resources to hire several hundred men and a score of horses and used the equivalent in that time of heavy machinery.   The truly minimalist courses in those days were constrained by funding, but you would still have had to excavate for bunkers, benched green sites, and moved dirt to build green pads and tees.

[Tom_Doak]

If "moving a bit of dirt to build green pads and tees" disqualifies a course as being minimalist, then there are not very many minimalist courses in the world.  But, there is a heck of a difference between that, and what qualifies as your average golf course construction job in the 21st century.  It's a difference worth noting, whatever you want to call it.

[Mike_Young]

TD,
All I am saying is that many of the courses throughout small town America that were developed during the "minmalist" years are truly minimal...greens raised maybe 18 inches....same for tees....flat fairways...as in cornfield....etc etc.....and yet many of the courses that we consider minimal from that era had much more detail and earthwork in COMPARISON.....


Joe,
I didn't exactly understand your statement....explain....I don't always understand northerners

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

With modern technology and many clients--at least a few years ago--wanting bigger and better, where is the threshold for minimalism?  I would certainly say that Stone Eagle PLAYS minimal, but based on how much earth was moved...maybe not so much.

Is a course on the central valley of California on dead flat rice land that plays with the swales and humps of Fife minimal?  Is a course like Ballyhack on the top of ridges minimal? 

I agree that technology constrained how much earth could be moved back in the day and thus produced minimalism.  But I also think that those folks thought that any adaptation of the land was extreme.  At least until we reached the 1900's.

[Joe Hancock]

Bill,

I wouldn't consider those courses minimalism by any stretch, regardless of their era.

Joe

[Mike_Young]

All I am trying to say is that many of the classics would not have been considered minimal by the normal standards of their day......that's all.

 And I don't know how the 80's and 90's will be considered.  I think much of the problem with periods such as the 90's is due to the up and down nature of the business and there are periods when people have no projects to "practice" implementing new designs.  We are there right now.  Not many if any young guys will be getting the opportunity to work for architects in the next 5 years (or maybe longer) so the design flow stops.  When it comes back it will start with guys that could survive the current down time and they will hire young talent....the gap could be a cleansing or a completely new era.....what will be learned from the 80/90 period....will there ever be another "signature" period?
I think a better word for minimalism is simplicity and I think it will return.....  

[Joe Hancock]

I think a better word for minimalism is simplicity and I think it will return.....  

Yahtzee.....

[RSLivingston_III]

Am I correct in my recollection of the 80's being the decade of building the highest slope course you could?
And the later half of the 90's being the return of tall fescue rough's?

[JNC Lyon]

Mike:

It was minimalism in those little towns in Scotland, anyway; and it was minimalism for some of the old pros who emigrated to America and started laying out courses over here.

But, it wasn't minimalism at Banff or Augusta or a lot of other courses built in the 1920's.  Those guys moved a lot of earth considering what they had to work with.

Banff is always the first classic course that comes to mind as the antithesis of minimalism.  However, Augusta seems to be a different story.  Even though Jones, MacKenzie, and co. moved a lot of dirt during construction, wasn't the final product the prototype for minimalist design?  The original Augusta had limited bunkering and a heavy reliance on land features, be they natural or manmade.  The principles that guided Augusta's construction seem to be the foundations of the modern minimalist philosophy.

[Mike_Young]

JNC_Lyon,
I think you are right re ANGC type construction guiding modern minimalism.  The routing was the key as with all good minimalism courses...even though green sites may have needed dirt to create features, there were no places where cuts had to be made in order to open up holes etc.....it just fit....IMHO....
I think we often miss the fact that for the last 25 years most courses were not allowed to use such land for routing and actually went against such....if you recall much of ANGC....think about the swale between the tee and the landing area on hole one....how many modern courses have you seen where the hole would have been located in that swale in order to have the hillsides avaialble for housing etc....creating the need for more earthmoving and drainage.....

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -

I think that, then as now, those owners/architects/courses that aspired to greatness (real or imagined) purposely did what was hard, or unusual, or out of reach for the average man. At a time when it was hard to move a lot of earth, the owners/architects/courses with modest ambitions didn't move a lot of earth - while CBM and Lido, for example, not only DID but did so proudly, and publicly. (And at the same time, in an era when the moneyed class who played courses like NGLA could travel to Europe whenever they pleased, there was nothing exotic or desirable about having to travel far to play golf, so top courses tried to be close to major urban hubs.)  Much later, when moving a lot of earth became easy, run of the mill owners/architects/courses moved whatever earth they had too or thought necessary to satisfy their imagined market -- while those who aspired to greatness started looking for the magnificent sites, and started publicly promoting the ideal of letting the land and its natural features dictate the design.  (And at the same time, when the moneyed class had been replaced by the white-collar class, what became prized was the need -- and the financial resources -- to travel a long ways to play golf, to seek the pure golfing EXPERIENCE.)  Later still, when money was flowing like water and a certain class of golfer had seen and experienced it all, owners/architects/courses actually started promoting the ridiculous amount of earth moved -- with no expenses spared -- to turn wastelands into oasis (what's the plural for oasis), and then tried to set themselves apart by charging more money for a round than the vast majority of golfers could afford to spend.  

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Mike -

I think that, then as now, those owners/architects/courses that aspired to greatness (real or imagined) purposely did what was hard, or unusual, or out the reach of the average man. At a time when it was hard to move a lot of earth, the owners/architects/courses with modest ambitions didn't move a lot of earth - but CBM and Lido, for example, not only DID, but did so proudly, and publicly. (And at the same time, in an era hen the moneyed class who played courses like NGLA could travel to Europe as they pleased, there was nothing exotic or desirable about having to travel far to play golf, so top courses tried to be close to major urban hubs.)  Much later, when moving a lot of earth became easy, run of the mill owners/architects/courses moved whatever earth they had too or thought necessary to satisfy their imagined market -- while those who aspired to greatness started looking for the magnificent sites, and started publicly promoting the ideal of letting the land and its natural features dictate the design.  (And at the same time, when the moneyed class had been replaced by the white-collar class, what became prized was the need -- and the financial resources -- to travel a long ways to play golf, to seek the pure golfing EXPERIENCE.)

Peter

Peter,
That's good....well said....Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

There are always going to be major differences in cost/labor/materials/and building techniques from one era to the next. This is a minimalist design from the recent era:

and one from an earlier time:


What I like about the house in the first photo is that the glass serves multiple purposes. It's a door, a window, a wall, a passive solar collector, and the addition of the plant, chair and wall art creates a visually stunning, esthetically pleasing and welcoming foyer. There is nothing more that it needs, there are no superfluous elements or tricks, it is exactly what it portrays, and it's perfect.

If a golf course was built along those lines I think it would be considered minimalist, whether it 'looked' like the top photo or the bottom.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I wouldn't consider those courses minimalism by any stretch, regardless of their era.

Joe

That is the point I was trying to make.

But even courses thought to be very minimalist require dirt moving, it's just a quantitative thing.

[JNC Lyon]

Mike -

I think that, then as now, those owners/architects/courses that aspired to greatness (real or imagined) purposely did what was hard, or unusual, or out of reach for the average man. At a time when it was hard to move a lot of earth, the owners/architects/courses with modest ambitions didn't move a lot of earth - while CBM and Lido, for example, not only DID but did so proudly, and publicly. (And at the same time, in an era when the moneyed class who played courses like NGLA could travel to Europe whenever they pleased, there was nothing exotic or desirable about having to travel far to play golf, so top courses tried to be close to major urban hubs.)  Much later, when moving a lot of earth became easy, run of the mill owners/architects/courses moved whatever earth they had too or thought necessary to satisfy their imagined market -- while those who aspired to greatness started looking for the magnificent sites, and started publicly promoting the ideal of letting the land and its natural features dictate the design.  (And at the same time, when the moneyed class had been replaced by the white-collar class, what became prized was the need -- and the financial resources -- to travel a long ways to play golf, to seek the pure golfing EXPERIENCE.)  Later still, when money was flowing like water and a certain class of golfer had seen and experienced it all, owners/architects/courses actually started promoting the ridiculous amount of earth moved -- with no expenses spared -- to turn wastelands into oasis (what's the plural for oasis), and then tried to set themselves apart by charging more money for a round than the vast majority of golfers could afford to spend.  

Peter

This is true for many examples.  However, as a Ross fan, I believe Ross was less concerned with pushing the envelope than the likes of CBM and MacKenzie.  Yet he still managed to create great golf courses.  Out of his most highly regarded layout, only Seminole is an all-world locale.  Pinehurst, Oak Hill, and Oakland Hills all occupy standard inland terrain, yet they rise above their peers.  True, many of the great classic courses are dramatic, highly unique, and heavily shaped for their day.  But there are some that exude understated elegance.

On the other hand, the great modern courses, especially those of the minimalist architects, all seem to be extreme in way or another.  Each of the top courses in the Golfweek rankings occupy wild land and possess revolutionary design.

Peter Pallotta, I think you are correct that great courses in both the classic and modern era were geared toward unusual or unique features.  However, I think the trend toward the extremes of excess landmoving or minimalism, is much more prevalent in the great modern courses.  There were more courses in the classic era that found "the mean between the extremes" in the classic era (particularly from the likes of Ross) than in the modern era.

[Jim Nugent]

But, it wasn't minimalism at Banff or Augusta or a lot of other courses built in the 1920's.  Those guys moved a lot of earth considering what they had to work with.

You mean Banff and ANGC moved more dirt than they needed to?