The Real Challenge that Architects Face Today

[Peter Pallotta]

Dave, David, Jim - I understand what you're all saying, and I wouldn't argue (I love a walk in nature most of all too). But just to say: take the "hole at North Berwick" that Jim's article mentions. I'd imagine that it was a pretty natural and lay of the land hole where man's hand is fairly well hidden, since it calls for an iron off the tee, a wood, and then an approach shot (which no earth-moving and formula-loving hand of man would've designed). And, according to the writer of the article, accepting this quirk (and the natural evolution/approach/appearance that spawned it) is a big part of the spirit of the game. On old classic courses, most people can now accept that quirk, but on new courses I wonder what most golfers would say and how much most golfers would like/accept a hole that called for an iron then a fairway metal and then an iron if the hand of man wasn't hidden.

Peter

[Dave McCollum]

Peter,

I’ve played modern holes like that and, you’re right, didn’t think much of the architecture.  They were bad holes, but almost every time the reason I disliked those holes is that they also required a “heroic” shot with too few options for a weaker player.  So, it wasn’t the quirk that I disliked.  The course that comes to mind is Badlands in Vegas.  It is filled with a bunch of modern architecture stylings and has been thoroughly bashed on this site before.  I’m not sure who designed it.  I think Chi-Chi Rodriguez and Johnny Miller’s names were attached in some way.  I was playing with a super and owner, so I only talked about the immaculate conditioning.  But I saw things there that made me gasp and stop breathing for all the wrong reasons.

In Scotland my education about the spirit of the game was just beginning.  After playing Cruden Bay, I was having a drink with a member in the house.  I mentioned that huge hump smack in the middle of the LZ in 17th fairway and said something like “where I come from, with a loader and dump truck, that would be gone in a day.”  He looked at me like I was totally mad and said something to the effect that such a serious decision would require the vote of the entire membership, the implication being that it would never happen.  I equated it to a different cultural sense of history over there than we commonly experience in America.  I also saw houses being built that looked to me like they were intended to last for 600 years.  Very different sense and respect for history than we have where I live.  Just the other day I noticed they tore down and old and eccentric Masonic Temple and replaced with a gas station.  No doubt modern golf architecture is influenced by our instant gratification culture and our cultural love for the next new thing, the bigger and grander, the better.

I know I’m sounding like a geezer.  I am a geezer.  I have a fondness for old things, especially architecture, where it appears the creators were trying to make a lasting statement with their creations.  Golf courses transform their native landscapes into something completely different.  The older I get, the more I like golf courses that harmonize with their natural landscapes and offer a respite from the world around.  This requires a great natural site and a very skilled architect to accomplish well.  It seems to me this process is more about restraint than flash, boldness, and originality, more about applying classical values and aesthetics that have withstood the test of time.  And even with both of these rare ingredients, there are no guarantees the course will be successful and endure.

[Sean_A]

The trend for naturalism has certainly kicked into its highest gear in many year.  However, in a strange sort of way, the many odd earth works built on courses are old enough (have that worn down look) that golfers can essentially suspend disbelief and accept these features as not only attractive, but welcome and essential.  Whenever I play Kington it takes me some time before I realize just how nutty the earthworks are against the backdrop of the land and how at odds they are with the otherwise incredibly lay it on the land golf from tee to green.  Its as if an archie layed out the design and a green keeper came along later and said this will no do - what was the archie thinking?  So he brightened the course up with a ton of mounds without making any effort to disguise the fact.  Looked at from the designer eye, at best the work is crude and amateurish.  Looked at from the layman golfer eye the work is extremely attractive and thought provoking. 

I can't imagine an archie could get away with building a Kington.  A snippet or two may sneak its way onto a course, but thats about all current expectations will allow.  Perhaps this extreme penchant for naturalism is riding high today is down to "what else can an archie do?"  So much of yesteryear design is off-limits that archies designed into a corner of limited expectations.  I reckon this is a maverick like Strantz stands out so far from the crowd, at the risk of being labelled a nutter.

Ciao   

[Thomas Dai]

Sean makes a good point here, although when I first read his post I thought it said 'naturism' not 'naturalism' - phew, glad I re-read it!
The earthworks at Kington or say Huntercombe are indeed pretty nutty against the backdrop of the land but were they any more 'nutty' when undertaken than the work of Dye etc decades later? Revolution over time becomes part of evolution?
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Would be interesting to compare just how urban the Golden Age country club member was.  It was called a country club for a reason, and at the time, was pretty far out of town, sometimes on a rail line for ease of access.  Did the typical member live on a small Chicago (or name your city) lot and go out for weekends?

My point is, America being progressive, and having more single family homes with yards now, more parks, more lots with golf in the backyard, maybe the nature thing has diminished over time for a few reasons.  One, more golfers have their own little slice of nature (or approximation of it) and two, I think in general, "nature" is more pre-processed for us than it used to be, much like our food has gotten more pre-processed for ease of consumption. 

In other words, we might have a different view of "nature" probably expecting/accepting something less close to nature as "natural" compared to a golfer in the 1930's. 

And, landscape architects and maintenance folks continuing to get our impersonations of nature more and more perfect and "sanitized." This includes golf.  We now call parks open space, not natural space, and real nature is called a "Wilderness Preserve" (to be seen and not experienced?).

I still believe television has sort of compromised our thinking, as we compare nature to what we see on TV, and not the other way around, since we spend more time with the latter and it becomes our frame of reference.  And, it has made us demand more things that are easily understood visually, and quickly.