What changed architecture in the 20th century ?

« **on:** May 21, 2006, 01:26:35 PM »

Or, how did architecture lose its way ?

Was it the commercialization of golf courses ?

The "for profit" motive as manifested in development communities, and "for profit" private and public courses.

Prior to commercialization it seemed that men or groups of men created golf courses for the love of the game.

Today, there appears to be a resurgence of individuals creating great courses as "labors of love" in both the private and public sector.

I"m sure I'll forget some names, but, Roger Hansen, Ken Bakst, Dick Youngscap, Mike Keiser, Jack Lupton, Jerry Rich, Lowell Schulman all created courses that were a pursuit of their dream. Mike Pascucci appears to be following suit.

While none of these fellows want to lose money, their ventures seem other then commercial projects.

Did commercialism alter or destroy creative golf course design ?

« **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2006, 04:00:01 PM »

Pat,
It's not only the 'for profit' motive that took it's toll, I think it's also due to another definiton of 'commercial', i.e., "Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry".
The two go hand in hand.

« **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2006, 04:08:20 PM »

YES

However, it wasn't so much the greed, as it was the tricks to maximize profit.

« **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2006, 04:58:29 PM »

Egos...
while they allowed both the good and the bad to evolve during the 20th century.....it was the egos of those that wished to have the greatest and best golf project without knowing that exclusivity and greatness are earned not purchased(heard this from another architect)....and as some say "there are golfers and then there are those that play golf" well "those that play golf" now that is not to say you can't shoot 95 and be a golfer or shoot 75 and be a "those that play golf"...."those that play golf" and their egos had had a detrimental effect on golf architecture in the 20th century....

« **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2006, 06:03:20 PM »

Pat,

First, you'll have to tell me why I should just accept the premise of the thread, then maybe I will answer......

BTW, I think that there has always been a commerical aspect to gca. Only a laudable few couldn't worry about economics in any age. If those turned out to be the greatest courses, its understandable. I think a true look at history will reveal its always been about degrees, not black (no commerical) vs white (all commercial)

Besides, I think the biggest single thing to change gca over the 20th century is technology. - construction, implements, and maintenance technology, in no particular order. Of course, commerical practicality drove all of those changes.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2006, 07:01:19 PM »

In medical parlance

TNTC

(to numerous to count)

This needs a lot of refining.....

Everything that changed society changed golf course architecture .. for starters.

Labors of love that cost $250,000+ to join. Some labors of love.

How did the Beatles change golf course architecture?

Maybe Jordan could write a term paper on that part alone.

« **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2006, 07:12:17 PM »

Travel and the shrinking world. Expansion of the visual media.
Golfers saw fewer golf courses, thus had fewer bases for comparison. Now there is comparison and competition.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2006, 07:35:55 PM »

Pat,

I think the single greatest event that efected golf course architecture was the same thing that changed maintenance practices, the Great Depression.

Without money available courses couldn't be built, and almost all of those that were became less than what they may have been if built in 1925.

Architects became busget-bound rather than budgets becoming architect-bound. Greens shrunk, fewer hazards, courses built for municipalities done by lowest bidder on land that could only produce uncreative works.

By the 1950's the coming golf course building boom years and the courses they would created were already tainted by what had become acceptable courses and challenges.

It wasn't until the 1980's when travel and vacations for the purpose of simply playing golf came into vogue. Resorts began competing to create works of art once again.

It is this more tha anything else that is responsible for what may be the great course building era that we are living in come about. Without this, how does Mike Keiser create a northwest paradise and players talk with envy, all the while making plans to travel, about New Zealand and high cliffside adventures that might even become a more than once-in-a-lifetime visit to play near incomparably challenging courses at venues that are as much a natural work of planetary art as the courses that are built upon them.

Even venarable St. Andrews has become more popular than ever, and it was worshipped in the past for its history, building new courses, each one hailed as the "last one" that would be built at the "home of golf."

At least that's how I see it IMHO...

« **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2006, 07:43:14 PM »

Redanman,

I didn't know that Bandon, Sand Hills and Hidden Creek cost
250,000 + to join.

When did they initiate those charges ?

When someone spends 43,000,000 on the land and probably 20,000,000+ more, to build a golf course and facilities, I'd say that's a labor of love, wouldn't you.

If a club costs 80,000,000 to 120,000,000 to create, how long will it take to recoup that investment ?

Or will their heirs, several generations removed, be the ones to recoup the investment ?

Irrespective of the acquisition and construction costs and the cost of membership, all the projects I mentioned are a labor of love by their visionary owners.

Were you critical of Ken Bakst when you played Friar's Head ?

How about Donald Trump, were you critical of him when you wrote the glowing article about his golf course in New Jersey after you played it ?

« **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2006, 07:53:08 PM »

>>When someone spends 43,000,000 on the land and probably 20,000,000+ more, to build a golf course and facilities, I'd say that's a labor of love, wouldn't you.<<

Or a monument.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2006, 08:02:41 PM »

Philip Young,

There's no doubt that the Great Depression and WW II affected golf course maintainance.

But, did those events shape architectural design ?

Many great resort courses were built prior to the depression and WW II.

Did vacation or winter residential communities impact architecture ? The desirabiility of water lots ? The profit motive ?

It would seem that the "for profit" motive may be at odds with the creating the best golf course possible when homes are introduced to the equation.

Jeff Brauer,

Wouldn't modern construction equipment REDUCE the cost of construction ?

Those labor saving machines could do the work quicker, more efficiently and more economically.

I would ask the following.

Of all the hundreds, if not thousands of real estate communities in Florida with golf courses, how many of those golf courses could be deemed outstanding golf courses, architecturally ?

Why are there so few ?

It would seem that commercialism conflicts with creativity.

It would seem that when the "for profit" motive is THE driving force, great architecture is compromised.

But, when an individual or group of individuals create a golf course as a labor of love, it seems that THE driving motive
is a great golf course.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2006, 08:04:19 PM »

rgkeller,

There's nothing wrong with a living legacy, a monument or a testimonial.

Do you think Charles Blair MacDonald designed NGLA just for the fun of it ?

« **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2006, 08:07:54 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 21, 2006, 08:04:19 PM

rgkeller,

There's nothing wrong with a living legacy, a monument or a testimonial.

Do you think Charles Blair MacDonald designed NGLA just for the fun of it ?

I don't recall saying that there was "anything wrong."

But there are often, even usually, other factors at work than a "labor of love." The golf course can be just the form taken.

« **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:36:05 AM »

Pat,

When CBM did the National, and there were so few courses of any quality in America, he started a brief movement to build nothing but the very best as a point of national pride to catch up to GBI.

Over time, the market forces realized that not every course had to be great. At the same time as NGLA there was Van Cortlant Park, for example. Later, people realized - correctly in my view - that a real estate course in FL aimed at retirees for God sakes, didn't need to be as stern a test. That is why there are so many less gca masterpieces within the housing tracts of the south.

On the other hand, some of our modern classics were aimed at being a tournament course (probably to shlep the surrounding housing) and in that category, there are some great ones - Pinehurst, (with a mix of greatness) Harbor Town, TPC, etc.

So, perhaps the fact that so many great ones were built early on naturally limited those that followed - or maybe they thought that with bermuda grass they couldn't even begin to emulate the great courses of the NE. Or maybe they were just practical and built to what the market wanted, rather than to individual egos, a la CBM.

The real question is, is Donald Trump keeping the legacy of ego based courses alive to the liking of CBM in his grave?

« **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2006, 12:38:22 PM »

The Haskell ball.

Everything else is just hot air.

« **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2006, 01:00:45 PM »

Rich:

There's no question of it. The Haskell changed golf significantly in many ways, certainly including the length and size of golf courses. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the "look" of 20th century golf architecture was primarily changed by the complete onset and influence of landscape architecture into golf course architecture. I'm not much of a fan of that influence.

« **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2006, 01:19:07 PM »

The Haskell was in play by 1901 or '02. More than a change, it really was the predicate for everything that that followed in the 20th century. (That is, there was only one year's worth of the 20th century to change when the Haskell came along.)

I think Pat is getting at something else. More along the lines of why the Golden Age ended.

I think TEP's comment above comes closer to the mark. At some point after WWII it became important that courses be pretty. The look of a course mattered.

At the same time the deep pocket sponsors for private clubs (Fownes, MacD, etc.) were passing from the scene, memberships had to ante up for cost overruns, so budgets mattered.

At the intersection of the desire to "prettify" a course and the desire to reduce maintenance expenses, you get trees. And more trees. Other stuff too, but mostly trees.

When stands of trees guard playing corridors, a parade of horribles is not far behind.

Bob

« **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2006, 02:43:36 PM »

Three things stick in my mind in this regard.

The return home after WWII when the availability, and experience of using earth movers during WWII, set about the smoothing of the earth rather than routing a course. Sure some of this equipment was available prior, in a cruder form, but everyone got to use it during the war.

The Master's on TV since 1956 set the stage for what is the 'best' to the vast golfing public, developers, club presidents, and greens chairman. The best in regards to conditioning and golf course 'strateegery'.

Everyone can see and hear about how the 'best' was made better, each and every year hence.

The speed of the development of sciences brought on by WWII and the application of technology to all aspects of golf maintenance and golf technology. This was primarily the result of the booming economy, more 'free' money, and the freedom to apply all the science to sports. Mainly it was 'mo money'.

« **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2006, 03:48:52 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 21, 2006, 07:43:14 PM

Redanman,

Were you critical of Ken Bakst when you played Friar's Head ?

How about Donald Trump, were you critical of him when you wrote the glowing article about his golf course in New Jersey after you played it ?

« **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2006, 05:07:18 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 21, 2006, 08:02:41 PM

It would seem that the "for profit" motive may be at odds with the creating the best golf course possible when homes are introduced to the equation.

It would seem that when the "for profit" motive is THE driving force, great architecture is compromised.

But, when an individual or group of individuals create a golf course as a labor of love, it seems that THE driving motive is a great golf course.

Dear Mr. Mucci

I think that you need to learn the definition of "Labor of Love", you cannot use labor of love improperly and then curse the developer. Or can you? OK, go ahead and curse the developer.

Link to source of quote cut and pasted below defining the "IDIOM" Labor of Love

labor of love

Work done for one's satisfaction rather than monetary reward. For example, The research took three years but it was a labor of love. This expression appears twice in the New Testament (Hebrews 6:10, Thessalonians 1:3), referring to those who do God's work as a labor of love. [c. 1600]

I have absolutely no problem with courses costing $3M to join (That's the most I've heard, but I'm not 100% certain. I am certain of clubs costing over $500K) if that's what one wants. I personally would like to be a member of one that is about $295K + a piece of property, but it is not in my budget.

Nor is it likely to be.

Please, just be careful what you call a "Labor of Love". Know your idioms

« **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2006, 06:01:56 PM »

Pat,

The more I think about it, the more I know this premise is flawed!

The first hundred courses in this country were built be the thousand richest men. The housing development course is American ingenuity, bringing the same enjoyment of golf to the common man as the rich guy had earlier in the century, and with nearly the same architecture.

To make those cousres work, they had to go through housing, be a little less expensive, a little easier to play, a little easier to mow. They didn't have the luxury of not caring about costs. Even then, on the whole, the difference between the exclusive private course built in the Golden Age (or the second golden age) and the moderate club or public is far less different than the difference in the houses the members of those courses live in, no?

I say, more power to anyone lucky enough to belong to one of the top 100 courses in the USA but I fail to see that bringing golf to more folks is flawed architecture that has lost its way. It is a good thing, even if all those FL courses do not aspire to greatness. Why should they when all their members want to do is get to the clubhouse to enjoy a martini?

« **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:00:29 PM »

...I don't feel GCArchitecture has ever lost its way, but parallels other design disciplines [especially Building], that are always in a state of evolution......from the Golden Age until now, Building Architecture has gone from late to post Victorian, thru Mission and Art Deco, on to the various forms of Modern to Post Modern then on to a rediscovery and revival of these previous forms all over again....all in a 100 years or so.....and I see all sorts of parallels.

Hell, golfwise today, we're seeing Golden Age Revival.
....runway tees can't be far behind [or ahead]!

« **Reply #22 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:38:54 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 22, 2006, 08:36:05 AM

When CBM did the National, and there were so few courses of any quality in America, he started a brief movement to build nothing but the very best as a point of national pride to catch up to GBI.

I'm not so sure of that.

Shinnecock, Garden City and Chicago all existed prior to CBM's efforts at NGLA.

Over time, the market forces realized that not every course had to be great. At the same time as NGLA there was Van Cortlant Park, for example. Later, people realized - correctly in my view - that a real estate course in FL aimed at retirees for God sakes, didn't need to be as stern a test. That is why there are so many less gca masterpieces within the housing tracts of the south.

I don't buy that either.

Since when does good architecture only manifest itself in a "stern test" ?

NGLA, Maidstone and many other courses are sporty and fun, without being a "stern test".

"Stern tests" are usually length dependent.

The Breakers in Palm Beach, The Palm Beach Golf Club and The Everglades Golf Club could all be described as short, or pitch and putt golf courses, yet, they're fun to play. They have interesting architecture, neat holes that provide a challenge, albeit not a severe one, and fun.

Those qualities are mostly lacking from so many of those golf courses built as part of real estate communities in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

On the other hand, some of our modern classics were aimed at being a tournament course (probably to shlep the surrounding housing) and in that category, there are some great ones - Pinehurst, (with a mix of greatness) Harbor Town, TPC, etc.

Pinehurst wasn't a housing project by any stretch of the imagination. Ross built some good to great courses of varying length for a mulltitude of players starting in 1901 through 1928 with tinkering continuing throughout his life.

It wasn't until DiamondHead Corporation bought Pinehurst from the Tufts family that residential development came to the forefront.

As to Harbour Town, I was playing at Pinehurst with Pete Dye in the late 60's when he was designing and building Harbour Town, and never did he once indicate that the course's primary purpose was to serve a residential community. He indicated that he was building the golf course to be a great golf course, with NO consideration for anything else. He mentioned the use of sleepers, buried 50 gallon drums and other features, but, not once in extended conversations did he ever mention that accomodating a residential, vacation or retiree population was his main goal, or even a consideration.

So, perhaps the fact that so many great ones were built early on naturally limited those that followed - or maybe they thought that with bermuda grass they couldn't even begin to emulate the great courses of the NE. Or maybe they were just practical and built to what the market wanted, rather than to individual egos, a la CBM.

Jeff, here's the drill.
Excavate dirt/marl, make lakes. Good for homeowner views.
Use fill for base of fairway.
Go to next hole.
Repeat process.

Very few residential clubs segregated the property, the golf course from the residentlal community. One was interwoven with the other. Why ? Because most held to the concept that a golf course view or lake view was the selling point, not the architectural merits of the golf course.
Hence, there was no emphasis, no drive to build a good to very good to great golf course.

If you visit residential community after residential community, you'll see this theme, and the quality of the golf course repeated, in overwhelming numbers.

The real question is, is Donald Trump keeping the legacy of ego based courses alive to the liking of CBM in his grave?

Trump inherited Fazio's routing in New Jersey, and he inherited Briarcliff Manor golf course in New York and modified it. Neither golf course was built by Donald from scratch.
The same can be said about his California course.
Only the West Palm Beach course was built from scratch, AND
there are no homes, no home sites on that golf course.
It's strictly golf, without any residential component.
And, in time, the land reverts back to Palm Beach County.

Hence, C.B. is resting well.
In fact, I spoke to him over the weekend.
He wants environmentalists to continue to become more zealous so that his golf courses will continue to stand head and shoulders above anything created in the future.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2006, 02:53:48 AM »

I read recently that the horse drawn scraper was invented around 1900. Without that equipment, courses could largely only be "found" and not "built."

« **Reply #24 on:** May 24, 2006, 11:11:38 PM »

Rich,

From 1900 to about 1930 a great number of terrific golf courses were built, many of them with rudimentary equipment, especially when compared to post WW II, especially after what was learned from the Seabees.

Was golf's popularity and rapid expansion responsible for the dilution of the quality of the courses ?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Jim_Kennedy

A_Clay_Man

Mike_Young

Jeff_Brauer

redanman

peter_p

Phil_the_Author

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

Jeff_Brauer

ForkaB

TEPaul

BCrosby

john_stiles

Geoffrey Childs

redanman

Jeff_Brauer

paul cowley

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

Patrick_Mucci