Who's taking the biggest risks in new construction today...

« **on:** September 29, 2006, 09:25:54 PM »

...and who's willing to? And how?

There seems to be an age-old dynamic in the philosophy of golf architecture to either stick to proven fundamentals on the one hand or to push the envelope on the other hand. Historically the "envelope-pushers" have either totally bombed or hit the heights.

Who seems willing to take some risks today in new construction architecture, and how?

I sure don't know everyone or even most but of those I do know, I'll nominate Paul Cowley for his historical military warfare feature theme.

I think there's something there for golf architecture in more ways than one--or two--or three.

« **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:33:59 PM »

TEPaul,

Are you referencing construction, which would seem to be permit driven, or design ?

« **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:47:52 PM »

Take your pick on anything Patrick, and go for it---eg push the envelope.

« **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:53:14 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 29, 2006, 09:25:54 PM

Who seems willing to take some risks today in new construction architecture, and how?

ENGH

« **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:56:03 PM »

the guy building in Iran....

« **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2006, 10:05:42 PM »

The developer

« **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:09:48 AM »

John Conley:

Thanks

Guys, I'm not talking about financial risks or risks to one's life by building a course in a land of Muslim Maniacs (hereinafter referred to as MMs). I'm talking about risks with golf course architecture.

But perhaps even that has become financially or actually life-threatening.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:07:59 PM »

Tom,

How are we to judge that? My version of a risk may be your version of garbage. My view may be about the methodology used whereas yours may have to do with features.

It's kind of like asking what the meaning of life. Although that did give us a great movie.

I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:38:04 PM »

"Tom,
How are we to judge that? My version of a risk may be your version of garbage. My view may be about the methodology used whereas yours may have to do with features."

Ian:

Why do we need to judge it? Do you think some subject needs to preconcieve some total consensus of opinion before it can even be discussed?

I'm just looking for opinions, and if they're diverse, so what? Frankly, I think diversity of opinion is a good thing in golf course architecture. I think it makes the art form richer.

When anyone starts looking to form a total consensus of opinion across the board is probably the time stultifying standardizations begin to set in, no matter in what form. That could be one of the problems this website has always suffered from.

I don't think that's at all good for an art form like golf architecture. It needs difference and diversity. And so opinions on it should be different and diverse too.

« **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:42:39 PM »

"I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference."

I don't know what the difference is between a kilt and a dress but if I were you I wouldn't try hitting on him when he's wearing his kilt or I'm pretty sure he'd deck you at some point.

« **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:48:11 PM »

TEPaul,

To a degree, aren't the risks taken dictated by the intended market and the vision of the developer, in concert with the architect ?

One could make the case that Fazio and Wynn took a big risk with Shadow Creek.

Another argument could be made for Keiser and Kidd.

And still another for Pascucci, Doak & Nicklaus.

Wild Horse comes to mind.

Certainly the architecture represents a departure for what was typical in the area.

I found Wild Horse unique, fun and challenging to the extent that it's more than a local golf course, but, a destination golf course in the middle of Nebraska, AND, it's a public golf course.

« **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:00:27 PM »

Tom,

"Who's taking the biggest risks?"

You’re asking me to make a judgment on whom with your question. The biggest issue with this is who has the opportunity to see enough to select one person out.

I could answer David Kidd since he has chose to build a very non-traditional (think the irregular lines of a Coore and Doak bunker but on a smaller scale) fescue bunkers on the new 7th course at St. Andrew's. At the highest profile job he has, he decided to do something very different that will be a marked contrast from everything in the area (although the work at the Dukes has some of this now too). This is more interesting when you think of the number of famous links layouts in close proximity including Kingsbarns which is far more modern in appearance but still looks to blend in with the links look. It is a bold move away from pot bunkers and the like.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:03:52 PM »

Quote from: Ian Andrew on September 30, 2006, 03:07:59 PM

I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference.

Yes, we were quite worried about that. With Paul, "hidden gems" has a whole different meaning than it does with other architects. We prefer his remain hidden!

« **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:06:49 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on September 30, 2006, 04:03:52 PM

Quote from: Ian Andrew on September 30, 2006, 03:07:59 PM

I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference.

Yes, we were quite worried about that. With Paul, "hidden gems" has a whole different meaning than it does with other architects. We prefer his remain hidden!

This hole discussion seems off kilter.....

« **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:13:16 PM »

Joe,

All in good fun.....

« **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:17:00 PM »

To be serious, are there any big risk takers out there now? Norman and his coquina roughs? Fazio at Mirasol?

It seems like everyone is sort of following the minimalism trend, not only because its popular, but has practical benefits. Right now, we are sort of trendless, at least in the new trend sense.

I think if someone did a retro 60's course, that would be taking a chance. Free form tees, large broad mounds, the whole ball of wax. I think a bunkerless course would be taking a chance, too.

« **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:48:36 PM »

"I think a bunkerless course would be taking a chance, too."

So do I Jeff---so do I.

If some great topography is found and there's no natural sand within a hundred miles I could see doing that and doing it well as perhaps one of the most important statements that could ever be made for both golf and golf architecture. And if it worked great I'd even like to see it become something of a trend.

Imagine that---eg topography standing on its own to create great risk/reward concepts and playabilities.

It's about time anyway because essentially the fundamental function of bunkering has been basically gutted anyway.

« **Reply #17 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:52:36 PM »

JeffB;

Hell, I'd like to see someone try doing a golf course with bunkers that had totally inconsistent sand surfaces, didn't drain at all and even smelled bad.

That's the way it was during what some call the halcyon days when golf was in its innocence and well before man-made golf architecture even existed.

That was back about two hundred years ago at that time when that pompous idiot Tom MacWood thinks golf architecture had been maturing for about 300 years.

« **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:21:04 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 30, 2006, 04:06:49 PM

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on September 30, 2006, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: Ian Andrew on September 30, 2006, 03:07:59 PM

I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference.

Yes, we were quite worried about that. With Paul, "hidden gems" has a whole different meaning than it does with other architects. We prefer his remain hidden!

This hole discussion seems off kilter.....

I'm shocked, truly shocked .....I mean I go away for a quiet weekend with Miss Dawn and have to come back to this!

All I can say is that I hope the ASGCA has kept up with its insurance because this is something I don't think I can stand for......having to compete against my ASGCA colleagues is one thing, but having to endure obvious sexual harassment tactics is quite another!.....Hey, does anyone out there want to represent me or do I need to dial 1.800.LAWSUIT?

I am encouraged that my friend Forrest R has shown the good sense and courtesy not to pile on......I love you man

.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2006, 10:05:17 PM »

Quote from: John_Conley on September 29, 2006, 09:53:14 PM

Quote from: TEPaul on September 29, 2006, 09:25:54 PM

Who seems willing to take some risks today in new construction architecture, and how?

ENGH

How so? Isnt true that Engh's serpentine bunkers pretty much all look the same? Isnt it true that his shaping approach to playing corridors is extraordinarily repetitious, usually with a sunken fairway and higher ground to each side? Isnt it true that a very high percentage of his green complexes are from the ampitheater mold?

If the above is accurate, this doesnt sound like he is pushing the envelope too much to me.

From my outsider's perspective, he seems to know what the golf digest guys want, and he has a formula for delivering it. Again and again and again. I dont know if it still does, but a while back I recall that his website said as much.

Again, this hardly sounds like someone who is taking big risks.

Sure, from the photos it looks as though he utilizes some pretty wild features (such as really big rocks and waterfalls) to create a desired visual effect, but to me the nuts and bolts of the actual golf design looks pretty mundane and very repetitious.

Of course I am judging from one course and a lot of pictures, so maybe I am wrong. But since noone has ever actually challenged the accuracy of my descriptions above, I dont think I am.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2006, 12:43:18 AM »

How about the developer or property owner? He is the one putting up the money for the project and had the biggest financial risk.

Picking an Engh or Nicklaus for Dismal River might be the easiest piece of the puzzle. If the architect pushes the envelope, there is the possibility that John Q Public may not be ready for it.

Were all of Stranz's designs monetary successes for course owner?

Couple the risk of design with the risk of an oversaturated golf market and dwindling participation and it more firmly points to the developer.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2006, 07:32:23 AM »

Quote from: paul cowley on October 01, 2006, 09:21:04 PM

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 30, 2006, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on September 30, 2006, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: Ian Andrew on September 30, 2006, 03:07:59 PM

I think Paul Cowley is taking risks by wearing a dress to ASGCA meetings, but I don't think that was the answer you seek. Kilt, dress, really what is the difference.

Yes, we were quite worried about that. With Paul, "hidden gems" has a whole different meaning than it does with other architects. We prefer his remain hidden!

This hole discussion seems off kilter.....

I'm shocked, truly shocked .....I mean I go away for a quiet weekend with Miss Dawn and have to come back to this!

All I can say is that I hope the ASGCA has kept up with its insurance because this is something I don't think I can stand for......having to compete against my ASGCA colleagues is one thing, but having to endure obvious sexual harassment tactics is quite another!.....Hey, does anyone out there want to represent me or do I need to dial 1.800.LAWSUIT?

I am encouraged that my friend Forrest R has shown the good sense and courtesy not to pile on......I love you man .

Paul Cowley

Is it true that you have a big dirk too!.

James B

« **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2006, 08:56:44 AM »

Good question.

Stepping back to take the longer view, I don't think anyone today is taking anywhere near as many design risks as designers did in the Golden Age. I can think of several economic, legal, social and cultural reasons why that is the case. Nonetheless, there are very few modern designs that compare to the severity, wackiness, over-the top stuff from the 1920's.

If you have spent any time at all looking at historic designs, there isn't much being built today that you will find very daring.

I think that's a shame, but it's not because modern architects are lacking in imagination. Rather it's that they are tethered by a lot more non-architectural issues than their Golden Age forefathers.

Bob

« **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:17:06 AM »

BobC.....when I really think about it I'm not quite sure that is the case anymore.

Oh, and you other guys....just wait until I become a REAL member cause I've got a few things up my sleeve or trouser leg or whatever, and your prurient minds are just going to have to wait....so there na na naah.

Thanks, but sorry James....around my household they would suggest substituting a J for the D...

« **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:10:26 AM »

Just a fast thought that jumped in my head about quirk, was Bruce Mathews who as far as I can tell took a big risk in designing outside of his normal vision or style, and collaborated greatly with the owner-developers at Angels Crossing.

Mike Strantz was a risk taker as well, IMHO.

News:

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

John_Conley

Mike_Young

Adam Clayman

TEPaul

Ian Andrew

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Ian Andrew

Jeff_Brauer

Joe Hancock

Jeff_Brauer

Jeff_Brauer

TEPaul

TEPaul

paul cowley

DMoriarty

Mike Benham

James Bennett

BCrosby

paul cowley

RJ_Daley