Still thinking of the evolution comments I hinted at in the Geoff busy thread. I got to thinking, is there such a thing as a "design for the times" in golf architecture as opposed to "a design for all time?"
We could argue that Bendelow's rudimentary courses were just what golf in America needed, despite being, well .....rudimentary.
Tillie's depression era site visits suggest that this concept might be applicable, even though designing for greatness was "right" just a few years earlier.
The maintenance friendly designs or Robert Bruce Harris when the golf biz wasn't so profitable may suggest the same.
Todays new, longer courses might be appropriate, as would the more visually spectacular courses of recent years catering to the "TV generation." (As an aside, what does the net do for our ongoing need for "instant gratification" and how will that affect design?)
Certainly, as water resources become scarce, minimum turf areas, perhaps smaller greens, and different grasses will all come into play, starting with those 90 acre turf limits in AZ and other desert places. Perhaps wall to wall buffalo grass to save water, at the expense of visual definition will be in vogue.
Of course, a few designs will last for all time as great, but do most designs have enough quality to withstand changing conditions of regulation, the human mind and expectations, and technological developments?
Even if a design is near perfect for its time and purpose on opening day, is it a matter of luck more than the gca's vision, that it stands up to sand wedges, bigger irrigation systems, carts, conversion to a public course, and more?
Put another way, is change always a bad thing on a golf course?
Inquiring minds want to know!