Natural Vs Man Made

« **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2006, 08:00:48 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on February 25, 2006, 07:58:28 PM

Ted,

No problem. I know Tom doesn't need, or want defending. I guess I wouldn't have taken Tom's comments to be all-inclusive of all working architects....we know there are guys out there who could give a rats hind-end about minimalism and natural looking features. Common knowledge, I suppose.

Joe

Fair enough. Maybe you can see, based on how I read Tom's post, why I thought that it was worth refuting.

-Ted

« **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2006, 08:45:29 PM »

Ted: I would agree that some sites are much less attractive than others, indeed there may be some where there is nothing to preserve. But those are not the majority, and for Jeff to say that golf course architecture is "not about the land" puts him in a very different camp than me.

It isn't all about what the client wants, we have some responsibility to be stewards of the land, too. I thought that was even in the ASGCA charter, but I must've been mistaken; I'm not entrusted to read the whole thing.

If you think that's artistic drivel, I guess that's your right. But you're wrong.

« **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2006, 08:53:47 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 25, 2006, 08:45:29 PM

Ted: I would agree that some sites are much less attractive than others, indeed there may be some where there is nothing to preserve. But those are not the majority, and for Jeff to say that golf course architecture is "not about the land" puts him in a very different camp than me.

It isn't all about what the client wants, we have some responsibility to be stewards of the land, too. I thought that was even in the ASGCA charter, but I must've been mistaken; I'm not entrusted to read the whole thing.

If you think that's artistic drivel, I guess that's your right. But you're wrong.

The "artistic drivel" comment was meant to represent the opinion of the fictional client that I was using as an example. Personally, I prefer the look of Pacific Dunes to that of just about any recently built course that I've seen. In terms of your work, and that of the modern day minamalist, I am a big fan.

But again, my post wasn't about my preferences. It was about your comments lumping a diverse group of people into one neat little package.

-Ted

« **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2006, 09:15:27 PM »

Maybe it has to do with where you grow up. I grew up in very rural areas and learned to play on a course where I am positive no earth was moved. Years later I went back to the town where I learned to play golf and found they had redone the course and added downright ugly mounding. They had even removed my favorite hole, which was a steeply downhill 230 yard par 3 with the green just over a small creek. They moved the tee farther forward and extended the hole into a par 4 where the creek no longer is in play on the hole, because it is easily carried on the drive.

I find the manufactured features on many golf courses troubling (sometimes downright offensive). Most ponds I see are not even worth looking at, even at courses by famous modern designers. E.g. The Reserve near Portland, Old Works, in Montana, ...

I wonder if people growing up in metropolitan area where almost all landscape is man made are the ones who appreciate these courses.

« **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2006, 11:18:27 PM »

Jeff,

I"ve always felt that the "minimalist" advocates on this site were those not directly involved in golf course design and construction. In other words, they had nothing invested in a project, but could sit, like Bob Eucker in the right field third deck and claim that the third baseman missed the tag.

A golf course is a product.

A product designed for an ultimate user, who can be very diverse. (residential users, daily fee users, private users, etc. etc..

That ultimate user has to want to "buy" the product.

Failure to "buy" the product results in failure in many forms.

Charles Blair MacDonald, Seth Raynor and Charles (Steamshovel) Banks could hardly be viewed as minimalists, especially in their era, and yet, their golf courses are widely acclaimed and have withstood the test of time for 90 years.

I think the "minimalist" movement is a knee jerk counter reaction to totallly constructed golf courses. Courses like Shadow Creek. These courses tend to be associated with large budgets, and hence, I feel the bias is a rejection of wealth.

I have to chuckle when a "minimalist" course is built and widely acclaimed, despite the fact that membership costs anywhere between $ 250,000 and $ 600,000.

On an interesting piece of property I think talent inately finds routings and holes. Other times, template holes can fit well into the landscape. But, HOW you design and build a good golf course doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's minimalist like a Sand Hills, or constructed like a NGLA, or fabricated like a Shadow Creek. In the ultimate, it's the finished product that is the ONLY relevant factor, not the methodology for creating it.

« **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2006, 07:47:28 AM »

So maybe the ultimate question would be, what if someone were to build something just as good as Sand Hills on dead flat land?

Say here in Florida where we got lots of sand, or in the desert. Someone moves 3 million cubic yards of dirt and the result is wonderful.

How do the minimialists here feel about that?

« **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2006, 08:05:43 AM »

Quote from: cary lichtenstein on February 26, 2006, 07:47:28 AM

So maybe the ultimate question would be, what if someone were to build something just as good as Sand Hills on dead flat land?

Say here in Florida where we got lots of sand, or in the desert. Someone moves 3 million cubic yards of dirt and the result is wonderful.

How do the minimialists here feel about that?

If done correctly most of the minimalist would not know it wasn't minimalism...

« **Reply #32 on:** February 26, 2006, 08:25:38 AM »

I really appreciate this topic and think it is a great one. A few thoughts:

1. One perspective that gets lost is the purpose for which a course is built. If the course is desgned to played many times by customers, it would seem to me that minimalist approaches work over the long term. Courses that have stood the test of time seem to use the natural features of the land to create long term interest over repeated play. Using those features to create interest immediately must be very difficult unless you are dealing with geeks that are really into ground contours (like me).

2. The virtues of a minimalist course usually do not present themselves with brief exposure. Usually those virtues relate to ground contour and wind. By its nature, the problems presented by such an approach take time to understand and figure out how to attack. To me that is the ultimate pleasure in playing a quality golf course, but if you play the course once or twice it is difficult to appreciate the challenge that exists, let alone the best way for you to solve it.

3. To the extent one is trying to sell houses or provide a vacation destination, most golfers will react to very obvious hazards and their concept of beauty.

4. I would think that if you are building a course for people to enjoy immediately, an artificial course may be the way to go and it must take real talent to create artifical holes that do not feel repititous compared to courses at other locations.

5. If, on the other hand, you are building a course that will be of interest 80 years from now, a minimalist approach has proven to be more effective in creating sustained interest.

« **Reply #33 on:** February 26, 2006, 08:56:44 AM »

I think Jason makes an excellent point that course that seem to have worked with the lands natural features in due time become more respected as compared to course that are obviously manufactured. Even a manufactured course done in a way that the manmade features do not disrespect the land like lines of watermelon mounds in time can fit more into the natural land as nature seemingly overtakes it and softens the manufactured looked. I especially like point #5 by Jason.

I know a renovation that was on very flat ground and instead of moving dirt to build bunkers the bunkers were cut into the ground so that while they can be somewhat distinguished they remain very low and do not disrupt the overall subtle landscape therefore they look to fit, not manufactured, so even a seemingly flat nondescript piece of land could achieve some architectural merit without moving heaven and earth.

Pat, I can show you a Banks course that while the green sites are manufactured, no doubt that there were massive fills on sloping sites to achieve a green site, those features are very attractive, yet a modern architect came in and modernized the bunkers on the course and it is an abomination, so it is a very good example of one architect manufacturing certain elements yet it seems to work very well with the land because for the most part he left the land alone from the tee to the green, or so it appears, and another modern architect manufacturing features and the the place is now in total disarray.

I think minimialism is a very bad term, it might be good for other creative ventures but in the area of golf design it does not in any way properly define what we do.

« **Reply #34 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:11:44 AM »

There are many interesting and thoughtful responses here. The unfortunate truth about golf course architecture is that few architects are given a truly blank slate with which to work. There are always external forces that impact upon the development of the golf course (cost, housing development, resort course, owner's/member's vision, nature of the site, environmental restrictions, etc.).
One of the unfortunate truths about much of the golfing public is also true of much of society: we have lost the ability to appreciate subtlety and thought. Ultimately, the owner/members/players are consumers who want to be satisfied. We are society that revels in instant gratification, sound bites and the spectacular. Thus, an interesting and strategic golf course on a relatively flat piece of land may get labeled as boring while retention ponds, needless bunkering, containment mounds and waterfalls are celebrated.
I don't know how many times I've been on the tee with some of my buddies and heard comments like "Boy, that is a good looking hole" or a "pretty hole." Rarely is any comment made about the strategy of the hole.
Why does this exist? Well, for one thing, understanding golf architecture ain't easy. It requires some heavy lifting (like reading, researching, seeking out different courses by different architects and experiencing them first hand). It also requires self-examination and analysis as to why you like particular courses, architects and holes. These mysteries seldom reveal themselves in a short period of time.
I have been on this discussion board for several years and still feel like a neophyte in my appreciation of this subject. I am a blissful visual learner so the spectacular does appeal to me. However, I can find and appreciate the subtle nature of a course like Hidden Creek. I can also enjoy and appreciate how Raynor utilized the template holes and his engineering background to create courses that were derivative but not duplicative. I can also be wowed by Fazio.
Ultimately, Pat Mucci is correct. The golf course is a product that must appeal to the consumer (be it owner, members, resort guests or daily fee players). While I feel that minimalist courses have intrinsic appeal, they often don't reveal themselves fully within a single round. But, manufactured courses often leave an impression on those who expect and demand visual stimulation.

« **Reply #35 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:44:25 AM »

Jeff
What exactly is minimalism? I favor courses with wonderful natural features and where the architecture really maximizes those features, like Cypress Point and Sand Hills. Cypress Point has well over one-hundred man-made bunkers; I'm not sure how many bunkers at Sand Hills.

« **Reply #36 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:46:01 AM »

Kelly,

I too think "minimalism" is a bad term.

As you play NGLA you might think it was minimalistic in design, however, if you walk it in reverse, the opposite becomes apparent.

As to your "Banks" example, that might be a clash of styles, or, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wild Horse and Sand Hills would appear to be the poster children for the "pure" minimalist. But, those sites are unique sites far removed from the bulk of golfers in the U.S., and, they have the luxury of an owner with a vision and a membership with the wherewithall to travel great distances to play the golf course. In addition, I think you sometimes have to make compromises when you don't move dirt, and some of those compromises can be in the form of continuity, like the walk from # 9 green to # 10 tee.

If Sand Hills land had been on the Ocean in South Florida or Southern California and a developer other than Dick Youngscap was creating a residential golf community, you can guarantee that the routing of the golf course and the final product would be vastly different.

So, the end user must always be factored into the equation.

Ask yourself, would you have prefered having the land at Laurel Links to yourself, with the developer getting his home sites by default, after you routed and designed the golf course ?

Recently I played a golf course in Florida that was basically lined with canals or lakes on each or both sides of the fairway.
When our group was discussing the problems of slow play and the penal nature of the course, one fellow said, "yeah, but everyone wants a water view from their home and they're willing to pay for it." So, the golf course was a convenience for the residents, with the home sites being the priority.
And, they excavated a lot of dirt to build those ponds, using alot of it to create elevated tees, greens, mounds, etc., etc..

So, it's easy to sit back in the vacuum of arm chair architecture, but, when you're in the field and investment dollars are at risk, the reality is: The product has to attract and retain the consumer at a price that satisfies the developer, unless, the developer is well healed and pursuing a dream, a labor of love.

« **Reply #37 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:47:28 AM »

Quote from: Billsteele on February 26, 2006, 09:11:44 AM

Ultimately, Pat Mucci is correct. The golf course is a product that must appeal to the consumer (be it owner, members, resort guests or daily fee players).

ditto.

I would just add the PGA Tour and USGA to the list of customers certain new courses are being "sold" to.

I love this quote about music - "There are only two kinds of music - good and bad".

Can't the same quote be applied to golf courses?

Who CARES whether they are "minimalist" or not, or how many cubic yards of earth were moved???

I don't.

« **Reply #38 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:47:56 AM »

Kelly: Minimalism wasn't a bad term to start with, but after a few years of overuse it means too many different things to different people. For one thing, minimalism doesn't necessarily mean subtle features as Jason suggests; sometimes you can deliberately use the strongest natural features of the ground for a landing area or green.

Bill: Ultimately, Pat Mucci is not correct, you should be paying more attention to TE Paul. On the one hand Pat says the owner should get what he wants, on the other he says the ultimate goal is to be commercially successful. Which one is correct?

In fact the primary goal is to build a course which will stand the test of time, and be successful at a price which is low enough to be sustainable. That implies not just building to what the market says it wants, but building something which the golfers appreciate emotionally and esthetically, too.

He's also failing to look at the problem from a standpoint of alternatives. Raynor, for example, was building for wealthy private clubs, and there was not much question whether Fishers Island or Camargo were going to be "commercially successful". Nor would it have been a question if another designer with a different style had built those same courses.

The irony in today's market is that the courses that are "iffier" commercially are the ones who spend too much on signature designs, and many of them ultimately fail to attract the people they were designed to.

« **Reply #39 on:** February 26, 2006, 10:19:54 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 26, 2006, 09:47:56 AM

Bill: Ultimately, Pat Mucci is not correct, you should be paying more attention to TE Paul.

Bill, unless you want to end up at HappyDale Farms, as a full time resident/patient, I wouldn't heed Tom Doak's advice.

On the one hand Pat says the owner should get what he wants, on the other he says the ultimate goal is to be commercially successful. Which one is correct?

Tom Doak,

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
In fact, they're in perfect harmony.

How would you describe your work at Atlantic City and the goal of the owner ?

How would you describe Steve Wynn's goals and the product Fazio produced ?

I'd say both were in perfect or near perfect harmony, and both were intended to attract a targeted consumer.

Do you know a residential development, with an incorporated golf course, where the developer doesn't want to be commercially successful ?

In fact the primary goal is to build a course which will stand the test of time, and be successful at a price which is low enough to be sustainable. That implies not just building to what the market says it wants, but building something which the golfers appreciate emotionally and esthetically, too.

You need to come to Florida, because building a golf course which will stand the test of time is not the primary goal of the developer, selling real estate to capacity and getting out with a profit is.

Look at Hunter's Run, Boca West, Admiral's Cove, Frenchman's Creek and many, many more residential communities. The LAST, or near last thing a developer is concerned with is how the golf course will be viewed 100 years from now.

And, if you look closer, you'll see that residential golf course after residential golf course has had a complete face lift from another architect over the last 10-20 years, and the trend is accelerating.

One barometer of the reconfiguring and redesigning of golf courses in southern Florida is the exponential growth of waterfalls.

He's also failing to look at the problem from a standpoint of alternatives. Raynor, for example, was building for wealthy private clubs, and there was not much question whether Fishers Island or Camargo were going to be "commercially successful". Nor would it have been a question if another designer with a different style had built those same courses.

That's a different product for a different target market.
You're not reading my post carefully enough.

The irony in today's market is that the courses that are "iffier" commercially are the ones who spend too much on signature designs, and many of them ultimately fail to attract the people they were designed to.

Again, it depends on who the ultimate end user is.

« **Reply #40 on:** February 26, 2006, 10:25:26 AM »

In my opinion, anyone that embraces "man made" over the "natural" is just plain uncomfortable with nature and the land. They suffer from a HUGE control issue. They have a manifest destiny mind set that isn't healthy.

I bet they would rather spend a day at the zoo looking at animals in a cage, than a day of two in the bush.

« **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2006, 10:53:03 AM »

Craig Sweet,

Which of Charles Blair MacDonald's, Seth Raynor's and Charles Bank's courses have you played ?

You also make it seem like every piece of land is ideal, when in many cases, the land is/was inferior.

I myself, prefer being in the bush as opposed to voyeurism

« **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:13:42 AM »

Why should I have to play them? Does that change anything about them?

You are right Pat, not every piece of land is ideal....for a golf course.

Is there anything more phony than a bunker on a golf hole set in the deep woods of Pennsylvania? How about a mound on a flat piece of Ohio land?

The degree to which you want to make somehting it isn't, says a lot about a person.

« **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:46:12 AM »

Tom Doak,

Re: My tombstone......I am leaning towards, "I told you I was sick!" but may change to "Sorry he ever tried to impersonate Barney on Golf Club Atlas....." I seriously think a funny tombstone that might lighten some somber cemetary moods for years to come could be anyone's last contribution to society.

Back on topic, forgetting the big picture buzzwords, like minimalism, it seems that:

1. The old design triangle of beauty, playability and maintenance is still intact. A designer can't ignore beauty if the course is to be attractive to golfers.

2. Based on my experience, that beauty needs a little "organization" for the minds eye to appreciate it. I think the easiest way to achieve that is through golfs most visible elements, which are bunkers, then earth forms (usually large to be visually effective, whether natural or not) and then mowing lines. Each provides contrast, which the eye picks up. MacKenzie and others certainly understood that in the placement of item one - the bunkers - and set the tone for most architecture today.

Could it be that, for some, the mound aspect is more attractive if it looks artificial precisely because of the contrast to real ground makes it stand out?

PS - None of this means you can't have subtley as well. Its important to have good visuals and long term appreciation of the subtleties. No reason it has to be either/or, is there?

PPS - Ditto the above on strategy.

« **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:56:27 AM »

Jeff: I'm starting to think our styles are complete opposites.

We try to make the mowing lines disappear in the landscape -- at Pacific Dunes the other day, the lines are now so blurred that you can't even tell where the edges of the greens are. [I wonder if someone at the USGA is going to have a hissy fit about that prior to the Curtis Cup.] We use bunkers to break up the mowing lines and take away from the "defined" look. And we shy away from mounds unless we have something to hide.

I do agree with your final points, though, that different styles do not necessarily rule out subtle or dramatic features, nor do they rule out the possibility of strategy. I just don't like it when architects over-define that strategy and limit other options.

PS My son had a cold sore the other day and when I told him not to worry about it he said if he died from it, his tombstone could read "My dad told me it was nothing to worry about."

« **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2006, 12:10:34 PM »

Tom,

I am not sure about complete opposites.

Certainly, on a site like the Rawls Course, where you had to use a free hand, your bunkering and features "lead the eye" and organize the hole for the player in most cases.

Your lack of fw edging is unique, but I would also consider it the last weapon in my arsenal, even generally leavng the traditional fw/rough separation in the design.

« **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2006, 12:22:06 PM »

Jeff: To quote one of MacKenzie's more obscure passages:

"In the great schools of golf, such as Hoylake and St. Andrews, there are no defined lines of fairway."

It took me a long time to assimilate what that really meant. My associate Jim Urbina was the first to really start focusing on it, and we do so now maybe too much ... there are even times when we decide we can't put the green in that natural bowl because the mowing lines around it would look awful.

« **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2006, 01:06:33 PM »

Above, Jeff talks about the mission to "organize" beauty. I take that to mean that he must organize the features needed to make a golf course play in an interesting and challenging manner, and to be efficient to maintain, with the need to create visual enjoyment.

Some sites, like he starts out with are a mix of mundane and featureless along with some areas with some contour, vegitation or other natural occuring character. Then, he mentions that clients start to say they prefer the areas where he manufactured (organized) some beauty and playability to the more naturally occuring areas where he routed some golf.

I just don't see that as anything but a tribute to his design architectual abilities. So long as they don't say they "hate" the naturally routed holes! Then, that would say something else about Jeff, that he might lack one aspect of being a complete GCA. What would be missing would be the equally important ability to collaborate with nature, and do things effectively and minimalistically for a client.

What can one say about a project that requires rooflines down every fairway in some of these typical homesite developments? You will never have a concept of natural surroundings. Then, all you have left is manufacturing and organizing whatever semblence of beauty that you can artificially create. But, it will never be able to rise to the actual definition of beauty. It will just be organized features to provide a fantasy emulation of what the culture accepts as glitz, i.e. waterfalls, capes and bay bunkers, framed greensites with mounting about, and mowing lines that present differing shades of lush green.

The major issue in most housing developements have a much more demanding charge for the architect, and that is drainage. Not only do they have to organize faux beauty features, they have to get them draining in a manner that works with the homesites.

So, I think we have to split any such discussion to courses where there is still a contiguous piece of land where golf is to be sited that can be addressed as natural vs man made aesthetics, and those that function as commercial tracts, surrounded and enclosed within completely unnatural settings.

« **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2006, 02:25:02 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 25, 2006, 08:45:29 PM

Ted: I would agree that some sites are much less attractive than others, indeed there may be some where there is nothing to preserve. But those are not the majority, and for Jeff to say that golf course architecture is "not about the land" puts him in a very different camp than me.

It isn't all about what the client wants, we have some responsibility to be stewards of the land, too. I thought that was even in the ASGCA charter, but I must've been mistaken; I'm not entrusted to read the whole thing.

If you think that's artistic drivel, I guess that's your right. But you're wrong.

I've never read the charter that you are referencing.
But intuition tells me that the responisbility that you speak of has more to do with stewardship of the land in an environmentally repsonsible context, not in an artistic context.

I don't think that the original comment meant that the architect didn't have an obligation to treat the land responsibly with respect to environmental concerns. I think the poster meant that GCA was about putting golf holes on the ground that please people versus pleasing the land by moving as little of it as possible.

So maybe it is you who is wrong.

-Ted

« **Reply #49 on:** February 26, 2006, 03:36:20 PM »

Ted:

We could just agree to disagree, but there is something deeper here and this is it:

The style of design one chooses is more than just about strategy and playability and golfing interest. It has ramifications for permitting, for environmental concerns, and for the maintenance of the golf course, too.

One good thing about minimalism is that it's less disruptive to the natural environment. Every part of the course where we don't disturb topsoil is more healthy, and requires less outside input to become a well-maintained golf course. Pacific Dunes looks like it's been there for a long time, in part because most of the soil HAS been there, undisturbed, for a long time.

You can please the land and build interesting golf holes at the same time. That's my point, and that's been my point all along.

Every designer falls in love with his own approach, including me. But I don't see how deciding to push MORE dirt around to build a great golf hole is considered LESS egotistical.

News:

Ted Kramer

Tom_Doak

Ted Kramer

Garland Bayley

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

cary lichtenstein

Mike_Young

Jason Topp

Kelly Blake Moran

Billsteele

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Voytek Wilczak

Tom_Doak

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Craig Sweet

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Craig Sweet

Jeff_Brauer

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Brauer

Tom_Doak

RJ_Daley

Ted Kramer

Tom_Doak