Natural Vs Man Made

[Jeff_Brauer]

On a site visit yesterday, the Owner and a few others were walking around our partially shaped course.

Its a housing course, with most holes on flat Texas prairie, but about five in rolling woods, and one with Lake frontage on a large manmade lake.  Using my generally traditionalist philosophy, the "natural holes" don't have much in the way of added features, figuring they don't need them.  In the flat, featureless areas, I have done more earthmoving, used more "concept holes" and used more bunkers.

Part way through the inspection, the people were in general agreement that they are starting to like the manufactured holes better.  This is not a first for me.  I followed the same principle at Wild Wing, Fortune Bay and Giants Ridge Legend courses.  When they did customer surveys on the favorites, holes with beautiful bunkers or ponds with decorative rock liners and small waterfalls (the 9th at Fortune Bay won over the natural cape hole 13th for instance) did better than holes on better land.

The most comments I have recieved on this course are on the Biaritz and Dell green (you know, the one shaped like a computer....)  The biaritz seems to generate the most controversy, although, most who initially hate it start to love it later on with a little explanation of the historical signifigance and more signifgantly, after playing it.

I drove home wondering why so many here favor minimalism for minimalism's sake.  Certainly, if I design for the popular crowd tastes, minimalism isn't going to cut it, based on experiences I have had.  Golf course architecture really is about pleasing the people, and not about the land.

Discuss among yourselves.....

[peter_p]

Jeff,
I would be interested to find out a breakdown of how many clients and onlookers are recreation hikers, hunters, etc. The rest have been brought up in a man-made environment, so they're more enamored of the manufactured look. And pay to get it.

[A_Clay_Man]

So this is what happened before the big bang.

Jeff, your in the field poll results do not surprise one bit. Afterall, we are talking about people whose motivation is what?

[Dan Moore]

This hard to answer without seeing the holes in question.  I would think though that first impressions are going to lean toward style over substance, i.e. fancy dramatic elements over subtleties.  In the long run the strategic merit, shot making variety and interesting green sites will win out over attractive visuals and scenery.  Best example I can think of is dramatic downhill par 3s.  They often look great but play dull because everything is right there in front of you.  On the other hand as I've played more I have come to enjoy slightly uphill par 3s more and more even though the greens are hard to see which I thing adds some mystery to the hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff,
As to the favoring of minimalism here, it may be more than that alone.  It may be that this group favors traditionalism in the game in ALL forms; design, equipment, clubhouses, dress, etc.  There is a strong love for the old, classic courses, and newer courses tend to be viewed through that lense, and evaluated based on how much they look "traditional".

One additional thought/question:  Is it possible that the more dramatic and less minimal a hole becomes, the less subtle and less strategic it becomes?  Do man-made features tend to become bigger, and dictate play more completely?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Maybe you are not as good at minimalism as at moving dirt.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This is why Fazio is so popular among developers and raters at GD.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:  Do you mean because Fazio is not good at doing minimalism either?

(Just kidding.  His work has made him popular for what it is, not what it isn't.)

[Mark Brown]

Jeff

Right on. As Mackenzie also said the litmus test is whether or not the earthwork looks natural and blends with the surroundings.

You're also right in that we are in the entertainment business and the people that pay for the courses want to have thrills, fun, drama and a beautiful environment. They could care less about this curious cult. In fact, they don't even know we exist.

[Jim Thompson]

Jeff,

I think it would be very hard to do a site visit with an owner and the owner's guests where you and the owner had not done a personal site examination prior. The reason being that the owner, more than likely, feels a need to show his guests what has been done, changed, made and those features which have had greater mass in their creation always overshadow the discovered items of good design.  I think it is also very important. prior to construction, to convince an owner that he/she wants a course which will be changing in its methods of play over multiple plays rather than the obvious execution desigend course.  Granted the execution course is easier to understand the first play. but over time and in the market it will have the added burden of being boring over time.  If an owner doesn't understand this concept, I would think you are in for an uphill struggle throughout the project.

Cheers!

JT

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
IMHO....
Sometimes you just want to " live to play another day"...as you know not all sights work for the idealistic minimal golf design....and IMO if minimalism is done with houses on the fairways many on this site would not like that either.....I think what many on the site miss is the necessity to survive in this business and in reality that menas not every site is "great".....
TD says "Jeff:  Maybe you are not as good at minimalism as at moving dirt"  That applies to me in the SE.. I like moving dirt....BUT I try to use long earth forms where some may not know we moved what we did....
FINALLY....you posting this thread is like Bush when he baits the dems....hell he has them profiling now with this port thing....

[Willie_Dow]

Jeff - I'm no archie, but I've been on here a long time, and your question is a great one to think out.  Having spent some time with Wayne, and his study of Wm Flynn, I have come to the conclusion that much of his design functioned around drainage.  His contouring, which was furthered by Valentine, included drainage with mounding on fairways, as well as slope on greens.  This seems to make a natural setting that is man made.

[Ted Kramer]

Most golfers simply aren't GCA buffs.
Most golfers are the Golf Digest and Golf Mag readers.
Those publications condition their readers to desire glitz and style on a golf course.

I don't think that minimalism will be a big $ concept with the majority of golfers, unless the site is world class.

And if you are good at moving dirt around and building features that entertain the general golfing public, then I would say that you are a winner.

-Ted

[Andy Troeger]

Most golfers simply aren't GCA buffs.
Most golfers are the Golf Digest and Golf Mag readers.
Those publications condition their readers to desire glitz and style on a golf course.

I don't think that minimalism will be a big $ concept with the majority of golfers, unless the site is world class.

And if you are good at moving dirt around and building features that entertain the general golfing public, then I would say that you are a winner.

-Ted

Ted,
You make the point that I was thinking as I was reading through the other posts. Most golfers are not minimalist fans. It can work for them on the great sites of the world, but probably not otherwise. Even for me, there's a lot of sites in the midwest that need some help from the architect to generate interest in the course. From what I've read via this site and other publications it is the views here that are more radical. I think its a matter of opinion anyway for the most part, so I don't see that there's really a "right answer," but just a majority/minority scenario. Obviously many people who arguably know something about GCA do like Fazio and RTJ courses that are not considered very highly here. Many people probably like the occasional tree on a golf course as well  
Personally, I like courses that force you to hit certain shots because its a better test of my game. Give me a double fairway, and I just aim at the central hazard and swing hard because I know I'll miss one way or the other  What's important to me is that there's different types of golf courses that test different things and I like the variety of that. The courses I enjoy the most tend to offer that variety within themselves.

However, my question is whether the publications condition their readers, or whether they are just writing what they know their readers will want to hear?

[Dave Bourgeois]

I have to believe that people find the constructed features more appealing because they stand out more and they can detect them.  

Also, most golfers probably have not played on a minimalist style course and I dare say that the majority haven't played on one of the classic Golden Age courses (access, geography, etc.).

With that said by not having many points of reference of different styles, a person would gravitate to the best of what they have seen in their golfing lives.  

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

Maybe I'm just goofy, but I couldn't help relate this to landscaping around one's home.

Which do most people prefer, as far as aesthetics go? A landscape that has movement and variety, or a landscape that is one dimensional and monotonous? I think that is how people view the golf course as well. If the site is flat, it is difficult to create visual excitement without moving dirt. Strategy on a flat site is possible, but visual interest is difficult to create.

Some sites just need to be "corrected" for the application, no?(Think Texas Tech here)

Joe

[Andy Troeger]

I have to believe that people find the constructed features more appealing because they stand out more and they can detect them.  

Also, most golfers probably have not played on a minimalist style course and I dare say that the majority haven't played on one of the classic Golden Age courses (access, geography, etc.).

With that said by not having many points of reference of different styles, a person would gravitate to the best of what they have seen in their golfing lives.  

I've always wondered if this would be the case partially because so many of the great US public courses (especially in the east) are designed by Pete Dye. Kiawah, Harbour Town, Whistling Straits, Blackwolf Run, TPC Sawgrass, etc. For peope that want to play a "top 100 course" and can't get on the classics those are some of the favorite destinations. I know that playing some of those courses has probably had an impact on how I see GCA.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

used more "concept holes" and used more bunkers.
 Golf course architecture really is about pleasing the people, and not about the land.

Discuss among yourselves.....

I don't think you totally disregard  the public certainly you want to make something enjoyable for all but I do think it a sad state for an architect to just be replicating others golf holes and doing what you know pleases everyone else.  I don't think that does anything to elevate the architect's abilities and possibly help them forge exciting solutions to old problems.  I think you must do what really fires your own passion for golf and that is the only way to put something out there that is inspired, and I think despite not having the manufactured eye-candy the public golfer will pick up on that inspiration, although they may can not articulate it and may not reflect it in the holes they choose as favorites I do believe the golfer is intuitively smarter than you think.

But, if that is what pleases them then you can just keep the holes that get the best reaction on a computer disk, fire it off to the contractor and watch more hockey games!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff:
some very good answers/insights already. I'd say this:

1) You're asking THE basic question, one that pops up in every art/creative discipline, i.e. the relative value/merit of the obvious versus the subtle:

in painting, the representational vs the abstract; in literature, the plot vs the character; in music, the melody vs the harmony.  I used to have very clear ideas about which was 'better'. I don't so much any more, but I do think that more time and effort (and in some cases, knowledge) is needed for one to 'appreciate' the subtle over the obvious.

2) We on this board can value minimalism for minimalism's sake because most of us are - in the best sense of the word – ‘amateurs.'  The word comes from the same root as the one that means 'to love'; and as we've all heard, love is blind.  In short, we can ALLOW ourselves to be blind to other realities/complexities because we're in it for love. The 'professional', on the other hand, can't allow himself that luxury - nor, I think, should he.

Peter

[Scott Witter]

As architects, we are at odds quite often to make sense of what people like, why they like it, what will make the cash register ring, what will make the client happy and most importantly, what will make us happy and put a few bucks in our pockets.

There are no surprises in the scenario Jeff describes, nor do I think anyone here thinks so either.  But most on this site are purists and don't really care to understand the motivation and interests of the masses...to each their own, but then again, they aren't trying to make a living at it either.

Jim T. is right about the struggle we may have with our clients/owners and I am in one of those 'uphill struggles' at the moment, but I know my concept and approach are sensible and the best for the site.  However, the reality is that they are only the beginning and not the end, for the golfers will make the ultimate subjective decision about how "successful" the concept is, though they will likely never get it either.

I REALLY enjoy and appreciate the minimalist thoughts and approach and especially the execution of this thinking on great ground, and even on not so great ground if you where to look for interest and features, but at the same time, I can certainly see clear on moving dirt on such a questionable site that it is simply called for in order to create someting of interest e.g. The Rawls course.  Naturally, how much is moved, how it is moved, how it is shaped and so on, are all the rage to those on this site and to me, is a reflection of the skills/understanding of the architect at the wheel.

A story...I designed and built a new course two years ago on a flat, tight(163 acres) site with very little feature and character and 17 acres of wetlands.  In so doing, I felt, like Jeff I suppose, I needed to create playing and visual interest to engage golfers, secure drainage, all that good stuff.  When we were done, we moved 215,000 CY of soil, not that much in the grand scheme of modern design & const., but it was enough to do what I wanted.  The course is doing well and has been a great success for our client.  At this same time, another course was being designed and built on the fly, by an owner and a 'shaper' (no architect involved) for EIGHT ( years!  I'll spare the gory details, but on a site that had very nice rolling topo and good natural flow and 180 acres with minimal wetlands, they managed to move...1.6 millions CY!!  Oh yeah, it has all the bells and whistles if you think HUGE repetitive containment mounds and smooth curvey ponds are cool...  This course opened as the rage to golfers, they think it is monumental even though only six bunkers out of 60 on the course are remotely strategic and there are two 90 degree doglegs!

So why is this so?  In our case, the sophistication of golfers in our area is very low, they have never had any really decent public golf in 30 years, so throw them something that appears to be very exciting even though manufactured, poorly executed with no strategy, and based on their level of understanding and playing experience simply they love it!

Go figure?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  I skipped over your quote because it pained me so much:

"Golf architecture really is about pleasing the people, and not about the land."

I could not disagree with that more.  I believe that the client entrusts us with A PIECE OF LAND to work with, not just an abstract yearning for "quality".  Guess that's why I'm a minimalist.

P.S.  Is that really the quote you want on your tombstone?

[Ted Kramer]

Jeff:  I skipped over your quote because it pained me so much:

"Golf architecture really is about pleasing the people, and not about the land."

I could not disagree with that more.  I believe that the client entrusts us with A PIECE OF LAND to work with, not just an abstract yearning for "quality".  Guess that's why I'm a minimalist.

P.S.  Is that really the quote you want on your tombstone?

With all due respect, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that.
How could you possibly know what the "the client entrusts" each and every architect with? I'm certainly no expert but I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of clients that wouldn't want to hear a whole lot of artistic minimalist drivel from the architect that he/she hired to design a profitable golf course.

I can't possibly believe that every client is looking to entrust an architect with a piece of land for artistry's sake. There have to be plenty of clients looking to deliver what the public wants.

-Ted

 

[Joe Hancock]

Ted,

With all due respect, I bet Tom D.'s clients have a VERY good idea of what/ who they are getting when they hire his firm. Tom, and many other architects, are selective with their clients, as much as possible. If a clients top priority is profitablility, they are likely to go with someone else cheaper or more famous, depending on the type of development.

Joe

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

With all due respect, I bet Tom D.'s clients have a VERY good idea of what/ who they are getting when they hire his firm. Tom, and many other architects, are selective with their clients, as much as possible. If a clients top priority is profitablility, they are likely to go with someone else cheaper or more famous, depending on the type of development.

Joe

Well if the "us" in Tom's post refers to him and his crew when hired, then your post has merit and I misunderstood Tom. If the "us" in his post refers to architects in general, which is how I read his post, then your post is nothing but defending someone who is perfectly capable of defending himself and pointing out the painfully obvious.

I don't doubt for a second that Mr. Doak's clients know exactly what they are getting when they are lucky enough to hire him and his crew. But again, I don't think that has very much to do with the this thread.

-Ted

[Joe Hancock]

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