The Course Beautiful Movement

[Steve Burrows]

The end of the 19th century saw a shift in fields of design and planning called the City Beautiful movement.  A reaction to the recent, nearly uncontrollable growth in the American city which had resulted in overcrowding, social unrest, and a decline in the American economy, the proponents of the City Beautiful believed that a revival in classical ideals in architecture, landscape architecture and city planning (a revival of organization and beauty referred to as the Beaux-Arts style) would promote moral and civic virtue, and ultimately, social reform.

Simlarly, golf course design has come and gone through a dark ages, where the game and its playing fields grew almost uncontrollably, and now, many courses are failing for various reasons, including market saturation, or even ill-conceived and executed designs which are uninspiring and unpopular (where some might suggest that those designers lost sight of the classical ideals and virtues that define greatness among our golden age courses, as well as the original courses of Scotland, England, and Ireland).

Adding further fuel to this similarity is the fact that modern designers are recapturing the spirit of the game, and reclaiming those classical ideals to create exciting, new golf courses, perhaps not for the sake of social change (though that theory could be argued), but for the sake of the game.  Are there other possible similarities or influences from the City Beautiful movement?  Many of the designers of America’s Golden Age of Design lived through this period of design (1890-1910).  How might it have affected them?  One of Tillinghast’s books is, coincidentally, called "The Course Beautiful," a powerful echo of the aforementioned design movement.  Or, is this a coincidence at all?  

Of course, this movement was also criticized for stunting design creativity.  Some believed that such a heavy focus on the past was detrimental to modern design, and indeed, its future.  Is this a possibility in golf course design as well?  Will projects such as the proposed fourth course at Bandon Dunes, a deliberate throwback to classical design, also mimic the history of the City Beautiful movement, and stunt the growth of this profession?

[john_stiles]

There is actually a thread of a tie, a sliver of a tie, via McKim, White, Mead and Olmstead to golf.

Maybe, you could argue it influences framing, beautification of a golf hole. It would be a stretch.

Just when I thought it was all A&C movement, you bring up this matter.

Any mention of this in GCA literature ? None that I remember.

The Capitol complex is marvelous though.

[Phil_the_Author]

In October, 1920, in the magazine Golf Illustrated, Tilly wrote, "It seems to me that he, who plans any hole for golf, should have two aims: first, to produce something which will provide a true test of the game, and then consider every conceivable way to make it as beautiful as possible. He should have in mind not only the skill and brawn of golfers but their eyes as well... the course beautiful adds much to the pleasure of golf without detracting in the least from its qualities as a test..."

 

[BCrosby]

Steve -

I've never seen any evidence of a connection. We can speculate about general cultural things that in the air at the time, but I haven't seen much in the way of concrete connections.

Philip -

Interesting Tillie quotation. Mostly because of what he doesn't say.

Tillie says holes ought to test shots and be pretty. There is nothing about strategy, choices, options, etc.

The strategic stuff that MacK, MacD, Thomas et al. wrote whole books about appears not to be among the things Tillie thought most important in designing a good hole.

Very curious. Even more curious is that Tillie's quotation sounds - almost verbatim - like Joshua Crane. The dark prince of penal architecture.

I don't mean to suggest that Tillie didn't care about strategic design. He did. (I think.) But his writing is very confusing. He sometimes sounds like he wants holes to be penal (and pretty) and sometimes sounds like MacK and others of the strategic school.

I get the sense that Tillie didn't appreciate that you can't shift back and forth between those two very different views of golf architecture without stepping on some logical land mines.

Tillie was of course one of the big guns of the Golden Age. But having read a number of his pieces in GI, I am beginning to think his stated theories of gca are a muddle. You can't think that the highest, best design for a hole is one that both (a) tests the "skill and brawn" of golfers and (b) gives golfers lots of options.

Those are two different and inconsistent architectural universes. No? Or, if you drill down, was Tillie basically a proponent of penal architecture? I doubt that, but just askin'. Because I'm no longer sure that he wasn't.

Bob  

   

 

[john_stiles]

Is there any tie or influence by city beautiful ?   Doubtful.

Any ties to the Pinehurst village ' layout / architecture ' ? Possible.

[Phil_the_Author]

Bob, The quote I gave was a piecing together of a rather long article that Tilly wrote from that month's "Our Green Section" of GI. In fact, the phrase "He should have in mind not only the skill and brawn of golfers but their eyes as well..." is about 750 words and 6 paragraphs separated from "... the course beautiful adds much to the pleasure of golf without detracting in the least from its qualities as a test..."

The reason I did this was because Steve's original post stated, "One of Tillinghast’s books is, coincidentally, called "The Course Beautiful," a powerful echo of the aforementioned design movement..."

Tilly had a number of very definite and consistent design principles and concepts that he practiced from the beginning of his career to the end, as well as a number of then that went through an evolutionary process.

One of the things of which I am now convinced, and this doesn't just apply to Tilly, is how technological advances in the early part of the 20th century, allowed designers to have a greater ability to picture challenges in the game differently.

For example, as golf balls appeared alomst overnight that would allow someone to drive it 250 yards where before a 210 yard drive was long, and at the same time this same drive would have less chance to slice and hook the large amounts that the hand-made balls had done previously, fairways began to constrict, fairway bunker placements changed, water features became mored esigned into a hole and trees bcame more amenable as part of a course.

The courses of the late 19th centuries had ultra-wide fairways and very few trees, with bunkers placed in locations based more on a mathematical formula than a challenge-based design.

Tilly bridged the gap between these two eras and I believe that it was because he saw this first technological evolution in the game that, almost from the beginning, he tried to design courses that would challenge talent and technology of the day while being elastic enough to keep up with their evolution.

He was a big believer in penal architectural design first and then doing everything that he could to make certain that it appealed to the eye.

Hence, his belief in the course beautiful as important in design.    

[BCrosby]

"[Tillie] was a big believer in penal architectural design first and then doing everything that he could to make certain that it appealed to the eye."

I think you may be right. If so, Tillie came from a very different architectural tradition than Colt, MacK, MacD, Thomas, etc.

Your summary of Tillie's design philosophy is - essentially - a summary of penal architecture's world view. Which was what MacK, MacD, Thomas, etc. spent most of their time arguing against in their books.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob and Philip:

I definitely cannot understand why both of you describe Tillinghast as a proponent of penal architecture.

The worst that could be said of him in that vein is perhaps his defense of the occasional "championship caliber" golf course such as NGLA or Pine Valley.

Tillinghast's article entitled "An Answer For Taylor" seems to contain his architectural philosophy pretty well. And a good example in that article is his mention of some of the 'grumblers' with modern or strategic architecture who are short hitters who refuse to take the longer but safer way around. That's their problem for failing to see the realities of their own games and the options of strategic architecture at their disposal.

[BCrosby]

Bob and Philip:

I definitely cannot understand why both of you describe Tillinghast as a proponent of penal architecture.

I think he is a proponent of penal design because he says he is a proponent of penal design.

I will try to find the essay you reference.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Where did Tillinghast say he was a proponent of penal design?

Furthermore, what was penal design really but the early courses that were either highly restrictive in a direction sense (such as the 40 yard wide hole corridors that were simultaneously used both ways at TOC) or courses that had obstacle features stretching clear across fairways with no way around them---or both?

That kind of thing was not Tillinghast's philosophy on architecture and it wasn't the way he designed his courses.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

First, nobody ever claimed to be a penal architect. But there were several people that promoted the concepts that are at the heart of penal architecture. Joshua Crane did. Fownes seemd to. Tillie seemed to do so from time to time. See:

"It seems to me that he, who plans any hole for golf, should have two aims: first, to produce something which will provide a true test of the game, and then consider every conceivable way to make it as beautiful as possible. He should have in mind not only the skill and brawn of golfers but their eyes as well... the course beautiful adds much to the pleasure of golf without detracting in the least from its qualities as a test..."

That's straight out of the penal school playbook. That's Joshua Crane, almost verbatim. Shot testing in a beautiful setting. But it's not just what he said, it's what he didn't say. There is no mention of strategy, options, etc. among the things Tillie thought important in a good hole.

Certainly Tillie's courses are not penal in the strick sense of the word. And Tillie said things that are inconsistent with the above. The most apt description of his stated design philosopy may be that it was a muddled hodge podge.

Similarly his courses are hard to categorize. It does seem clear to me, however, that Tillie was not a classic strategic architect. He was not part of the MacD, MacK, Thomas bloodlines. Frankly, I don't think Tillie was as good an architect as any of those guys. But that just reflects my strong bias for strategic architecture.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

I have hard time catagorizing many of these architects/critics as either in the penal camp or in the strategic camp....its seems to me there are elements of both in most good design.

The Road hole for example - one could say that green with an extremelely severe hazard on one side and road/OB on the other is penal, but the strategy comes in in that you can choose to play short and take your chances with shorter approach or pitch to the penal green.

Tilly, Taylor and Crane all understood and appreciated stategic golf architecture to one degree or another.

How would the City Beautiful movement have manifested itself in golf architecture? Wasn't it fairly formulaic, stressing the order and uniformity of Classic architecture...with a focus on urban design / city planning?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I think you are reading too much into some of what Tillinghast said in certain articles and such.

I agree with what Tom MacWood just said (Surprise, surprise ) that it's dangerous to categorize some golf architects by generalizing something they did or said.

Tillinghast did not hesitate to say that there is nothing wrong with a few highly testing golf courses in the broad scheme of the whole business of golf architecture. And Tillinghast most certainly contributed the concept of the "True Three Shotter", a par 5 that basically needed two really good and long shots in succession for the hole to be even reached in three by the good player. That concept was the basis for the design of PVGC's #7 and HHA that was a 100 yard long cross hazard with no alternate way around it.

But the point is that that kind of design was INTENDED to be a true shot testing golf course for the elite player. Crump wanted that kind of design at PVGC as a virtual training ground for Philly's best so they could learn to compete better on the national level. Furthermore, Crump did not hesitate to say that since that's what the course was designed for that hackers probably need not come around.

That Tillinghast condoned that kind of design at PVGC or that he built a few courses of that type elsewhere does not exactly mean he was always into that type of highly testing architecture everywhere and for everyone.

The thing that has always killed me----amused me really, is when some criticize a course that's highly testing like PVGC as undemocratic or unideal somehow.

That's not what it was conceived and designed to do. It was for another purpose, and I don't see what's wrong at all with that---eg as Tillinghast said;

"Surely with so many country club courses dotting America, is it not fit to find room for a few, designed for the expert alone?"

[ForkaB]

All interesting golf is penal.  Hit a bad shot (or hit a poorly thought out shot well) and you get penalized.  I don't think even Dr. Mackenzie would have disagreed with that.

PS--I agree with Tom P and Tom MacW too!

[BCrosby]

Mackenzie would have disagreed if you mean that all bad shots must be penalized immediately.

Sometimes the penalty for a bad shot doesn't arrive until the next shot or even the shot after that.

Bob

[ForkaB]

Bob

Even a fractional penalty (i.e. if by hitting left rather than right your chance of getting par is diminished) is a penalty.  I doubt that the Good Doctor would disagree with that.

[TEPaul]

"Mackenzie would have disagreed if you mean that all bad shots must be penalized immediately.

Sometimes the penalty for a bad shot doesn't arrive until the next shot or even the shot after that."

That's a good point Bobzee;

That is the essence of Max Behr's "indirect tax" philosophy on golf architecture that created what he called "strategic unity" throughout a golf hole. But one sure does wonder how much MacKenzie did that. I mean I doubt I'd call CPC all that much in the way of "indirect tax" architecture (from shot to shot it can be pretty directly taxing on bad shots), although the entire concept and original design of ANGC just might have been the most amazing example of "indirect tax" architecture ever done.

But "indirect tax" architecture gets a bad rap more than half the time from golfers who seem to think if they hit a shot poorly and aren't immediately penalized for it that there has to be something wrong with the hole or its archtiecture.

Even the great Ran Morrissett fell into that trap with me out at Pacific Dunes.

While on the 15th hole Ran said: "Look at this tee shot fairway, it's enormously wide and you can hit in anywhere with no consequences and so we should consider it weak".

I said:

Ran, you doltish troglydyte just open your eyes and look down the rest of the hole and notice what problems you may confront next depending on where you place your tee shot on this great big wide unpenal area.  

The same is the entire concept of Rustic Canyon's #12.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

You are making distinctions without a difference. Stop it.  ;)See TEP's post above.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

The problem with this discussion as I see it is that there is no definitive definition of Penal design in golf course architecture.

What has been stated is opinions of whether a course can be labeled as such or that an architect practiced such.

First, what is "penal architecture?" Frankly, if the defitnition begins, "Well I feel what is meant..." that is not a definition, but an individual's opinion. To say that someone is incorrect based solely on that is incorrect on its face.

Secondly, penal architecture in 1880 was very different from what it was in 1920 as that was from 1950 & so on. A great example is the Red course at Eisenhower park, the site of the PGA championship in 1926 ( Ican't remember the exact year). This was then one of the 5 Salisbury golf courses. It was considered extremely challenging, difficult and punishing. Today it is a pleasant course that some might not score as well on as they might like but in now way would it be viewed as "penal."

Yet other courses back then, e.g. Pine Valley and Bethpage Black, that Tilly called the two "Mankillers" in American golf, remain so today.

Tom, you wrote, "I definitely cannot understand why both of you describe Tillinghast as a proponent of penal architecture." My opinion is that is easy to answer because I am basing it upon what I consider as being penal architecture while you are doing so based on yours... that is the problem and why I just asked for a definition of the concept.

[ForkaB]

Bob

You, me, TEP, Tillinghast and even Maxie Behr are saying the same thing.  I am just saying it more elegantly and without any preconceptions as to what "penal" and/or "strategic" might mean when applied to GCA, if in fact they mean anything at all.........

Rich

[Steve Burrows]

I'm not sure how I overlooked this when I first started this post, but here is a passage from Scotland's Gift, by Charles Blair Macdonald, that serves as a concpetual link between golf and the City Beautiful Movement.

“Extraordinary as it may seem, the birth of golf in the States and the conception of the World’s Fair in Chicago were simultaneous.  One who did not live in Chicago at that time can scarcely believe how lethargic Chicago people were so far as sporting spirit went, and the development of physique by outdoor sport.  After the World’s Fair, Chicago was like a community born again.  Of course, I do not wish to convey to the reader that golf did that.  The World’s Fair did it with its wonderful artistic development, Architecture, painting, sculpture, landscape gardening, and in fact all the fine arts, were there in their best array.  Golf found a footing in this transformation.”

[TEPaul]

Steve:

It's good to read that quote of Macdonald's again. I never looked at it the way you are now but perhaps I was just thinking of other things.

Not far from that quote Macdonald mentioned that for golf in America that World's Fair happened to bring a number of Englishmen to Chicago for it and they were the first ones in years C.B. could even talk to about golf.

He seemed to say that alone sort of lit the spark that inspired him to come out of his "Dark Years" when he played no golf in America after returning from college at St Andrews. I thought he was saying that those Englishmen who came for the World's Fair inspired him to form the first iteration of the Chicago Golf Club which was the first golf course out there.

By the way, congratulations on that first post on this thread. That is a REAL post---the kind we need many more of on here. It's very thought provoking.

I'll try to take a stab at it but I need to think on it for a while.  

[TEPaul]

Steve Burrows:

Your first post raises some really interesting points and questions about similarities today to the "City Beautiful" movement about a hundred years ago.

But as a few others have said on this thread there doesn't seem to be any real direct connection or influence on the art of golf course architecture per se.

I think one could probably say that there were some applications on various golf courses years ago to beautify them with some formal landscape architecture plans and on a very large course-wide scale particularly in tree planting schemes along the lines of what was done to some of the grand "parkland" estates in England in the 18th and 19th century.

Glenview G.C. in Chicago had such a plan done by a well known landscape architect after the course was redone by Flynn but I don't believe it had anything to do with Flynn, only the club itself.

And I would also say as Tom Doak once did on here that the use of the word "classical" as applied to golf course architecture of the "Golden Age" is pretty much a misnomer if comparing that time to the revival or renaissance of "classical" building or garden architecture that was generally a return to the more formal shapes and designs of Greece and Rome, as the Beaux Arts revival was.

The "Beaux Arts" school or movement or the look of it (which basically inspired the "City Beautiful" movement) came through the famous and highly traditional Ecole de Beaux Arts School of Paris which inspired the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago that had such an effect on the cultural consciousness of America.

If the Golden Age of golf course architecture was a revival of anything, which I believe it surely was, it was not in some classical (formal) vein but merely one that looked back to the "naturalism" of the linksland and took its cue from the first and best imitation of it inland that happened in the heathlands around the turn of the century.

[TEPaul]

Tillinghast's use of the term "Course Beautiful" was probably more coincidental than some tribute to or influence from something like the "City Beautiful" movement, but on the other hand, who really knows?

One thing is undeniable, though, in my opinion, and that is that a few of the best American golf course architects of the "Golden Age" most certainly were getting into using trees in their golf architecture plans and schemes. I don't think we need to wonder about that for the simple reason they definitely said so a number of times and in their writing and in articles that we still have.

Those Golden Age architects who used trees this way definitely included Tillinghast and Flynn, and eventually even Donald Ross had a few things to say about using them in golf course architecture in limited numbers, particularly around tee boxes. In mentioning trees on golf courses all of them mentioned beautiful or the term "beautification" too.

If one looks at really old aerials of my own golf course (Ross 1916) the site is bare of trees but one can make out a sycamore tree on either side of each tee box. Today some of them are still there 90 years later.

[Steve Burrows]

TEPaul wrote:

"If the Golden Age of golf course architecture was a revival of anything, which I believe it surely was, it was not in some classical (formal) vein but merely one that looked back to the "naturalism" of the linksland and took its cue from the first and best imitation of it inland that happened in the heathlands around the turn of the century."

But more than simply considering the past, how about we look at today, where courses such as Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, etc., are again trying to mimic the naturalism of the original linkslands.  The designers of the Golden Age were likely not jumping on board any "Classical" or "Neo-Classical" bandwagon (in the sense of a revival of traditions and theory that may be thousands of years old).  

However, what if we consider them (Thomas, Tillinghast, Ross, Macdonald, etc.) the Greeks and Romans of this profession, wouldn't it be today's designers who are the neo-classicists?  That is, it is today's designers who are part of a Course Beautiful Movement, which bears at least some resemblance to it's urban design counterpart?  

Ultimately, I do believe that there is more than just circumstantial evidence to support the relationship between golf and City Beautiful, but maybe there is also room to just explore the concept in a more figurative sense first.  

I'll be back with more when I get back to my house.