[Michael Dugger]

 

Michael,

I think you are right as far as the Chambers Bay project goes.
But, do you think that, with the work Jones has done on that site, he may end up being a minimalist?

Your point about Pac. Dunes vs. Kingsbarns makes a lot of sense.

Just wondering, do you like how the Chambers Bay project is turning out?
It may not be minimalist but I love the look, and the ragged bunkers and everything.

Jordan,

I am rather excited to play Chambers Bay.  I will definately make the trip up and plunk down the coin.  

It looks a lot like Bayonne, that newer course out east.  I suspect monkeys will fly out my butt before RTJones Jr. becomes a minimalist, but whatev.  Point is I don't think Chambers Bay is a sign of things to come for him.

But who really knows?  As Sean Leary observed a while back, the industry as a whole seems to be emulating, to some degree, Doak, C & C, etc., probably because these guys are "schooling" the established titans over the course of the past decade or so.

Personally, I think it is just another sign that some people are leaders and trendsetters, some are followers.  

Go read Fountainhead, Jordan.  Be a Howard.....

[Michael Dugger]

Micheal,

For Gil, are you refering to the site under construction, which is a massive earth moving excercise like Kingsbarns, or a course not under construction like The Prairie Club?

Ian,

I wan't referencing any particular project.  I was just pointing out that we already have numerous minimalist architects.....Gil included.

[Michael Dugger]

Isn't minimalism basically the sense that you play the course and feel like it has always been there?  

The old, "God created this property for golf...all we did was mow some grass (or even play where the sheep had groomed the way for us)..."

Jeff

No, it isn't.

Kingsbarns looks like it has always been there...at least to most people.

But it was an utterly flat featureless boring piece of farmland before construction.  It was a MASSIVE earthmoving undertaking to create the faux links splendor that the course is today.

As Don pointed out....the key is in the details.  The key is what Dr. Mac wrote AGES ago.  Make the artificial features appear as natural as those which are indeed natural.

But it gets to be an issue of what the heck does it matter?  Artificially created?  Natural?  If we don't know the difference as golfers, do we really care???  I say no, we don't...we shouldn't.

A strict minimalist golf course really requires an ideal piece of land.  The virtue of such a course is construction costs are often very low because you do not have to move a lot of dirt.  If you can use native sand, such as what Don and Mike are doing in Texas, you are going to further reduce your construction costs.  Tom Doak has stated before that he believes the land and turf "bounces back" more quickly when less of the soil is disturbed during construction.  This is, therefore, another virtue of a minimalist golf course.

     

[Lloyd_Cole]

Adam,
I think you just described Western Gails...sort of, but there are some ocean vistas and maybe it's a romantic locale to some.

Don
Western Gailes is one of the premier links in all of the UK and also one of the more exclusive clubs. It's conditioning is absolutely up to level that they are seeking to attain. I'm sure that they would consider anything more a waste of money.
If that seems like a muni to a visiting US super, then maybe we're already doomed.
If you're over there again in the near future, maybe you could have a look around Troon Muni.

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

The next minimalist would have to be a team....developer/owner, architect, super and support staff, if I'm getting the gist of your topic.

Too many expectations for every project to be the bomb, create buzz, etc. is why the minimilast movement really isn't so minimalist, IMO.

You hit it deep with your comment about spending being a career development tool....

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Lloyd,
I love Western Gails...and muni isn't a bad word.
You've completely missed my point.

[Tony Petersen]

If Blackstone in NM is any indication, I would have to give Baxter Spahn serious consideration for any upcoming projects that revolved around the "gospel of minimalism." On a lighter note, I had a well-known businessman tell me today that Loch Lomand is the best course in the world... WTF!  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,
I love Western Gails...and muni isn't a bad word.
You've completely missed my point.

Don
I'm sure we're actually agreed on your basic argument. I'd love to see more media attention given to  small budget excellently designed and executed projects. I suspect these types of enterprises are generally aimed at local 'markets'. And I'd also suspect that GD, GW et all feel like they can only cover, for the most part, courses likely to make at least some kind of national 'spalsh'.. so I'm not optimistic, in this respect.
Unfortunately this leaves an up and coming designer with a Catch 22 type of situation. How does he/she get recognition, if not on a national/international level? I'd say this is the primary reason folk go to work for RTJ II, rather than revamping the local munis.
As for W. Scotland - I love WG too. I woudn't doubt you there.  
Muni is obviously not a bad word. If you saw more of my posts you'd know that I'm inclined to say quite the opposite.
As to what constitutes a 'no frills' club, we might still differ. The WG clubhouse is a long way from a shack in my book.

[Marty Bonnar]

On a lighter note, I had a well-known businessman tell me today that Loch Lomand is the best course in the world... WTF!  

Tony,
I hope he is better at selling plastic widgets than he is a golf course analyst. Loch LomOnd definitely isn't the best course in the world. Loch LomOnd isn't even the best course in Scotland. Maybe not even the best course in the WEST of Scotland. Maybe not even the best course in the Trossachs. Actually, okay, I might concede that one!!

Hell, Ringo might not have been the best drummer in the world. Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the BEATLES!

FBD.

[Jeff Doerr]

Isn't minimalism basically the sense that you play the course and feel like it has always been there?  

The old, "God created this property for golf...all we did was mow some grass (or even play where the sheep had groomed the way for us)..."

Jeff

No, it isn't.

Kingsbarns looks like it has always been there...at least to most people.

But it was an utterly flat featureless boring piece of farmland before construction.  It was a MASSIVE earthmoving undertaking to create the faux links splendor that the course is today.

As Don pointed out....the key is in the details.  The key is what Dr. Mac wrote AGES ago.  Make the artificial features appear as natural as those which are indeed natural.

But it gets to be an issue of what the heck does it matter?  Artificially created?  Natural?  If we don't know the difference as golfers, do we really care???  I say no, we don't...we shouldn't.

A strict minimalist golf course really requires an ideal piece of land.  The virtue of such a course is construction costs are often very low because you do not have to move a lot of dirt.  If you can use native sand, such as what Don and Mike are doing in Texas, you are going to further reduce your construction costs.  Tom Doak has stated before that he believes the land and turf "bounces back" more quickly when less of the soil is disturbed during construction.  This is, therefore, another virtue of a minimalist golf course.

     

Michael,

Agreed!

Would you say it is the difference between a "look in design" and a "strategy in construction"?

The "look in design" seems to be in vogue these days.
The "strategy in construction" needs to have property and a guiding value.

[Matthew Hunt]

Maybe it will be the course that Jordan builds in 2019 that will start the next wave of innovation in the industry!  

Or Mine

[Pete Wendt]

   Minimalism was started by the design team of the Army Corps of Engineers and state/local DEQ's!
   How do we classify minimalism?  I was blown away passing from the second green to the third tee at Bandon Trails.  The vein of sand was three stories high, and an excavator and dump trucks were sitting ready to transport sand to any of the three courses.  Talk about a great resource.  But.. inevitably most courses do not have an endless supply of bunker sand, greensmix, and topdressing ala these great courses (Bandon/ Sand Hills).  Minimalism doesn't happen very often in the world of golf course architecture because there aren't that many great sites in great climates with great soil, land, views, free bunker sand, greens mix, etc.
    Does a great golfer who isn't an architecture junky care that Kingsbarns was a flat piece of land?  It's an incredible golf course.
    I am also very intrigued by some of the minimalist comments about irrigation systems.  In most climates single and double row systems may be minimalist as far as dollars go, but they won't equate to minimalist golf course maintenance.  An extensive irrigation system with quick couplers available for hand watering equates to water being applied to the areas that need it, and not over watering.  Too many times you see a double row system where the fairways get too much water because they are trying to get some water to the roughs.  There is also a huge difference between firm and fast and dead grass.  Many climates/ soil types don't allow for turning the irrigation system off.  This would equate to death and weeds.  Getting back to minimalism, a great site with the right soil type adds to the experience of minimalist architecture/maintenance.(IMO)
    Mike Young:  Are people using the "in" contractor, or are they using a great contractor?  I personally want  a contractor with a great resume, a fair price, and the depth to get the job done by ramping up their staff and equipment if need be.  A great golf course has great finish work and tie-ins as well.The truth is that the architecture team/ on-site superintendent need to oversee every step of the project to ensure the owner/committee get the best possible end result.
    I think the best point is that people are equating minimalism with a certain look.  Is that always minimalism, or is it a wolf in sheep's clothing?  A low budget golf course will inevitably be somewhat minimalist because every facet of construction from earth moving to finish shaping costs money.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pete,
You make some very good points.
I used the term minimalism in the thread title because it’s a common term here and I was trying to imply that it seems most of what is built today is far from minimalist, if we describe minimalism as using the minimal amount of inputs to create something.
It’s why I reference Apache Stronghold in an earlier post. It’s not a great, sandy site, but the architect built a great golf course on a site that you can find on millions of acres through out the SW USA. Unfortunately, the owners of the course don’t know how to run it and my argument could be used against me…as if the builder had used more infrastructure then maybe the golf course would be better. Those familiar with the story know better.
Let me just use your irrigation example for a second. I have first hand knowledge of a couple of projects. On one the course was built in an area with ample rain, but one design would have cost almost 2 million to build, the other less then 900K, yet both delivered a distribution uniformity of better then 85, the difference was in the selection of components and the design style. One had all the bells and whistles, the other had all the control options you’d ever want, single head control, radio, palm, yet it’s half as much.
The fact is, in most cases the more expensive system is chosen because everyone wants to be sure they’re getting the best. We’re not talking a manual double row vs. a computerized system here.
What I’m saying in my post is I believe we’re seeing this across the board and while it may be good for all those building the course, I do not believe it’s good for golf. I’m looking for some forward looking individuals who are driven by producing the best possible golf courses using solutions based on knowledge rather then the most expensive options. We can dam the world’s biggest rivers, but I’d be more impressed if we left the river natural and hid the turbines underwater.
It’s driven by money and I probably will not see what I’m looking for until we are in some sort of prolonged economic crisis. The big money approach wrapped in a minimalist look is driven by the incredible wealth in our country and who can blame folks for cashing in, but it would be nice to see ‘em build something different once in a while, and I don’t think you need to be in the sand hills to do it.

[Mike_Young]

    Mike Young:  Are people using the "in" contractor, or are they using a great contractor?  I personally want  a contractor with a great resume, a fair price, and the depth to get the job done by ramping up their staff and equipment if need be.  A great golf course has great finish work and tie-ins as well.The truth is that the architecture team/ on-site superintendent need to oversee every step of the project to ensure the owner/committee get the best possible end result.
 

Pete,
I would say most "in" or "signature" contractors are very good, exceptional contractors.  All I was saying is that in many cases they have exceptionally high prices because they know they can get it from boards that have no clue.  And at the risk of offending some (but I think Don M and some of the other supts here will agree) most supts have no clue as to construction and how it shoud be done....that is not a slam....it is just that they have always had to work on the agronomics of a project and if they were never involved in a grow in or worked for a construction company they just don't have the experience.  Therefore they go for the recommendation of their friend down the street that just had a particular contractor.  Also, many architects will recommend one or two contractors because they know they can "telephone" the job to the site.  None of this is intended to say these are not exceptional contractors.  It is to say that in many cases exceptionally high prices are paid when one can get the same quality for much less (and in many cases one may be using the same personnell that the "signature" had subcontracted to).  

My entire discussion had been based on why golf kept getting more expensive.  I have no problem with free enterprise and these guys getting all they can from people that will pay it.....just don't think that because someone can perform the same specification and line item at a much cheaper price that their work is inferior.

[Pete Wendt]

Mike:

     I agree that a lot of times the quality of a job is as good or better from a small firm than the big guys.  I agree whole heartedly with almost all of your statements, but please give some credit where credit is due.  If a superintendent is on board, hopefully they have enough experience to advise the board to go down the right road.  A lot of supers have extensive construction experience, many having worked for construction firms at one point in their careers, or having worked on the other end during construction/grow-ins.  Most supers understand quality, and are not afraid to call a colleague for advice when they are lacking experience in certain areas.  Does every site superintendent working for a construction company know everything there is to know?  I think it is very similar to any other business.  Some great ones, some newer/ younger getting better with experience, and some not so great.  I think most golf course superintendents do have a clue, and they are usually the ones picking the contractor.
 

[BCrosby]

Mike Y -

I will go to my grave not understanding people who believe you have to pay more to get better. Sometimes you get better, sometimes you don't. More money out the door assures you of exactly zero. Conducting the business of your club that way is how people avoid the hard work of thinking about what they are doing.

To return to the original topic, I do think (and hope) that there are new minimalists coming down the pike. As TD notes, they will have to have a new "look" to get attention.

I think that one of the real opportunities for a new look is to take local landscape vernaculars much more seriously. For example, here in the SE use more privet, honeysuckle, tall fescues. Use those plants as our version of gorse. Use more natural soil colors in bunkers. (Bright white Florida sand is as natural to a course in north GA as a pineapple plant.) Use old fences, clay roads, natural clay wash-outs. Think of ways to use pinestraw as a hazard, because it is one hell of a tough surface to hit from, it occurs naturally and is easy to maintain.

I'll stop there. But it seems to me that there are lots of new look opportunities and most of those opportunities are going to exist (at least at first) in some of the lower budget projects that don't have big capital nuts that need to be serviced.

Bob  

   

[W.H. Cosgrove]

This is a question I have asked before in connection to the Chambers Bay project:  Can you move 1.4 million yards of earth, spend $20 million on construction and still be called minimalist.  

Bayonne, Whistling Straights and, RT Jones' II,Spanish Bay are all "minimalist" looking but were extremely complicated to construct.  Now we have another in the mold at Chambers Bay.  

I remember T. Doak actually making comments on minimalism on another thread.  In that thread he defined more carefully the differences and as I remember said he hated the term.  

The type and look of a course should be determined by the land it sits on not the whim of how a developer wants it to look.  Now how much can we spend and still be called "minimalist"?

[John Kirk]

The Dismal River Club in Nebraska is a minimalist course.  Jack Nicklaus may be the next minimalist.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

     I agree that a lot of times the quality of a job is as good or better from a small firm than the big guys.  I agree whole heartedly with almost all of your statements, but please give some credit where credit is due.  If a superintendent is on board, hopefully they have enough experience to advise the board to go down the right road.  A lot of supers have extensive construction experience, many having worked for construction firms at one point in their careers, or having worked on the other end during construction/grow-ins.  Most supers understand quality, and are not afraid to call a colleague for advice when they are lacking experience in certain areas.  Does every site superintendent working for a construction company know everything there is to know?  I think it is very similar to any other business.  Some great ones, some newer/ younger getting better with experience, and some not so great.  I think most golf course superintendents do have a clue, and they are usually the ones picking the contractor.
 

Pete,
Don't be so sensitive toward the supts.   I stand by what I said.  Sure some know what is going on.  And I never said that constrcution supts had all the answers nor did I ever say architects had all the answers.   It is definitely a team endeavor.  There is no incentive for a supt or a board member to try and save money on most club projects....there is no upside to it for them.....I have seen several projects become very complicated because we allowed a young supt to become involved in the construction process......people start to choose sides when an experienced golf shaper or supt has been on projects for years and a supt starts telling him how to build a green etc....I actually saw one trying to keep the green layers in a USGA green within 1/4 inch and he almost got shot.....as TD said in an earlier post...experience overides the book learning and so many supts are reading a book on how to do it when they make construction decisions.  For ex: finishing 50  acres of fairway vs 10,000 sq ft is a totally different process and yet I have seen supts try to persuade a contractor to do it their way.  

NOW Having said all of this....the supt is the most important person on that job once construction is over(and for the life of the course).....there is not an architect out there that can present a product without a great supt....
AND....there are always exceptions to all of the above.....

[Tim Pitner]

Am I the only one who is starting to get bored by all these high dollar golf club developments?

No, you're not.

I think it's great that Friar's Head, Sebonack and Boston Golf Club (etc.) exist, but few will ever play them.  

I'm no socialist and I realize the economic difficulties of building a public-access course that isn't a part of a housing development, but . . . I'd like to see our most talented architects working on some different sorts of projects, for different sorts of markets.

The analogy might be to those actors who collect the big pay days on studio blockbusters and then also do smaller, more independent films.  

So, Tom Doak et al, feel free to start building an incredible, affordable, public-access course in . . . let's say, Denver.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, Tim.

Last week we were hired by the Colorado Golf Association to redesign and rebuild their Mira Vista course in Aurora.  They have raised $4 million to spend on the course but the goal is to keep it a $29 golf course, and to that end, we are doing the work for a fraction of our current fees.

It won't be too fancy but it should be good golf along the lines of what Don is looking for.

PS  Had you heard something about it or is it just your lucky day?

[Tim Pitner]

Tom,

What can I say?--I'm stunned and overjoyed.  

No, I hadn't heard anything about it.  I guess it is my lucky day.  

As I can recall, there isn't much worth keeping at the present Mira Vista (a name change might be in order).  Please regard it as an empty canvas.  $29--wow.  I'd settle for under $50.  

That's really laudable, whether it was in Denver or elsewhere.  That's truly putting your money where your mouth is and, fwiw, I respect that enormously.  

Any other details you can share?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
That's great.
I look forward to seeing what you and your crew do in Aurora.

[Joe Hancock]

Tim,

Your request, promptly answered by TD, raises some questions:

If we, as self-acclaimed golf nuts, won't travel for the minimalist efforts, why would any significant number of the golfing public?

and

.....well, let's start with that. I understand you didn't directly state that you'll only play a minimalist design if it's nearby, but my limited experience indicates that people are less likely to travel to a course if the price tag is low. The higher the price, and therefore expectations(?), then the more likely golfers will cough up airfare, lodging, etc. to make it happen...

Not sure if that makes sense, or even if it applies to Don's original premise.

Joe

[Tim Pitner]

Joe,

I'm a little perplexed by your question.  An affordably priced public-access golf course obviously draws a different market than a high-priced resort.  Tom's new course in the Denver area (fingers crossed) won't bring in the same people that Pacific Dunes does.  Presumably, it will depend on the local or perhaps regional market--not the national one.  

As for me, will I travel to play a minimalist course?  Sure, I will; I just don't know exactly what that term means.  How about, will I travel to play an affordable, public course?  Yes.  I have plans to play Wild Horse and Black Mesa (I know, still in my neck of the woods); I'd like to get to Lawsonia and also see some of DeVries' work in Michigan.  Will I?  Golf travel is tough for me these days, and getting back to Ireland, going to Scotland and returning to Bandon to check out Old MacDonald will probably take precedence.  Just a reality when resources (time, money) are finite.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()