Superior Architecture or Not?

[George Pazin]

There is one chap on this site who will tell it like it is.  One AsHuckster de California.  Hopefully, he will make a cyber appearance and set me straight.

Ciao

There's a lot more than that, they just have differing opinions.

This turned out to be a pretty interesting thread. Can't say that I agree with the take that finding holes is somehow less architecture than building them, but it's an interesting position nonetheless.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, one thing has happened in the last page of so... you guys quit talking about Sand Hills v Pine Valley -, which is superior architecture?  Maybe, somehow it is sinking in that particular discussion is a non starter.  They aren't anything alike to evaluated in terms of architecture of designed features, nor routing methodology.  I'm glad we cleared that up..    

except for George being a faster typer than I.  

[Norbert P]

 I appreciate the design that is more made than found.  ...   ... if I am going to compare two greats, the one that is designed versus the one that is found is the better design because it has more of it (architecture, I assume.)


Architecture is man-made.  If there is far more architecture on one great course compared to another great course with a lot less architecture, the one with more is superior.  That isn't too hard to understand, is it?

  Architecture is not a very good word to use for golf design.  Excepting some bridges, clubhouses and halfway houses, the diction is unevolved.  

  It is my belief that if the golf game field designer, (not a suggestion as a replacement of Archy), has no appreciation for the story of the history of the land, then the designer is placing his preconceived notions onto the land, thus, changing the truth of the land.  

  Obviously, for the game, manipulations have to be done, but placing more value in the course with more work done to it is getting us further from the value of Earth.  I'd rather ponder the natural processes than the process of how a dozer made a dune.

[wsmorrison]

Slag,

Architecture is a perfectly good word for golf course design if we are all defining concepts similarly.  For the sake of my discussion, I defined architecture as the man made features used on a golf course.  I was consistent throughout my comments in its use.  Others misapplied the definition.

For the last time, I am not saying what you are implying.  In a comparison of two great courses (Pine Valley and Sand Hills) I appreciate the architectural work that made PV great a bit more so than the work involved to make Sand Hills great.  In choosing the superior architecture between two great courses where one has a lot of architecture and the other very little, I cannot see how this is a troublesome concept.

I endorse naturalism and minimalism more so than the manufactured.   Naturalism is what made MacKenzie, Flynn, Thomas and others so different and so much better than their predecessors.  However, my comment was related to two specific courses and not a general statement yet others chose to extrapolate my specific comment about two courses into a comment about all courses.  I don't know why, but they did.  Please don't misunderstand my specific yet simple concept nor look for any unified theory.  It related to Sand Hills and Pine Valley.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Since it came back around just as I looked again, I'll repeat my earlier statement:

"I'm shocked that while others on this thread argued Wayne's definition of "architecture" (as I would), no one questioned the contention that Shinnecock required more "architecture" than Pine Valley.  Both are great pieces of land by most measure, but my impression is that Pine Valley was WAY harder and more complicated to build."

I meant that I was arguing AGAINST your definition of architecture, I thought everyone would understand that.  I don't think that building architecture and golf course architecture are the same thing at all ... golf course architecture (like landscape architecture) incorporates nature, whereas building architecture does not.

But, if I were to agree with your definition, I still don't see how you find more "architecture" at Shinnecock than at Pine Valley.  Pine Valley was a huge construction project that took years to complete.  Very little of it is natural; I think more of the fairway shapes at Shinnecock are natural.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I agree that golf course architecture incorporates nature and should mimic nature where man-made must take place.  Naturalism is its highest expression.

"But, if I were to agree with your definition, I still don't see how you find more "architecture" at Shinnecock than at Pine Valley.  Pine Valley was a huge construction project that took years to complete.  Very little of it is natural; I think more of the fairway shapes at Shinnecock are natural."

I totally agree with you.  I never said that Shinnecock Hills had more architecture than Pine Valley.  I believe Pine Valley has more.  What I said was Sand Hills has so much less architecture than Pine Valley.  Earlier references to SH refers to Sand Hills not Shinnecock Hills.  Sorry for the confusion.

I did say that at Shinnecock Hills, where there are less natural features (the flat portions) there is more architecture, namely manufactured undulating sandy waste and bunkers.  Where there is more topographic movement, there is far less architecture.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne,

Okay, we seem to agree on everything now.

One thing I've learned from this discussion:  if I am going to build a great course in the future, to be sure not to use the initials SH (or PD or PV)!

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I think I understand how you define golf “architecture”.  Only "man made" features fit your definition and that is fine but I don’t agree with it.  I’m not sure what Tom Doak agrees and doesn’t agree with but based on his last comment about which course has “more architecture”, I don’t necessarily agree with him either.  If all you are both talking about is which courses have more “man made” features, then just say it that way and be done with it but I'm still not sure how (or why) you would tally that up  

By Wayne’s definition, a natural stream running through a property is NOT part of the architecture.  I think that is very shortsighted because even if the architect doesn’t physically touch that stream, his use of it in angles of play, etc. can dramatically influence the quality and interest of the golf course.  The same goes for a natural hummock or hollow or sand blowout or a back drop,…etc.  They all can play very differently based on the vision of the architect (where he sets a tee, how he orients and positions their location for different golf shots) and so on.  All of this combined is “golf architecture” in my opinion.  Doesn't the architect get any credit for his creativity, etc when you tally up which course has more or superior "architecture"?  And what good or purpose does it serve to try and separate?  

Furthermore, even if you accept Wayne’s definition of "superior architecture", why does it only apply to PV and SH?   That is really where you are confusing people even further.  Why can't you use your definition to compare the man made features on any course to that of another?  

I apologize for dragging on this thread  
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I was trying to end the thread, and I thought I was pretty clear that I disagree with Wayne's definition of "architecture".  To me, golf architecture is not just about what you build, it's about how you use whatever features you've been given.  And sometimes, in the case of Shadow Creek, money is the biggest feature.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You said, "Okay, we seem to agree on everything now."

I didn't realize you were being facetious.  

Let's end this thread, PLEASE!
Mark

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"I meant that I was arguing AGAINST your definition of architecture, I thought everyone would understand that.  I don't think that building architecture and golf course architecture are the same thing at all ... golf course architecture (like landscape architecture) incorporates nature, whereas building architecture does not."

That's a good point, made many times on here over the years and it's seemingly undeniable---eg there certainly is a distinction and difference between something like building architecture and golf course or landscape architecture and the difference is the latter two do, of necessity, use natural lanforms and natural features in their design and structure far more than the former does.

Again, in his comparison of the art form of painting art to the art form of golf architecture I think Max Behr said it so well when he said the painting artist's medium is paint and he is the complete master over it but the golf architect's medium is the earth and he can never be the total master of it because only nature is the master of it.

And so, for that reason, Behr said the golf architect's "freedom to fancy" will never be as great as the painting artist.

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, the point that Tom Doak makes that "architecture" in golf does not necessarily have to be actually and physically "built" to pass as architecture is a good one and seemingly undeniable.

If it were not so then the basic routing of a golf course, which, preconstruction, can be nothing more than a plan on paper and on the preexisting ground and therefore not physically "built" on the ground, would not pass as architecture. And I think it really would be a stretch to not include a golf course's basic routing as part of the course's architecture.

There are some, including some golf course architects who do make a distinction between the words "design" or "designer" and "architecture" or "architect" even though they may make that distinction in the context of salesmanhip or a sales pitch.

I once had some representative from the Fream Company tell me I did not want to hire Coore and Crenshaw because they were only "designers" and not "architects" like Fream & Co. was.

That's the point, years ago, when I first came to understand the absurdity of the way these types of words and their definitions are used or can be used.

[wsmorrison]

I stand by my definition that architecture is something constructed by man.  The development of a golf course involves the use of natural features (which I have always maintained as a enhanced talent) and the use of man-made features, namely architectural features.  I don't care if Mark Fine, Tom Doak or others disagree with my definition.  As long as I use it consistently, I can make my point.  I've stated this several times now, given two great golf courses, one where most of the golf course was found (a great talent to maximize the potential) and natural features used to the greatest advantage is a different process than manufacturing a golf course.  I spoke specifically about two golf courses, nearly equally great.  One had a lot of man-made intervention, the other relatively little.  I made a comment that the one with superior architecture (only comparing these two courses) was the one with significantly more architecture, by my definition.  In no way does this malign the process at Sand Hills nor take away the genius and hard work necessary to create the best possible golf course there.  I am surprised anyone feels that way.  However, by my definition of what is architecture Sand Hills has much less than Pine Valley.  You can discount this as trivial or whatever, but it is in no way inconsistent.

As for Mark Fine's statement that I do not think the use of a natural stream is architecture, it is not.  It is of a design process unless the stream was manipulated, then it would be architectural.  I can understand Mark's confusion.  He looked at Cascades and considered that Flynn used natural features throughout and designed the golf course, in a sense laying it on the ground without much architecture.  In fact, there was an enormous amount of engineering, architecture and intervention on the site.  300 yard long ridges were blasted away, streams moved, features were raised and excavated.  It looks natural but much of it is not.  Give Flynn credit.  He managed to hide the hand of man in his naturalism style.  Thus I differentiate between minimalism and naturalism.  Mark Fine didn't realize the difference at Cascades nor does he realize the distinction I make between design and architecture or naturalism and minimalism.  

To throw some jabs and then say let's end the thread is in poor taste.  If confusion reigns, it isn't my fault.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Just so you know, I was not even thinking at all about the Cascades, never mentioned it in any of my posts, nor was I trying to figure out what was built vs. found.  My reference to a stream was just an example and it could be any stream.  If I was thinking of one, it might have been Lehigh's.  I don't think Flynn manipulated that one but his architectural use of it was brilliant and it is clearly part of the golf architecture  

[Peter Pallotta]

Some fine posts - thanks.

Wayne - I think I understand your position, and your definition of 'architecture'. But I think it might be too narrow a definition for most (actually, I shouldn't speak for 'most'). You're of course free to use it, and you're right to say that as long as you use it consistently it will have meaning; but I wonder if you're not hemming yourself in unnecessarily.

To use the 'natural stream' example. Do you think that the stream itself need be manipulated for 'architecture' to come into play? What immediately comes to mind is this:

An architect routes and then lays down a fairway so that this stream forms a lateral hazard all down the right side, and then cuts across the fairway to create a cross-hazard at about 260 yards, and then continues on to form a lateral hazard all down the left side of the fairway and right to the green, which green the architect has found and placed hard against that stream.

The stream itself would not have been manipulated in the least, but 'golf architcture' now defintely exists where none existed before; so it must have been 'created'.

What do you think?

Peter

[Jerry Kluger]

Wayne:

I understood your definition of architecture as the quantity of work/design needed to create a golf hole/course.  I did not understand you to say that because there was more architecture at one course versus another that one would automatically be a better or lesser course simply because of that.

Using your definition I would suggest that employing more architecture than is necessary to create a quality course/hole, is where we differentiate minimalism from other types of architecture.  That is not to say that minimalism is the only answer and is the best answer - it is simply one answer/design.

Allow me to bring up a situation where we get some strong differences of opinion.  In the design and construction of a hole there was a dry creekbed running through it and it was decided to pump water through it for aesthetic reasons.  Does this additonal architecture, which might arguably disqualify the design as minimalism,  automatically diminish the quality of the design/hole?

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

I realize that you did not mention the Cascades.  I brought it up as an example where naturalism and minimalism are confused by some.  In fact, most golfers don't even consider the difference at all.

Flynn's use of the stream at Lehigh was excellent.  The drawings do not indicate that Flynn moved the Little Lehigh.  Flynn used the stream as a design feature not as an architectural feature.  The design and architecture integrate to create a golf course.  This is my way of thinking.  It doesn't have to be yours.

Peter,

No, I don't think it is too narrow a way of thinking.  Apparently for some people it is.  I like your manner of asking the question about what exists after creating architectural features amid natural features.  That integration creates golf courses but I differentiate between architecture and design.

The definition really boils down to the simple case of planting turf grass on a natural grade for a green as is most if not all of the 16th green at Pine Valley.  Is that architecture or not?  I'll say not, out of respect for Mother Nature  

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for Mark Fine's statement that I do not think the use of a natural stream is architecture, it is not.  It is of a design process unless the stream was manipulated, then it would be architectural. ...

I think you would be hard pressed to find any accepted definition of architecture that leaves design out as you just did.

Some of the old dead guys would say you are glorifying builders, not architects.

We accept that it is your definition. However, you must accept that your definition disagrees with the vast consensus on what the definition of architecture is.

[wsmorrison]

Jerry,

Thanks for understanding all along.  I didn't think the concept would prove to be as difficult as it has been.

I don't see that pumping water through a natural feature for aesthetic reasons diminishes the perception of a hole...unless of course it is in the middle of what is now, and has been for a long time, a desert.  Then it would simply look out of place and provide a narrower range of recoveries.  The aesthetics would be out of balance.  Koyaanisqatsi.  

Balls lost in the water or unplayable out of the feature where it would be playable without the water changes the hole, but enough to significantly diminish it?  I wouldn't think so.

"We accept that it is your definition. However, you must accept that your definition disagrees with the vast consensus on what the definition of architecture is."

Garland,

If I must accept this, I do.  I would even if I didn't have to  

[TEPaul]

I think Wayne and I basically use the very same definition of architecture as something that is actually built or designed and built by a golf course architect.

So what do we call the rest of a golf course?

Well, I guess we just call it natural landforms or natural features or whatever. The reason we make that distinction is because it simply connotes for us what was man-made and what was not.

I really don't care all that much what definitions people want to use in this business---if they want to call everthing that was natural and not really touched by man that's used on golf courses architecture, then fine. Some even include many things in the definition of architecture that frame and backdrop golf courses and golf holes like the Mountains of Mourne at RCD that aren't even on the golf course and over which the golf architect had no control whatsoever other than to line up some of his holes with them in the backdrop.

But I do recognize, that a most important feature of golf architecture---eg routing---is not exactly "built" by the architect either---it's nothing much more than a "plan" outlined on the ground over which golfers will proceed.

At least that's what a completed routing is preconstruction and I guess I'd have a hard time not considering a routing at that point to not be architecture even if it was not, at that point, actually built on the ground---if in fact one could ever even say a routing is actually "built". It was however, designed by the golf course architect across the raw natural landforms before man evn physically altered any of the natural site.

This fact is also why I seem to make a much greater distinction between the routing phase and what I call the "designing up" phase of a routing, a good deal of which is man-made although by no means all of it.

I call the "designing up" phase a process in which the architect builds things (architecture) and just uses other preexisting things, natural things and otherwise as they were before a course was planned on that site.

To me this thread is not really some philosophical misunderstanding about what golf course architecture is, it's merely an argument over the definition of a word, in my opinion.

If people want Wayne or me to make the distinction we do by calling man-made architecture "man-made architecture" and the rest "non-man-made architecture" or "naturally occuring architecture" that would be just fine by me.  

I guess another way of looking at it is that Wayne and I just do not call everything that is on or part of a golf course architecture.

But obviously some do call everything architecture.

Wayne and I probably just felt that if you do that then how do you try to distinguish between and then define what is naturally occuring vs what is actually man-made on a golf course?

[TEPaul]

Well, on second thought, after all this, I think I'm going to start making a distinction between golf course "architecture" and golf course "design".  

[Garland Bayley]

Well, on second thought, after all this, I think I'm going to start making a distinction between golf course "architecture" and golf course "design".  

Jeez, what's wrong with you Philly area people?

From my Webster's NewWorld Dictionary

architecture .. 1. the science, art, or profession of designing and constructing ...

emphasis added

[wsmorrison]

Hallelujah!  Tom, you are a wordsmith.  Now don't get me wrong, not of the caliber of Churchill or Wilde, but you're pretty damned good, especially at coining phrases.

Garland,

Put the dictionary away.  We're dictating terms here, not that old fart Noah Webster.  When he wrote his dictionary (1828) golf architecture wasn't even invented yet  

[TEPaul]

Garland:

Wayne's point, and my point, is, we feel, something that almost everyone on here knows precisely what we mean by the way we use the word "architecture"---eg in a golf architecture context.

If some on here just wants to argue technical dictionary definitions then I can only tell you, I, for one, am not interested.

[Mark_Fine]

"The science of golf architecture is the presenting of problems and the placing of objectives to be reached by the players."      William S. Flynn

He seems to have left out the man-made vs. natural distinction?