News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil_the_Author

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2008, 10:48:20 AM »
The answer to Tom's question lies not in identifying the "members" but in identifying who coined the phrase, when he did it and WHY he did it...

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2008, 10:55:06 AM »
"Well Mike, you know what they say, if you can't define it you don't understand it.
I think this is an excellent question.  What exactly was the Philadelphia School, who was included in this group and why were they included?  There is no point in having the notion of a Philadelphia School floating about if nobody knows exactly what it was."


Sean:

See post #7 and Geoff Shackelford's take and definition of who the original Philly School guys were. That to date has worked for me or for us around here but as of now if someone else wants to add to who they were I see no reason not to do that.

As mentioned, the theme of the Philly School was all about close-connection, friendship and architectural collaboration.



Tom P

OK, what was it about these friendships and collaboration that were important enough for someone to coin the phrase Philly School?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2008, 10:55:39 AM »
Phil
I'm not sure who coined the term Phildelphia School - perhaps Shackelford - but it really doesn't matter. It was clearly created in the spirtit of other schools of art and architecture, like the Hudson River School and the Prairie School. Those 'schools' are constantly evolving and changing as new information is discovered and historian redefine what they were and who was involved.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2008, 10:57:39 AM »

Well Mike, you know what they say, if you can't define it you don't understand it.

I think this is an excellent question.  What exactly was the Philadelphia School, who was included in this group and why were they included?  There is no point in having the notion of a Philadelphia School floating about if nobody knows exactly what it was.


Well Sean, I'm simply desperately trying to avoid getting sucked into another GCA black hole.  ;)

To me the "Philadelphia School" is simply a name that someone coined that tried to put some definition and categorizaton around the fact and phenomenon that a loose-knit bunch of avid, amateur, competitive golfers from the Philadelphia region shared some degree of mutual common interest (in promoting the development of the Philadelphia competitive golfer) and friendship that led them to actual collaborative design efforts which resulted in the creation of some of the best golf courses in the region and the world.

If there was a champion, it was likely Tillinghast, who used his power of the printed word to rail against the poor designs, kept everyone abreat on new developments, and then later participated in his own design efforts as well as probably working with everyone from George Crump to George Klauder.

This model probably started with the "Committee" design of Merion, which although led by Hugh Wilson involved outside advice from Macdonald/Whigham and a 5-man panel of amateur golfers who brought various skills to the job.   It continued at Pine Valley, as George Crump sought input from all of the top Philadelphia golfers and designers, but also from guys like Travis, Benny Sayers, George Thomas, etc.

It was observed in other course settings, as well, where Hugh Wilson, Ab Smith, and William Flynn helped J. Franklin Meehan redesign North Hills, or where Hugh Wilson worked with Herman Strouse of Philmont to add new holes and wholly revise others, or Tillinghast working with George Klauder and Cecil Calvert on the old Aronimink, although the former was likely more designer while the latter two were likely more constructors.   In that spirit, they also had some advice from Vardon & Ray that contributed to a hole or two of that course.

It may have achieved it's zenith with the creation of Cobb's Creek, somewhat ironically.

At the time it was created, Robert Lesley appointed not a professional golf architect to the job, but instead a committee of the best amateur sportmen in the area, all of whom had design and/or construction experience at their own clubs, and included Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder, & J. Franklin Meehan.   Dr. Father Carr, William Sargent, and George Thomas had involvement, as well.

It was a model that obviously worked well, but was soon supplanted by the advent of the professional architect.

Direct spawns of these early efforts included George Thomas and William Flynn, and later Tillinghast's more dedicated, focused design career.  





« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 11:13:38 AM by MikeCirba »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2008, 11:04:51 AM »

Well Mike, you know what they say, if you can't define it you don't understand it.

I think this is an excellent question.  What exactly was the Philadelphia School, who was included in this group and why were they included?  There is no point in having the notion of a Philadelphia School floating about if nobody knows exactly what it was.


Well Sean, I'm simply desperately trying to avoid getting sucked into another GCA black hole.  ;)

To me the "Philadelphia School" is simply a name that someone coined that tried to put some definition and categorizaton around the fact and phenomenon that a loose-knit bunch of avid, amateur, competitive golfers from the Philadelphia region shared some degree of mutual common interest (in promoting the development of the Philadelphia competitive golfer) and friendship that led them to actual collaborative design efforts which resulted in the creation of some of the best golf courses in the region and the world.

If there was a champion, it was likely Tillinghast, who used his power of the printed word to rail against the poor designs, kept everyone abreat on new developments, and then later participated in his own design efforts as well as probably working with everyone from George Crump to George Klauder.

This model probably started with the "Committee" design of Merion, which although led by Hugh Wilson involved outside advice from Macdonald/Whigham and a 5-man panel of amateur golfers who brought various skills to the job.   It continued at Pine Valley, as George Crump sought input from all of the top Philadelphia golfers and designers, but also from guys like Travis, Benny Sayers, George Thomas, etc.

It was observed in other course settings, as well, where Hugh Wilson, Ab Smith, and William Flynn helped J. Franklin Meehan redesign North Hills, or where Hugh Wilson worked with Herman Strouse of Philmont to add new holes and wholly revise others, or Tillinghast working with George Klauder and Cecil Calvert on the old Aronimink.

It may have achieved it's zenith with the creation of Cobb's Creek, somewhat ironically.

At the time it was created, Robert Lesley appointed not a professional golf architect to the job, but instead a committee of the best amateur sportmen in the area, all of whom had design and/or construction experience at their own clubs, and included Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder, & J. Franklin Meehan.   Dr. Father Carr, William Sargent, and George Thomas had involvement, as well.

It was a model that obviously worked well, but was soon supplanted by the advent of the professional architect.

Direct spawns of these early efforts included George Thomas and William Flynn, and later Tillinghast's more dedicated, focused design career.   







Mike

Cheers!  So would other collaborative efforts be of the Philly School or did the projects themselves need to be centered around Philly? 

A more basic question, was colloborative design new to the Philly School or were they just particularly successful at it? 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2008, 11:09:27 AM »
Sean,

That's a great question.

I think the fact that it quickly created the 2nd and 3rd great courses in America in short order brought some focus to it.   Whether that focus was overstated and it was merely them copying what others had always done in Boston and Long Island and elsewhere I really don't believe.

In fact, I'm more of the mindset that they were directly copying CB Macdonald's amateur sportsman collaborative design effort at NGLA, where he enlisted Emmett, Whigham, Travis, and others in the creation of the 1st great American course.

To me, that was the primary value of what Macdonald and Whigham contributed to Philadelphia golf.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 11:11:27 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2008, 11:17:56 AM »
As far as whether the projects themselves needed to be centered around Philadelphia...

Well...I think the definition sort of morphed once into the mid 1920s.

Crump and Wilson were dead.   Ab Smith was championing public golf and involved in architectural efforts to expand city courses.   Meehan largely worked in eastern PA, although also in upstate NY and Florida.   

Tillinghast went on to become an icon, as did Flynn and Thomas.

They went on to spread a design style that was largely identifiable by an attempt to blend their courses with nature.

They wrote about it, and they did it on the ground.

If there is a design trait of the Philadelphia School, it is borne of that naturalistic philosophy, which is evidenced even in the earliest examples at Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek.

It was a distinct and clean break from what came before them.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2008, 11:19:35 AM »
It appears there was a primary group of men involved in the early Philly School followed by a secondary phase.

1st Phase: Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder,  J. Franklin Meehan

2nd Phase: George Thomas, AW Tillinghast, William Flynn

Would Heebner fall into the first group?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2008, 11:23:27 AM »
It appears there was a primary group of men involved in the early Philly School followed by a secondary phase.

1st Phase: Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder,  J. Franklin Meehan

2nd Phase: George Thomas, AW Tillinghast, William Flynn

Would Heebner fall into the first group?

Tom,

It's not that cut and dried, but yes, Heebner would fall into the first group if you consider that he worked with George Thomas on creating Whitemarsh Valley in 1908 and then later worked on constructing Sunnybrook to Donald Ross's plans.   

Thomas and Tillinghast also did work in the first phase, but like Flynn, didn't really take off until post WW1.

I also believe that the focus on naturalism is a huge part of this, Tom.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2008, 11:28:50 AM »
What exactly was Thomas's role at Whitemarch Valley and Sunnybrook?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2008, 11:34:03 AM »
Mike
With no disrespect to Crump, Smith, Klauder, Heebner and Meehan, do you think the emphasis on naturalism was most successfully caried out by the second phase architects? What were their primary influences?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2008, 11:36:18 AM »
As far as whether the projects themselves needed to be centered around Philadelphia...

Well...I think the definition sort of morphed once into the mid 1920s.

Crump and Wilson were dead.   Ab Smith was championing public golf and involved in architectural efforts to expand city courses.   Meehan largely worked in eastern PA, although also in upstate NY and Florida.   

Tillinghast went on to become an icon, as did Flynn and Thomas.

They went on to spread a design style that was largely identifiable by an attempt to blend their courses with nature.

They wrote about it, and they did it on the ground.

If there is a design trait of the Philadelphia School, it is borne of that naturalistic philosophy, which is evidenced even in the earliest examples at Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek.

It was a distinct and clean break from what came before them.
Mike

More cheers. 

Without knowing a whole heck of a lot about how natural Merion looked in its Hugh days, I think it is fair to say that Pine Valley may be considered the king of naturalistic inland courses - perhaps even today.  I wonder if this was a clean break from previously because I certainly see Colt being thrown in a naturalistic archie and some think his ideas more than mildly influenced the final look of Pine Valley. 

To kick onto the second phase of PS archies, were they as successful in creating the natural look as Crump and Colt before them?  My sense is that weren't and the bunkering is a major reason.  Mind you, it could have been matter of compromise to keep turf healthy because it seems all the great natural courses eventually formalized their wild sandy areas and/or at the very least created sandy wastes which were containable.

What say you?

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2008, 11:37:14 AM »
Tom,

Did you read the thread I started on Meehan the other day?

Sean,

I would agree with you to an extent but some of that is due to formalization of areas that were originally much more naturally integrated.

All three men...Thomas, Flynn, and Tillinghast wrote about designing to blend with nature, and it was one of their primary philosophic architectural tenets.

Whether they were always successful is a value judgement to a degree, but that was their intent.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 11:39:56 AM by MikeCirba »

wsmorrison

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2008, 11:44:43 AM »
Sean,

Flynn's bunker style varied greatly from clearly artificial to indistinguishable from natural bunkers.  The one thing they had in common were excellent placement and integrated into elasticity over time.   The bunkers at Shinnecock Hills, Merion and elsewhere have not moved from their 1930s locations, yet they remain remarkably in play today.  The same may be said for other architects, but not many.  How about others such as Macdonald and Raynor?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2008, 11:48:31 AM »
Tom,

Did you read the thread I started on Meehan the other day?

Sean,

I would agree with you to an extent but some of that is due to formalization of areas that were originally much more naturally integrated.

All three men...Thomas, Flynn, and Tillinghast wrote about designing to blend with nature, and it was one of their primary philosophic architectural tenets.

Whether they were always successful is a value judgement to a degree, but that was their intent.



Mike

I would possibly take it one step further and say the placement of the bunkering may have been  a break with the past.  One of the things which really stood out for me when at Rolling Green was just how many greens had bunkering right and left.  Perhaps these second phase of archies had incorporated the idea of "championship" golf into their natural designs.  Afterall, was this idea of creating better golfers through better (and in this case I believe part of the definition of better was more challenging) designs not also part of the Philly School? 

Wayne

Merion could be another example of "championship" bunkering.  Strangely, the bunkering looks very natural at Merion, but for a site more like Co Down rather than a parkland course.  While not unheard of, Merion must have been fairly rare in the number of bunkers employed to make the course challenging.

I have no doubts as to the merits of Flynn designs, its just that I have only seen one or perhaps 1.6 if you include Merion.  Just looking at these two examples, there is no question as to the  bunkering styles and placement being quite different.  I can't answer concerning MacRayBank as I have yet to see a single course in person.  My comments are limited to the look of the designs rather than the strategic merits.

Ciao
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 12:03:43 PM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2008, 11:51:40 AM »
Sean,

That's a really, really great point.

You're absolutely correct.

The intent in building even the first phase courses such as Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek was to create "Championship" courses that were ultra-challenging, with the idea that those type of courses would refine and sharpen competitive skills of local golfers and eventual breed new champions from the area.

Excellent and Cheers back!

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2008, 11:52:46 AM »
Mike
I did read your thread the other day, but I have a hard time getting my arms around Meehan the golf architect. His own career seems to be divided into early and later. North Hills and Cobbs Creek early and others in the 20s and 30s. Does he deserve major credit at Cobbs? I also noticed North Hills was almost immediately redesigned, I'm sure what to make of that. Should Meehan be considered in the second phase.

Sean makes an excellent point about Colt. I think his influence was significant.

The other figure that no one has brought up, who I don't believe should be ignored when discussing Philadelphia golf architecture, is Donald Ross. He may not have lived in Philadelphia (although his associate McGovern did), but he was responsible for a good number of important designs.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2008, 11:54:30 AM »
Tom,

C'mon now. Are you serious? "I'm not sure who coined the term Phildelphia School - perhaps Shackelford - but it really doesn't matter."

It most definitely does matter, and why? You stated "It was clearly created in the spirtit of other schools of art and architecture, like the Hudson River School and the Prairie School."

Those "schools" were organized and cooperative among the ones involved. They worked together. those in the "Philadelphia School" were not and did not.

"Those 'schools' are constantly evolving and changing as new information is discovered and historian redefine what they were and who was involved." this also is incorrect. Those "schools" CAN'T be evolving and changing as they NO LONGER EXIST! What is changing is our perception of how the individuals worked and cooperated together.

This "Philadelphia School" of golf architecture is nothing at all akin to the Hudson River School or the Prarie School. For example, there is definitely not a common thread in specific design principles among those you've mentioned as being 'students' in it.

That you conceive of several 'phases' to this "school" is an effort to rewrite history rather and create something that wasn't there rather than actually explore and research where and why this "Philadelphia School" concept came from.

For example, if the person who coined the phrase did so as an explanation of how a group of friends all developed an interest in golf course design and went even further by becoming, for at least a brief period, those that designed many, if not most, of the great courses in the country, how can you or anyone else redefine it and claim that is what it actually was?

That is why I believe that research on who created the phrase and why is first and foremost important and answers all subsequent questions as to the nature of the "school."  


TEPaul

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2008, 11:58:21 AM »
"It appears there was a primary group of men involved in the early Philly School followed by a secondary phase.

1st Phase: Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder,  J. Franklin Meehan

2nd Phase: George Thomas, AW Tillinghast, William Flynn

Would Heebner fall into the first group?"



Mr. MacWood:

It's interesting you view the original Philly School in that way (two phases) with those particular names included.

It occurs to me that the names of the original Philly School architects may've been limited to five (by Geoff Shackelford or whomever it was who first coigned the term) because those five happen to be the ones who have the really famous courses and what is considered to be the best of American architecture attached to their names and their careers as the primary architect of record of those famous courses and architecture even if some of those courses may not be in Philadelphia.

Of course we can discuss and debate endlessly to what particular specific degree those courses were their own inspirations or that of others heretofore not really named or attributed but that is another subject altogether.

The point is they are the ones who have their names attached to those courses as the primary architect of record and always have had and failing the production of some very significant information to the contrary probably should continue to have their names attached to those courses and that architecture that became so famous as the primary architect of record.

That is probably why the original Philly School of Design was limited to basically those five, all of whom we know were friends and close collaborators with one another.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2008, 12:01:28 PM »
Mike
I did read your thread the other day, but I have a hard time getting my arms around Meehan the golf architect. His own career seems to be divided into early and later. North Hills and Cobbs Creek early and others in the 20s and 30s. Does he deserve major credit at Cobbs? I also noticed North Hills was almost immediately redesigned, I'm sure what to make of that. Should Meehan be considered in the second phase.

Sean makes an excellent point about Colt. I think his influence was significant.

The other figure that no one has brought up, who I don't believe should be ignored when discussing Philadelphia golf architecture, is Donald Ross. He may not have lived in Philadelphia (although his associate McGovern did), but he was responsible for a good number of important designs.

Tom,

There is no question that the heathland architects like Colt were significant influences.   Crump and his friends who included Ab Smith were evidently almost groupies of Fowler's writings, for instance.

I think Meehan was primarily an wealthy, successful landscape architect and agronomist who loved golf at first.   He obviously believed in blending man-made creations with nature, as evidenced by that early article on housing.

I believe that through his associations with Crump, Smith, Wilson, and others of the school he learned and refined his design style over time.    It's impossible to say what he did at Cobb's Creek specifically, but I do know that Robert Lesley had enough confidence in him in 1915 to assign him to the committee of some pretty prominent folks (possibly for his agronomic knowledge).

But, you're correct to suggest that most of his designs didn't come until the 20s.

Who knows how this would have all happened without WWI intervening, which seems the logical split in architectural activity.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2008, 12:08:39 PM »
And since a number also seem to believe that Geoff Shackleford has helped define this "School" and its students in a meaningful way, how about taking a look at his own words on the subject.

This is from the "In My Opinion" piece he wrote for GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM...

It is an "interview" with one of the premiere members of this "school,"  Mr. george Thomas. Note the first question asked and his answer:

1. What impact did the Philadelphia School of Design have on your design philosophy?

A- Philadelphia School? I’m not sure what you mean. There was no school of course design in my day. Though I did have many fine classrooms to study...

Kyle Harris

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2008, 12:47:30 PM »
Alex Findlay?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2008, 01:17:45 PM »
Kyle
I was wondering the same thing. He definitely lived in Philly for many years.

Mike
Any thoughts on Ross's place in the Philadlephia School?

Phil
That is a very good point regarding an identifiable style. I think Mike is alluding to a common theme of naturalism. What do you think?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 01:19:53 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2008, 01:24:51 PM »
I'd say no on Findlay.

For whatever reason, he didn't seem to run in those circles and was more a citizen of the world.

I don't see him influencing or being influenced much by the others.

I think things were already well underway when Ross first arrived in town although he did nice work in the area I think much of what I stated about Findlay would apply to Ross as well.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Philadelphia School
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2008, 01:44:19 PM »
I'd say no on Findlay.

For whatever reason, he didn't seem to run in those circles and was more a citizen of the world.

I don't see him influencing or being influenced much by the others.

I think things were already well underway when Ross first arrived in town although he did nice work in the area I think much of what I stated about Findlay would apply to Ross as well.

Mike
Didn't some of the men you identified with the Philly School collaborate with Ross or hire Ross to design/redesign courses they were affiliated with?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back