Did MacDonald/Raynor...

[JNC Lyon]

No, clearly these greens can't be built today.  So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Paul, you mention basic design principles.  I maintain (from my limited expertise) that either being or appearing natural is one of the key principles of design, if not THE key principle.  While the Country Club is a highly natural design and the Ocean Course is highly manufactured, both (with the exception of Kiawah's 17th) appear natural in construction

The Falling Waters example fits with this as well.  Certainly it does not appear natural instead of man-made.  At the same time, it is in harmony with its surroundings.  It is juxtaposition of man and nature, but the two forces are not at odds, quite the opposite in fact."


JNC:

While I am one who very much appreciates the look of naturalism in golf architect----and I believe I can identify it well--I do not necessarily believe it is a key principle in golf architecture. It probably was and is for some but not all. The fact is there can be and are very good courses that do not look like Nature made their features even remotely---many of their features look distinctly man-made and sometimes apparently on purpose.

If that is true, and I, for one, believe it is, what then are some of the key principles in golf architecture? I would say as to playability or shot values and such the best or key principles are things like interesting angles of play that depend on architectural features such as the diagonal line of features and such, the interesting slopes and contours of the ground in length, width and height.

It is very possible for a golf course to play really well with a distinctly man-made look to those features. On the other hand some like a distinctly natural aesthetic or look to those architectural features and others may not. But I believe both can play well if they include key golf architectural principles.

Some today may say that key golf architectural principles must include key landscape architecture principles as well. While some perhaps most may prefer that I do not know that it is necessarily true. If one considered a golf course like TOC over 160 years ago (before much of anything was ever done to it by a golf architect) would one say it conformed to our man-made landscape architecture principles as we apply them to golf architecture principles or would one simply say TOC was basically wholly made just by Nature herself and essentially unaltered by Man?

As to Fallingwater, it most certainly is a fascinating juxtaposition with it's setting in nature. I'm a real fan of Frank Lloyd Wright and Fallingwater and I might say there is some kind of harmony in the distinctly man-made linear dimensions of the building in contrast to the broken highly random lines of the natural setting of the stream and woods but on the other hand one might also consider the juxtapostion of the distinctly man-made lines in CONTRAST with the natural setting and to be at odds with one another for the simple reason there is a ton of history between both Man and Nature where they have been intrinsically at odds with one another in something of a natural competition.

If that is true, and for the purposes of this discussion it may be important, however, to consider that the juxtapostion of contrast or the being at odds or looking to be at odds with one another is not necessarily a negative or a bad thing and may even be considered a good thing in the vein of some sort of ultimate reality (perhaps between Man and Nature or Nature and Man).

[Patrick_Mucci]

No, clearly these greens can't be built today.  So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?

My guess is because there may be a disconnect between the architecture and the site.

In addition, it may be because many on this site favor the older styles and values versus the modern style where visuals play a major role.

[TEPaul]

"So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?"


JNC:

Criticized for what more than Golden Age architects?

[JNC Lyon]

"So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?"


JNC:

Criticized for what more than Golden Age architects?

Criticized for building clearly man-made features that don't (can't) fit in with the surrounds.

[JNC Lyon]

TEPaul:

I appreciate the Man vs. Nature battle scenario, but I generally see it playing out as the golfer vs. the natural setting rather than the architect vs. natural setting.  This 'ultimate reality' is the kind of stuff that transcends the game of golf, moving it from 'just a sport' to something more.  However, what is the context for the golf course architect?  I seem to think if the architect goes against the natural setting in an initial battle of Man vs. Nature, then the final battle, the ultimate struggle between the golfer and the course, is ultimately man vs. man.  Clearly, the battle can't complete eliminate the 'middle man' of the architect.  Rather, it is the architect's job to facilitate this man vs. nature struggle by presenting nature for golf purposes.

I also find it difficult to argue that naturalism isn't one of the key principles of golf course design.  Pine Valley? Cypress Point? Sand Hills? TOC? Don't these all have a presence of naturalism that experts agree is one of their defining characteristics?  Certainly there are principles aside from and equal to naturalism, but it must be considered on equal terms.

My question STILL remains:  what is the line between creative and forced architecture?  Did Raynor ever cross it?

[David Stamm]

Did you urinate on Pei's pyramid?

I haven't, but I know most Parisians wish they could. Most hate Pei's pyramid. I can't say I disagree. There is a difference to man adding to/enhancing nature/surroundings and building something in complete disharmony with it's surroundings just to be contrarian. It would make sense to some degree if the museum housed modern art, then some sort of cryptic connection could be made. But everything in the Louvre is prior to Impressionism and just doesn't make sense, unlike the Centre Pompidou which prepares the visitor to what's inside.

[Thomas MacWood]

David
Here is a link:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pyramide_du_Louvre.html

No doubt it was controversial, but how do you know all Parisians hate it?

In a case like this, when a modern architect is asked to expand or add on to an older structure, I prefer they do it in a modern style, because

1. Trying to build something in the older style comes across as sham and often results in compromising the architecture of the older building

2. Building in glass and steel preserves the architecture of the older building. I've seen cases were a modern exterior shell is created of glass and steel without touching the older building within or in other cases the modern extension is completely separate. IMO both are preferrable to tacking onto a new structure in some psueo older style. There is no doubt what is original and what is not. In this case the pyramid is free standing, the connection is below the surface

3. It creates an interesting contrast of old and new; clean/simple and ornate. What also adds interest in this case is the modern structure is done in an ancient form.

[wsmorrison]

David,

Don't worry.  The rest of us know you wrote most Parisians hate Pei's pyramid.  Tom MacWood spun that into all so he can make his point.  He often resorts to misrepresentations and spin.  We're used to it by now and just ignore him most of the time. 

His theories of contrast and stark juxtapositions are theoretical and subjective.  For many these notions don't apply as easily to golf design as they do other art forms.   He casually dismisses those that disagree by challenging our understanding of art and aesthetics deeming us ignorant or aesthetically tone deaf.  In fact, we can think what we like without regard to Tom MacWood's admonishments.  He should allow us the same courtesy we allow him, his beliefs without ridicule or pontification.  What a small man he is as a result.

[Thomas MacWood]

Sorry

David
How do you know most Parisians hate the pyramid?

[Peter Pallotta]

I find myself thinking it's like poetry and prose. The latter facilitates the sharing of objective experience, the facts; the former better opens the door to subjective experience, the feelings. It's the game of golf on the one hand, the experience of golf on the other; shot-testing on the one hand,  freedom and nature on the other. There are many examples of happy mediums, probably most of the great golf courses; but while even in the early 1900s many were deriding the card and pencil mentality, it is served when shot-testing is at the fore and made a premium.  I do think there are poetic spirits and prosaic ones; maybe the best architects access both, and the best courses manifest those spirits in balance. On the question of whether or not the Macdonald-Raynor courses always struck that balance, I naturally defer to the opinions of those who have played and studied them. Perhaps Mackenzie is so highly regarded because he manifested that balance so consistently. Of course, then there's also T.S. Eliot -- and for some reason the names Fowler, Colt and Maxwell come to mind.   

Peter 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul:

I appreciate the Man vs. Nature battle scenario, but I generally see it playing out as the golfer vs. the natural setting rather than the architect vs. natural setting.  This 'ultimate reality' is the kind of stuff that transcends the game of golf, moving it from 'just a sport' to something more.  However, what is the context for the golf course architect?  I seem to think if the architect goes against the natural setting in an initial battle of Man vs. Nature, then the final battle, the ultimate struggle between the golfer and the course, is ultimately man vs. man.  Clearly, the battle can't complete eliminate the 'middle man' of the architect.  Rather, it is the architect's job to facilitate this man vs. nature struggle by presenting nature for golf purposes."



JNC:

Good thoughts. My feeling is any golfer should try to explore these things for himself rather than try to seek some consensus opinion amongst others (perhaps this website inherently tries to do too much of that).

As to what any architect goes through or thinks as he is conceiving and creating is surely interesting to know too. If I look back on the last decade or so I feel fortunate to have had this kind of discussion with numerous architects. Obviously some are more forthcoming and articulate about it than others.

One of the most interesting in this way and perhaps unique could be Kelly Blake Moran. He has even stated that he very much keeps searching and that he essentially designs for himself. I like that---it seems to be the true mode of the liberated artist.

[bill_k]

I have gone out of my way to play/see as many Macdonald/Raynor courses as possible. The only ones that I have been disappointed by were those courses on which the features had either been altered/allowed to erode (Everglades, Dedham) or might never have existed in the first place (Blowing Rock). I'm unsure if any of Raynor's design remains at Everglades-It looks as if Silva's work is more of a complete redesign/re-imagining than a faithful restoration.
Additionally, I was slightly disappointed by Wanumetonomy (even though it sits on a great piece of land and I enjoyed it tremendously) and CC of Charleston because I could not recognize many template holes-the former had no chance to impress me after having played Yeamans Hall across town.
So, I suppose what I am trying to say is that the only Macdonald/Raynor courses I have personally seen which I might consider inferior are those which have either been neglected throught the years or whose designs were obviously constrained from the beginning. Others I have seen only in photos but which might fall into this category include Thousand Islands, one of the Minn. courses (can't remember which), and some of the less well-known Long Island courses such as Gardiners Bay/Bellport...I have always been very curious about these, as well as Rumson in NJ and Blind Brook.

[JNC Lyon]

I find myself thinking it's like poetry and prose. The latter facilitates the sharing of objective experience, the facts; the former better opens the door to subjective experience, the feelings. It's the game of golf on the one hand, the experience of golf on the other; shot-testing on the one hand,  freedom and nature on the other. There are many examples of happy mediums, probably most of the great golf courses; but while even in the early 1900s many were deriding the card and pencil mentality, it is served when shot-testing is at the fore and made a premium.  I do think there are poetic spirits and prosaic ones; maybe the best architects access both, and the best courses manifest those spirits in balance. On the question of whether or not the Macdonald-Raynor courses always struck that balance, I naturally defer to the opinions of those who have played and studied them. Perhaps Mackenzie is so highly regarded because he manifested that balance so consistently. Of course, then there's also T.S. Eliot -- and for some reason the names Fowler, Colt and Maxwell come to mind.   

Peter 

I like this analogy a great deal.  I always got the impression that, at least at the time of construction, MacDonald and Raynor may have been more focused on Prosaic elements in golf course architecture.  Their features are meant to test various types of shots and strengths in a player's game.  However, this is in comparison with the other architecture of the day.

However, as we move through time and see more and more emphasis on stroke play and difficulty in architecture, Raynor's design features, both templated and not, stand out as quirky, fun, and poetically oriented.  Although most of Yeamans Hall was fairly straightforward from a layout point of view (i. e. no wild blind shots or tiny steep greens), there is a certain boldness about the architecture that moves it beyond the prosaic format of Trent Jones course (Crag Burn in Buffalo, a course I enjoy IMMENSELY, would be my example).  I believe it is possible to be great entirely in one format or the other if it is done correctly.  I agree that Raynor might fall into a prosaic category more often than not, but as his work is restored, poetic elements will become more prevalent.

Are there architects today who build courses that work well within the prosaic format???  I know C & C and Doak would seem to lean more towards poetic elements.  It would seem that the favored format of the day simply reflects the fashion of architecture.  What is considered great today is mediocre tomorrow, and vice versa.

How does this metaphor fit in with questions of naturalism in architecture?  Are natural features by definition more poetic?  Can the land dictate a prosaic, strokeplay-minded feel in architecture?

[David Stamm]

Sorry

David
How do you know most Parisians hate the pyramid?

Most that I have talked to (while visitng there or when the subject came up w/ French that I know here in the US) don't care for it. I get the impression that it seemed chic at the time, but has not aged well (read Members Only jackets). I understand what you are saying about not trying to replicate the look of the Louvre palace itself, however, I think there were/are more harmonious options then what Pei went with. I'm sure there are some that do like it, but in my experience, most do not.

[Peter Pallotta]

JNC - thanks. Good post and good questions. I really can't offer any answers, but some random thoughts:

I think you're right that the favoured style/ethos does change with the times, and in the early days of golf in American those times seemed to have changed fairly quickly.  I think the rennaissance in golf course architecture of, say, the past 25 years or so has to do with a more consistent and conscious pursuit of that balance, i.e. the prosaic and the poetic.  And while probably no working architect today would actually use those terms, I think maybe all of them would argue that this is what they are striving to achieve. When it comes to naturalism and using natural features poetically, however, I think it's probably a rarer thing -- natural features, even if left untouched, can still be used fairly prosaically, and just as prosaically as any man-made feature.  An architect really has to have a determined intention to use them poetically in order to pull it off. Just to name one, and judging from his posts here, someone like Kelly Blake Moran has that intention...

Peter     

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You asked:

My question STILL remains:  what is the line between creative and forced architecture?  Did Raynor ever cross it?

Off the top of my head I can't think where that might have happened, but, my exposure to all of SR's work is limited.

If he did, I'd like to know which holes are over the threshold.

One also has to remember that it's the golfer's eyes view that should be the qualifier, not the bird's eye view from 4,000 feet.

One of my favorite holes is # 8 at Yale.

I also tend to favor "short" holes, few of which could be called natural.

But, in all of the above cases, I find the holes appealing to the eye and a wonderful challenge to the game.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think the question in your blue box is JNC Lyon's----and a couple of time, not mine. I wonder if he feels if it has been remotely answered?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think the question in your blue box is JNC Lyon's----and a couple of time, and not mine. I wonder if he feels if it has been remotely answered?

Perhaps, I have tried to answer his question but only in my own way. Frankly, I either don't like or don't feel very comfortable with his question or the wording of it----eg "What is the line between creative and forced architecture---did Raynor ever cross it?"

The question for me would be more like---"Did Raynor create architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"

To that I would have to say yes even if it may've played great. But that is not the same question JNC Lyon asked a couple of times! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The question for me would be more like---"Did Raynor create architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"

Where do you find that to be the case ?

Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense ?

Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense ?

[TEPaul]

"Where do you find that to be the case ?
Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense?"


Pat:

What course would you like me to pick?



"Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"


That may be your definition of "Quirky" but it would not be mine!

[JNC Lyon]

I think quirky architecture goes well beyond unnatural landforms in architecture.  In fact, I think some of the quirkiest architecture uses natural elements.  My example would 5 at the Country Club, where the tee shot over a huge rock pile is entirely natural and very quirky--it goes well beyond the normal 'over the rise' type of tee shot.  Holes like the Quarry Holes at Garden City or CC of Buffalo were very quirky for me because of their use of natural features.

On the opposite end, Shadow Creek is entirely unnatural, and its reputation is a course that is beautiful but without mystery or quirk.

Overall, I think quirk can be either natural or manmade, and it is more often nature that brings the quirkiest and most unique elements to a course.  It was these sorts of features (i. e. a severely slope fairway, a blatant blind shot or a wild green) that saw a loss with manmade architecture in the 1960s.

Did Raynor and MacDonald ever lose natural quirk in their design? Or did their construction serve to enhance it?

On the topic of short holes, the Short 3rd and Short 6th at Yeamans Hall and Hackensack respectively were two of my favorite holes on the respective courses.  They both appeared entirely manmade, especially at Yeamans.  However, it would seem the built-up greens were often placed on flat, mundane pieces of land (i. e. the bottom of a ravine at Shoreacres).  Thus, although they are engineered, they serve to enhance rather than clash with the land around it because there wasn't much in the way of land to begin with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Where do you find that to be the case ?
Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense?"

Pat:

What course would you like me to pick?

Start where ever you please

"Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"

That may be your definition of "Quirky" but it would not be mine!


What is your definition of "Quirky" ?

[John Mayhugh]

One also has to remember that it's the golfer's eyes view that should be the qualifier, not the bird's eye view from 4,000 feet.

One of my favorite holes is # 8 at Yale.

I also tend to favor "short" holes, few of which could be called natural.

But, in all of the above cases, I find the holes appealing to the eye and a wonderful challenge to the game.

A great point about the view from the golfer's eyes.  I think CBM/Raynor's work definitely looks better in person than from an overhead photo.  And it certainly plays great.

[John Mayhugh]

I think quirky architecture goes well beyond unnatural landforms in architecture.  In fact, I think some of the quirkiest architecture uses natural elements. 
Overall, I think quirk can be either natural or manmade, and it is more often nature that brings the quirkiest and most unique elements to a course.  It was these sorts of features (i. e. a severely slope fairway, a blatant blind shot or a wild green) that saw a loss with manmade architecture in the 1960s.

Did Raynor and MacDonald ever lose natural quirk in their design? Or did their construction serve to enhance it?

Pretty obvious now that you've mentioned it, but I guess I hadn't really thought about it that way before.  Something quirky may be the most natural feature on a course.  Thanks for sharing this observation.