Mark, Interesting that the first two on your list of courses that pass your test were created (in part at least) by those that brought us Castle Stuart. Is it possible that they lost their bearings so quickly, or do you think that perhaps you might misunderstand their intent?
David,
Quite deliberate. If they could manage these (very different) courses in Scotland, why the need for the cosmetic fakery of CS? I like Craighead more than the vast majority but nothing there pretends to be anything it isn't. There's some quirk (an old stone wall is a repeated feature) but that's because it was there in the land. I wonder if it can be likened to musicians (I have in mind the progressive rock bands of the early 70s) who start off by bringing a level of intelligence and creativity to an art that hasn't been seen for a while but who, in the end, in a bid to continually been seen to be breaking new ground, concentrate more on what might be seen as clever than on their real art.
I don't know if CS is Close to the Edge (a (fairly pretentious) masterpiece, IMHO, but a masterpiece nonetheless) or Tales from Topographic Oceans ( a morass of wallowing crap). Only playing it will tell. I do worry about where the art is going, though, when GCAs are spending so much time and effort to make a tee box look like it is old and decaying.
Mark
Mark, I understand generally your concern with where architecture is going, but make a bit of a distinction. My concern is that sometimes a certain look or aesthetic styling often substitutes for quality architecture. In other words, I worry that some architects just add frilly edged bunkers or fescue to their same old tired designs and call them quality minimalist or naturalist architecture. It is difficult to tell from the photos, but it doesn't sound like that is what is going on here.
Also, you'd think that if you have great affection for Gil's other Scotland work as well as Kingsbarn's I'd think it might make sense to at least suspend judgment until you have actually seen and played the course. I may be wrong, but have a suspicion that once you play it you may find that it is not nearly as contrived as you think.
Is it possible that you are focusing on the little touches here and there and not really looking at the course? Because I don't see much that is all that contrived when I look at the course. Old stylings, yes, and old methods and materials, but I am not sure I see much on the course that doesn't serve a golfing purpose. Maybe you can be a bit more specific?
You mention making the tees look old and eroded? Can you show me what you mean? I saw a couple of photos of tees with RR ties but they don't look too different than RR tie retaining walls I used to help build in high school and early college, and we were just trying to build something easy, effective, inexpensive, and structurally sound.
___________________________
FBD,
This has got to be the first thread where a soda machine cover has considered part of the golf course.
Did you consider Rustic canyon to be overdone and fake? Because while this is obviously on a different level of detail, in the pictures at least I see many of the same general types of features, and the use of natural contours seems to be very Hanse&Wagnerian, which to me means that pretty much took as as they found it. I could be wrong, because I haven't seen it, but then you haven't either, have you?
Perhaps it would be worth a look before either one of us comes to too many conclusions?