Strategic School of Architecture - Part Deux

[Jeff_Brauer]

I stayed away from the first thread, but had a few thoughts on strategic design, related more to actual design and not designers themselves.

In short, I recall the old HWWind Golf Digest article on architecture, circa maybe 1967?, which I have long since lost, but recall vaguely.  It had a few diagrams of a slight dogleg par 4 hole and a statement something like "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole."  The diagram showed a single bunker on the inside front corner of the green, and text explained that this bunker alone was enough to cause a choice to be made to play the inside route with its shorter approach or the longer outside route with an open approach.

Do you generally agree, or do you think there needs to be a fw bunker to reinforce the tee shot option and create some risk in taking the shorter more aggressive tee shot line?

Sometimes, it seems to me that gca's (moi included) just can't leave well enough alone and use a single bunker/hazard only to punish one type of missed shot - the aggressive line, misplayed.

Do you think a second bunker in any target area (i.e., bunker right, bunker left) nullifies any real strategy and makes it simply a test of accuracy?  What if that hazard is something other than a bunker, with a different penalty value (water, grass bunker, etc.)?

Was the original ANGC the best expression of the minimalist, purist, strategic course with its limited bunkering? 

[John Moore II]

It all depends on the length of the hole. If the hole is 450 yards or something as a par 4, then that requires a lower lofted club where line either over the bunker or from the side might make a difference. Or on a very short approach shot where it would be difficult to spin the ball with a partial wedge. But for approach shots hit with 8 iron through a full wedge (even full lob wedge) then the bunker at the green is somewhat pointless since the it will be a high lofted shot coming into the green. But if its a 7 iron approach or greater then line makes a difference into the green since the shot is lower.

And no, when done right, a second bunker does not nullify all strategy and can often times make it better.

[Sean_A]

Strategy starts with the smallest bump, hollow, ridge or turn of angle.  Strategy doesn't necessarily increase with increased hazards.  Every archie has to make his own decision on what he is trying to achieve on any given hole, but in many cases the more hazards introduced increases the odds of limiting options.  That isn't necessarily bad or poor, it is just making (hopefully a conscious) decision on what end of the strategic continuum is being emphasized.  The quote I originally posted I think skirts at the idea of the relationship between the use of natural hazards, strategic design, how naturalism (not only aesthetically but in a presentation PoV as well) fits into this dynamic and how the use of artificial hazards can eat away at that dynamic and be counter-productive.  It is a shame that the other thread devolved into an either/or battle as I don't believe in the least that this is what W-S are hinting at.   

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards.  The strategic school above all aims at escaping formality by limiting the use of the artificial bunker, the excessive employment of which can easily crowd a course to the ruin of everything that contributes to spaciousness of design." 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -

I think I'd re-write HWW's sentence: "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole. To the simpleton, said strategy will be immediately and unmistakably clear.  I don't mean to imply that the purist is a simpleton; only that he could be."

Also: I think strategy is a code word with multiple/differing meanings.  If it's code for a physical test, then two more bunkers could usefully be added to that first one, each further from the tee and at a sharper angle to the preferred line. If it's code for a mental challenge, then not only would one bunker do well enough, but the smallest and deepest of pot-bunkers would work best of all.

Sean -

Yes. "Strategy starts with the smallest bump, hollow, ridge or turn of angle."  And it's my favourite kind. But it is only in the land of the blind that the one-eyed jack is king.  The big shapes, obvious signifiers, and artificial moundings of the modern American high-end daily fee course isn't a hospitipal home for subtlety.  It is not a coincidence that W&S were based in the UK, and that the quote you use describes the characteristiics of many of the fine inland courses you play (and prefer).

Yes, I realized on the other thread that it wasn't a binary strategic-penal issue that W&S were trying to address. I just thought, and said, that in this particular quote they didn't for me 'unpack' the equation very well, certainly not as well as you just did.    

[Neil_Crafter]

Jeff
This hole plan by Simpson from Simpson & Wethered "The Architectural Side of Golf" does what you were referring to - except it has two bunkers at the green, but obviously the front left one is the one that dictates the best line of approach.
cheers Neil

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:

The best part about that drawing is the outline of the fairway, and the fact that the dot for the landing area is way over to one side of it.

I noticed when I first started working construction that the posts set out for the landing area are always placed right in the center of the fairway (and usually the center of the clearing as well).  I think that is one reason why modern architects often miss the sort of subtle strategy which Simpson had in mind ... we always think of the center.

The best instructions I ever gave to a shaper were what I told Eric Iverson when we started building Riverfront ... I told him that when he was building the greens and bunkers, he should always go back to the landing area and go twenty yards left of the post and twenty yards right, and try to make the green look as different as he could from those two points.

[Carl Rogers]

The best instructions I ever gave to a shaper were what I told Eric Iverson when we started building Riverfront ... I told him that when he was building the greens and bunkers, he should always go back to the landing area and go twenty yards left of the post and twenty yards right, and try to make the green look as different as he could from those two points.

This diagram could just about be the 5th hole at Riverfront.  Tom & Eric put a fairway bunker at the outside edge of the fairway. Immediately adjacent to bunker is the best line to the green.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it.  Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted?  As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway].  But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green.  The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me. What's more interesting -- and subtle -- is how you (in your instruction to Eric Iverson) have to think about constructing that golf hole.  

The second point that W&S make under that photo -- i.e. about the true line to the hole never being in the centre of the fairway -- reinforces this for me. It seems much more a piece of valuable instruction/advice to architects than it is a playing hint to golfers.  But the fact that, in the modern era, most architects for many years didn't heed that advice doesn't make the advice itself (or the ensuing golf hole) particularly subtle, does it?  It seems to me a potential element of subtlety, i.e. dependent on other elements  like the green contours and the challenge/interest of the green surrounds.  But in an of itself, it is a physical challenge and test of skill (i.e. put your ball here); but not a question-posed to the golfer's mind (i.e. where should I aim my tee shot?)

Peter


  

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

That initial post of yours was really quite something, both for your observations and your admissions of some of your own inclinations with architecture. I really admire you for that post, Mr Jeffrey.

I vaguely remember that was the way this website was long ago when it first opened. That was back in 1999. I don't even know if they're on here anymore. There were some interesting posts, some trenchant and impactful responses and they seemed to be over in less than ten or twenty posts and never, EVER, ten to twenty pages! And then the "noise" began and things got way more complicated on here for a whole lot of reasons and for which I sure don't hold myself totally blameless. With coming up on close to 40,000 posts over eleven years how could I?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff
This hole plan by Simpson from Simpson & Wethered "The Architectural Side of Golf" does what you were referring to - except it has two bunkers at the green, but obviously the front left one is the one that dictates the best line of approach.
cheers Neil

Neil,

So what, in your opinion does the right side green bunker add to the strategic quality of the hole?  While not knowing the relative depths, etc.,  I think this is what Wind was talking about.  The left bunker may push the tee shot right.  But the right bunker just says "aim at the center of the green".  Is there just strategy on the tee shot, or would a soft, grass bank on the right get golfers to thinking about shading right again?

Or, is it presumed that the approach shot will and should be aimed at the pin if the golfer attains the right hand side, and thus  the shot is inherently of lesser strategy than the tee ball?

I also wonder how accurate those pencil lines are?  Those sketch marks in front of the green seemingly show a slope going upward more from right to left.  Thus, a shot from the left that also skirted the left bunker would presumably kick right and away from the green, and is that part of the penalty besides the bunker?  Would it be nearly impossible to run the ball up on the green?  I think many gca's would probably offer some hope of getting it home from there using a creative shot.

TePaul,


Thanks for the thoughts, but I think we tend to view the past in rose colored glasses as part of human nature.  I didn't expect too much response from this, based on a long history of similar nearly dead end threads I have posted that have gone nowhere!  It seems its easier for most to discuss actual holes, rather than concepts.  So, it was great that Neil posted a pictorial example, as it may spur discussion.

Anyway, rather than expounding on other impressions you have, what do you think? I think JKMoore's post sort of ties into your thoughts about lack of definition on the other thread, in at least that he mentions small knobs and bumps rather than sand bunkers as the primary drivers, and they are usually not distinct to the golfers eye.

Tom Doak,

I noticed the non centered fw pole.  Somehow, that happens to me somewhere along the way almost automatically as things shift around.  I don't think many would draw it that way, mostly because the hole would actually end up shorter than it would measure by the USGA, and no owner wants to find out his 7200 yard course came out to 7133 because of such staking follies......

[Sean_A]

I too notice that in many Simpson sketches he indicates the landing zone to one edge or another of the fairway.  However, to carry on PP's point, I think the hole would work better with more room left.  As it is, there is really only an angle to be gained with the nest shot.  If distance were put on offer by adding more fairway left the player has a real choice of shorter approach or better angle - that same single left-hand bunker dictates play.  Sure, conditions of the ground and wind would help the thinking player make that choice, but there are always folks who bang away.  So in other words, the dogleg aspect of the hole becomes a choice rather than dictated.  For me, the right hand bunker is neither here nor there, but there must always be variety just to keep the golfer thinking and for aesthtics.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

I think I would like the illustrated hole better if there were a hazard near the right side of the fairway, no matter whether it's a bunker, rough ground or a creek.  As it stands there is no risk driving out to the right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In short, I recall the old HWWind Golf Digest article on architecture, circa maybe 1967?, which I have long since lost, but recall vaguely.  It had a few diagrams of a slight dogleg par 4 hole and a statement something like "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole."  The diagram showed a single bunker on the inside front corner of the green, and text explained that this bunker alone was enough to cause a choice to be made to play the inside route with its shorter approach or the longer outside route with an open approach.

Jeff, To differing degrees, I don't think you can accept a good number of principles, written 50-100 years ago when the gap between the best, better, mediocre and poor golfer was much narrower in terms of distance.

A cookie cutter, "one fairway bunker fits all" just doesn't work today, and six sets of tees isn't the answer either.
It's far more difficult to design for today's broader spectrum of golf than it was 50-100 years ago.

Do you generally agree, or do you think there needs to be a fw bunker to reinforce the tee shot option and create some risk in taking the shorter more aggressive tee shot line?

With young golfers carrying the ball 300 + I don't see how a single bunker can provide equivalent strategy and decisions for all levels of golfers.
I think the extension of the ability/distance spectrum forces the architect to think in tiers when it comes to presenting a challenge commensurate with the golfer's ability/distance.

Think back to when John Daly was winning the British Open and Jack Nicklaus was the commentator relating how the shot should be played (according to Nicklaus's game.  Daly did everything contrary to Nicklaus's strategy because he could fly the ball much farther than Nicklaus, who himself flew the ball prodigious distances when he arrived on the scene.)  So, here we have the greatest golfer of all time, and his strategy, like the Maginot line, was outflanked and overflown.  I think back to when Bobby Jones declared that Nicklaus played a game with which he was unfamiliar with.  Well, Nicklaus could have said the same thing about Daly.  And, Jones and Nicklaus were the greatest golfers of their era.

So, how does an architect resort to simplicity, minimalism on today's typical sites ?
He can't, if he wants to present a golf course that's appealing and challenging to today's broad spectrum of golfers.

Sometimes, it seems to me that gca's (moi included) just can't leave well enough alone and use a single bunker/hazard only to punish one type of missed shot - the aggressive line, misplayed.

Then I have to ask:  Does the course present itself as a challenge that's fun to pursue for ALL level of golfers ?
That's the hard part.
Anyone can design a challenge for a very narrow spectrum of golfer, the difficulty is designing a challenge that's fun to pursue for the ENTIRE spectrum.

That's one of the reasons why I advocate changes to I&B

Do you think a second bunker in any target area (i.e., bunker right, bunker left) nullifies any real strategy and makes it simply a test of accuracy? 

NO, I don't.
Unfortunately, I think your challenge is somewhat akin to three dimensional chess.


What if that hazard is something other than a bunker, with a different penalty value (water, grass bunker, etc.)?

There's nothing wrong with that.
It doesn't have to be something as penal as water or OB.
What's appealing to me is the use of uneven to difficult slopes within a fairway or adjacent area.
# 10, or 13 at ANGC are good examples.

Dick Wilson designed some great doglegs around water.
The closer you went to the water, the better your angle of attack into the green, but, if you played too far from the water, not only did your angle of attack seriously deteriorate, but, bunkers were there too penalize those who played too "safe", especially on the shorter holes.
The water, around which the hole followed provided a universal hazard for every level of player at every level of distance, although, today, on the shorter holes, long drivers actually try to fly it to the green under the right wind conditions.  I guarantee you that Wilson NEVER dreamed that that was an option.

I see nothing wrong with substituting an extensive bunker or bunkering to fulfill the strategic role of the water.

So, why is there anything architecturally inappropriate about additional bunkering ?


Was the original ANGC the best expression of the minimalist, purist, strategic course with its limited bunkering? 

NO.

The limited bunkering was only made possible by the pronounced terrain and water features.
ANGC is NOT your typical site.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, I would guess that much in the sketch would depend on what the ground contours were doing.  Not only would the slope of the fairway impact the approach, but the contours around and on the green too.  For instance, the right side bunker.  On face value I would assume that it is there to nider the short bail-out from the left.  So, if the throat is canted left to right, it would impact that much more that if it were the opposite.  The same witht he left bunker. If the back-greenside slope carried onto the green, causeing any shot over the bunker from the left to lick off right, it would even deter the wedge shot that John Moore proposed would render that bunker irrelavent.  However if the green slope right-to-left, well that's different.  And as for the aerial vs the run-on from the right? Depends if the green is sloped towards you or away from you.

TD - perhaps to many put too much emphasis on the turn point poles.  I tr to keep them on the line of charm rather than a mathematical bisector of the hole but always rely on them as simply markers for centrerline layout.  What is really unfortunate is that some Regulatory Bodies and Courts of Law place the wrong emphasis on these centerlines to ascetain prescribed distances for separation.  One could have that sketch hole along a righthand OB and show the centerilne right down the middle to set the distance to OB - all the while knowing that many shots would actually be aimed further right, thus effectively minimizing the "real" distance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

The perspective above the hole diagram shows what Simpson was thinking, presumably, and it looks to me like the approach slope is from left to right and might very well kick any shot from the left down away from the green.  As to the green, it is clearly visible, so I gather his intent would be to have the back right higher for that reason, as I think most gca's would do. I know a few who would make the left higher to totally screw the left approach shot as basically impossible to hold the green!

Of course, that begs the same question of strategy - if you can't really hit the green from the left due to bunker and fall away green, is the left side of the fw really an option, or is it a mirage?  Or, do you make it more difficult via the bunker but not impossible by adding reverse green slope?

As to the right side bunker, you say it may be to hinder the bail out.  My basic question, in "pure' strategic design where you are trying to encourage certain shots, not necessarily punish them - Why punish a bail out shot?  The golfer has already given up hope of a birdie, barring miracle chip in and in strategic design, is there any need to punish the bail out further?  Depending on his scramble ability, he has a 30-70% chance of bogey just by being off the green, averaging 50% and thus the notorious "half stroke penalty." 

The bunker reduces the chances of par a bit, but is it really, really necessary to do that in strategic design?  Yes, its theory, and yes, I would argue hole length and variety matter, too.  But, I would also argue that those second bunkers get put in far too often around the greens and in reality, are unnecessary for strategy in that sense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

A drive that carries 300 would put the golfer extremely close to the green, leaving him an L-wedge at the most.

Unless the left side of the green is banked away from the left side bunker, it's an easy flop shot from the fairway and/or rough

While the hole looks great in sketch form, in reality it wouldn't be much of a hole today.

235 yard drives were long when I was starting to play, now, young girls, barely teenagers can hit it that far.

I think you have to defend the hole/green, from direct assault, as well as conventionally.

Thus, a field of bunkers in the rough left of the green, and right of the green would seem appropriate.
Those bunkers would catch inaccurate long drives failing to find the fairway, without negatively impacting the average golfer playing the hole conventionally

It would seem that sloping the left side of the green is a mandate if one wants to frustrate long hitters whose drives land in the left greenside bunker.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age.  You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.

One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %.  Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course?  Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age.  You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.

One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %.  Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course?  Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?

Jeff, it's a good and fair question.

To answer it I would ask; "For whom did the "Golden Age" architects, the ones revered on this site, design for ?"

The "average" golfer ?   The "hacker" ?  Or, was it for the better to best golfers who represented a small percentage of the overall number of golfers ?

NGLA, Seminole, ANGC, Pine Valley and many, many others weren't designed for the average, mediocre or poor golfer.
They were designed primarily for the elite golfer of their day.

I think the same thinking has to be a critical design principle today, even though the gaps between those levels has increased dramatically

[Lester George]

Jeff,

As to your original post, I am one of those who "can't leave well enough alone" in most cases as my inclination is to dictate strategy for both the tee shot and the green.  I am one who usually (not always) puts the fairway bunker in to allow for a mental "discussion" right from the start.  Sometimes the palcement of that fairway bunker is less intrusive, inviting more people to work with the strategy and sometimes it is more intrusive, setting the strategy aspect up for a reduced amount of players.  Depends on alot as you know.

Lester

[Sean_A]

Pat,

Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age.  You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.

One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %.  Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course?  Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?

Jeff

I would probably take a different view from Pat.   While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain.  Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US.  Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology.  I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers.  We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged.  My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end.  An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.

Ciao  

[Peter Pallotta]

No one picked up on some of the points/questions from my earlier posts, but undaunted I'll carry on: Famed golden age film director Frank Capra said that the movies he made only started to get really good when he discovered an important secret, i.e. "Drama isn't when the actors cry, it's when the audience does".  I think many artists/craftspeople (musicians, painters, writers) have to work through the same potential pitfall as architects do -- i.e. the tendency to mistakenly equate the challenge/questions they face in creating something good (e.g. how do I build this hole so that it has strategy for a range of golfers) with the eventual challenge/questions that actual golfers will face in playing that golf hole.  There does not seem to me to be anything all that 'subtle' in any design conception -- but on the other hand, when a whole set of factors both planned and unplanned including green contours and wind and maintenance practices and pin positions etc are added to that intitial conception, the playing of the hole will present challenges both physical and mental. I think modern architects have done just fine in bringing the golden age strategic ideas forward; I just don't happen to think that those strategic ideas, in and of themselves, were all the subtle or complicated in the first place.

Peter

PS - and I note that over and over again, the posts veers from talking about strategy as a mental component (presenting choice to the golfer) to talking about it as a physical challenge/test (making it hard for the better player).  

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test.  It depends on how youo interpret those hatchings.  They could just as easily be meant to have the fwy higher than the green and the appraoch slope R-to-L into a gathering bunker and the green could slope leL-to-R with exists in the saddles but the mounds running into the greenfor some support.  Just saying. (although you are probably correct with your assessment).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff

I would probably take a different view from Pat.  

While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain.  

Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US.  Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology.  

Both the golfer and the mentality of the game were different then.
Those early architects were more closely connected to the penal roots in the UK.
They didn't have to worry about Juniors, Seniors, Ladies and Handicapped golfers.

They could design for the elite, with the club not having to worry about stocking its membership in order to survive financially.


I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers.  

I never stated or hinted that improvement in the quality of golfers was a design consideration.
Where did you get that notion from ?

We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged.  

If that's the case, why has virtually every club lengthened its golf course ?

In today's macho US Open, PGA, Masters world, if you don't design a course with some measure of difficulty/length, you won't be able to sell sufficient memberships to sustain it.

One affirmation of my theory is the inordinate number of golfers who play from the wrong (longer) tees.

My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end.  
An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.

Your theory has been proven wrong by Flynn and other architects who purposely incorporated elasticity into their designs.
Your theory has also been proven wrong by experience over the last 30 years.
If you built a course to fit your segment of the market 30 years ago, it would be obsolete today.

There are some who claim that distance has been maxed out.
I'm not so sure.  Will someone develop a new shaft that produces increased distance ?
A ball with a cover that produces less friction/wind resistance ?
A combination ?

My theory is that the theory of elasticity was valid 100 years ago and that it remains valid today.

[TEPaul]

"it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test."

TimN:

I think that one has always been a real poser for anyone to spell. It's a Rorschach test, named after the Swiss psychiatrist, Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), who invented it.

It uses all kinds of ink blot patterns to reveal the underlying personality of someone depending on what they see in a Rorschach test. Now you take, Pat Mucci, for instance; it doesn't make any difference which Rorschach test you show him; he's pretty much going to see a beautiful naked women in any and all of them somehow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Pallotta,

If the design principles/strategic ideas of the Golden Age architects weren't that subtle or complicated, why didn't more modern day architects pick up on them ?