IMO Discussion: A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture

[JNC Lyon]

You all can find this week's piece, Tom Paul's "A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture," here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul

I'd like to post a few questions to get the discussion started, and then go from there.

In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."

So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well.  Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses.  How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?

Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?

He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s.  What made these courses so undesirable?  I happen to like some of the courses built in that era, particularly some by Robert Trent Jones.  I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes.  Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world?  Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?

[Mac Plumart]

In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."

So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well.  Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses.  How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?    

We could do so much more.  I think the vast majority of us agree on the nuts and bolts, we bicker over the little things.  We could be better organized with a cadre of people (committees if you will) to branch out and take this thing to the next level.




Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?  

YES!




He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s.  What made these courses so undesirable?    



Chris Buie's new IMO piece on Pinehurst #4 is a GREAT example of what these guys did to golf course architecture that negatively affected original golf course designs.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/buie-chris-a-history-of-pinehurst-4
 

[JNC Lyon]

In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."

So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well.  Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses.  How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?   

We could so much more.  I think the vast majority of us agree on the nuts and bolts, we bicker over the little things.  We could be better organized with a cadre of people (committees if you will) to branch out and take this thing to the next level.

Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?  YES!

He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s.  What made these courses so undesirable?    Chris Buie's new IMO piece on Pinehurst #4 is a GREAT example of what these guys did to golf course architecture that negatively affected original golf course designs.
 

Mac,

I understand the negative things these architects did to great classic layouts.  Oak Hill is exhibit A on how the Trent Joneses and Fazios of the world tore through the work of Golden Age architects like bulls in a china shop.  What was it about their original courses that were so bad?  What went wrong, and how?

[Jeff_Brauer]

You all can find this week's piece, Tom Paul's "A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture," here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul


Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?

He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s.  What made these courses so undesirable?  I happen to like some of the courses built in that era, particularly some by Robert Trent Jones. 

I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes.  Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world?  Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?

JNC,

Pete has written and told me personally that he has great respect for Jones work, and that he did it simply because he knew that to hit it big, he had to do something completely different. I played at Prestwick with Pete years ago, and when we reached the 18th tee, he told me that ditch on the right of the fw started it all for him.  He knew RTJ was doing gentle, natural curves, and thought doing straight lines would set him apart.

As far as promoting classical architecture, I suppose I should support it in hopes that any course not designed in the 1930's would feel bad about themselves and retain an architect to rebuild the course!  That said, I would think this new era would then obtain the sameness that seems to be the complaint about the 50's to 90's and perhaps even MORESO since the sameness percieved really isn't true as thought.  Trying to mandate any one style is sure to backfire, IMHO. And, IMHO and experience, we should be looking at the best practices of all eras of design, rather than pick one as best, since all eras are simply responding best to all the factors before them.

And, I still wonder about any design movement based on nostalgia!  Is golf really played the same way it was before?  To be honest, if firm and fast is the goal, I think we just wait around until water restrictions do it for us.  And, accept the fact that in water rich places, like Minnesota, that the courses may play differently than in the desert, which also might be a good thing for golf.  Why substitute a one size fits all standard (or defacto) of one kind for another?  Nothing good can come from a small group of "intelligentsia" telling all the rest of us what to do, as much as we think we know what's best for everyone.  Who knows what great idea you might limit by pre-deciding what is "good?"

If TEPaul proposed such a thing as a renaissance movement, I am sure he would agree, also being the author of the big tent theory of design.

[Tom_Doak]

  I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes.  Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world?  Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?

JNC:  Was that in Mr. Dye's book?  He told that story to me when I was working on the construction crew at Long Cove, in 1981.  There are three or four stories I've told from those personal experiences, that I always wondered if I should tell, because they were shared with a lowly student and construction intern, and not with a golf writer; but I've noticed in the past ten years that Pete has shared some of them with a wider audience, so I guess it was okay.  

What Pete said to me [thirty years ago this summer -- so I'm paraphrasing] was that up until Harbour Town, he had admired Mr. Jones' work and had been following the same trend toward longer, bigger golf courses.  But when he was building Harbour Town, he kept driving past Palmetto Dunes, and he realized that trend could not go on indefinitely; so he decided to go the opposite direction, and keep Harbour Town short and narrow.  

I think the answer to your question is "some of both," but mostly, I think Pete was trying to be different.  Also, it did not occur to me at the time, but since Harbour Town was routed by George Cobb through a development, his hands were tied on making the course much longer; to make it difficult, all he could do was decide to keep more of the trees.  So, at least part of his decision was a practical choice based on the limitations of the site, and trying to put a positive spin on them.

[jeffwarne]

  I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes.  Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world?  Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?

JNC:  Was that in Mr. Dye's book?  He told that story to me when I was working on the construction crew at Long Cove, in 1981.  There are three or four stories I've told from those personal experiences, that I always wondered if I should tell, because they were shared with a lowly student and construction intern, and not with a golf writer; but I've noticed in the past ten years that Pete has shared some of them with a wider audience, so I guess it was okay.  

What Pete said to me [thirty years ago this summer -- so I'm paraphrasing] was that up until Harbour Town, he had admired Mr. Jones' work and had been following the same trend toward longer, bigger golf courses.  But when he was building Harbour Town, he kept driving past Palmetto Dunes, and he realized that trend could not go on indefinitely; so he decided to go the opposite direction, and keep Harbour Town short and narrow.  

I think the answer to your question is "some of both," but mostly, I think Pete was trying to be different.  Also, it did not occur to me at the time, but since Harbour Town was routed by George Cobb through a development, his hands were tied on making the course much longer; to make it difficult, all he could do was decide to keep more of the trees.  So, at least part of his decision was a practical choice based on the limitations of the site, and trying to put a positive spin on them.

and keeping more of the trees help to hide the effects of the development

[Mac Plumart]

Jason...

I hope everyone reading this already knows for certain that I am no expert on things like this, rather an intereted on-looker.  But, regardless, I'll disclaim my thoughts anyone...just to be clear.  Nevertheless, here are some of my thoughts...


You ask, what went wrong from 1940 to 1990's in terms of golf course architecture?  And the name Robert Trent Jones gets mentioned.

I have wondered aloud, recently on this site (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47618.0.html), if non-minimalist golf courses are sustainable.  It seems RTJ's legacy is maximalism, make the land fit your original course idea, bulldozer, remove, add, route with out too much regard for natural landscapes, etc.  And I think this was really neat and new and his PR machine took the whole thing to a rock star type of level.  But in the end, is any of that good for the game of golf?  I don't think it is.

On the rock star type of status golf course architects get, is that good for the game?  Eh, tough one.  If they deserve it and design sustainable, good, and affordable courses...maybe.  But if they are just a hype PR machine deal, doesn't that just jack up the cost to build a course (given the design fee they will demand) and make the specific courses they design less likely to be sustainable?  What is that Tiger Woods course in Dubai (I think) that he pocketed $55 million on that has gone under?  An extreme example for sure, but perhaps it illustrates the point.  Every dollar wasted, if a dollar wasted.  If it is $55 million, if it is $1 million, if it is $100,000...doesn't matter...it is wasted, someone lost it, and the business owners need to recoup that costs somehow.

Furthermore on the rock star status of golf course architects...think of some of the greatest courses of all time.  Are they great because of who designed them...or are they great because they are great courses?  For instance, who designed North Berwick?  Who designed The Old Course?

Speaking of maximalism, we talk a lot about land fit for the game and RTJ seems to have spearheaded building a golf course anywhere.  But back in the day, there are stories of Old Tom Morris taking a single say and staking out a course.  Then they played golf (focus on that process, and don't evaluate this in terms of Tom Morris' golf course architectural skill).  The land was so perfectly suited for the game of golf...you could simply play golf on the land that was already there.  Talk about saving on construction costs.  But perhaps RTJ isn't the epitome of maximalist architecture in this regards, maybe it is Fazio at Shadow Creek, Dye at TPC Sawgrass...hell, maybe we saw man's desire for this "conquest" being revealed at The Lido.  But in the end, this extra cost has to eat up excessive amounts of money and this will put a strain on the operating budget of the courses/clubs in question and, therefore, make it harder for sustainable golf.

Additionally, how many of these maximalist golf courses stick around the Top 100 lists?  Of course, say what you will about the lists...but they are the best proxy we have for great courses that stand the test of time.  I've analyzed these lists and I see some of these types of course have made an initial splash on the lists and faded over time.  I think that speaks volumes.


FYI...3 posts popped up while I was typing...haven't read them yet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

No doubt the rock star status affected design from building to play a game to building a monument.

I also liken it to rock stars who put out a few good albums (thinking Chicago at the moment) and after they are a hit with nice pop sounds, decide they need to make "serious" music and go downhill immediately.

I have also called it "self conscious" architecture (or architecting). I felt it when I got my first big resort course deal.  No doubt I overcooked it a bit because I was so self conscious of it being compared to the big boys.  Basically, if you hit the playoffs with the running game, its not a good idea to start relying on the forward pass at that point. Dance with who brung ya.

Have I packed enough cliches into one post yet?

PS- I actually tend to believe that its only one factor in changes to gca.  Construction technology, a general trend to bigger scale in almost every design field (two lane roads to superhighways, for example) and maintenance innovations and demands, etc.  Can we blame anyone in particular for wanting irrigation to keep turf alive?  At what point did we "go too far" in irrigation, for example?

They summed up one Simpsons episode years ago with the meaning of what happened with "I guess it was just a whole lot of stuff that happened."

BTW, I think our views on this are also affected by "time compression" problems.  The fifties wasn't a one day event as the name sounds, it was ten progressive years.  40, if you say 50's to 90's.  Lots of stuff just happened.

[Mac Plumart]

Have I packed enough cliches into one post yet?

Jeff...

First off, if it ain't broke don't fix it!

But secondly, I've been thinking a lot about the type of thing you are touching on in your quote here, "Trying to mandate any one style is sure to backfire, IMHO."

If you take a minamlist approach to golf course architecture, you should get many different styles...if done correctly...because the land should dictate what the course is.  I am thinking of potential examples, St. Andrews Old looks totally different from Sand Hills, which looks totally different from Prairie Dunes, which looks totally different from Bandon Dunes, which looks totally different from Stone Forest in China.  I can't speak to the minimalist nature of all these courses but the landscapes are certainly different.

[Carl Rogers]

Does the work of the late Mike Strantz enter into this discussion?

To the amateur, me, it seems he was feeding steroids to the usual elements and / or was he just was trying to differentiate himself?

[Mac Plumart]

Carl...

I think Strantz absoluetly deserves to be in the discussion.  I am not educated enough on maintenance and construction of golf courses to know if his work fits the sustainable bill or not, but to me that is a real key question regarding an architects work.  People will favor certain styles, shots, bunker work, greens, etc...but in the end if it isn't sustainable (economically and environmentally) then that is a real issue.

But what is weird, is that since Tom Paul wrote this article I believe a lot of contributors to this site have taken the ball and ran with in the context of precisely what Tom suggested needed to be done.

Here is just one instance...

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46846.0.html

[Adam Clayman]

Another factor that may be at the root of the cause, is over booking the architects time.

The Fazio Push thread's subtext is that with the ability to focus on one job, more, the archiitect turns out a better product.

I suppose Ross, could be the exception, but with his detailed drawings, maybe a picture is worth a thousand words?

[JNC Lyon]

Doesn't the question of "enlightened" vs. "unenlightened" architecture go way beyond construction techniques and maintenance practices? 

I'm in Hilton Head for the week, and we played the Trent Jones Course at Palmetto Dunes today.  I wasn't just struck by the scale of the course and manufactured look.  The course was Penal Architecture 101.  Although the fairways and greens were big, most holes had only one option: drive it down the middle and hit a high, solid iron shot into the green.  With the exception of two holes, 4 and 13, bunkering does not dictate strategy: it merely exacts a penalty on the golfer.  The course was extremely one dimensional.  There was nothing terrible about it, and it was a beautiful course to play.  The course was just boring as a strategic layout.  To top it all off, the greens, while not terrible, were repetitive and very easy to putt.  It is the type of course that the good player will eat up and the bad player will struggle with immensely.

Why did golf course architects begin building anti-strategic golf courses in the second half of the 20th century?

[Peter Pallotta]

I used to imagine that 'rebirths' were the results of profound shifts in consciousness. I now think they are more the products of hungry and ambitious young artists trying to make a name for themselves with art that means something to them. BUT -- why a renaissance gains momentum and is ultimately successful/of lasting and historical value and worth is another question, and the more interesting one.  In that sense, I think rebirths do capture or embody and/or shape the spirit of the times.  In golf, I think we wanted to experience something more natural and (seemingly) simple and old-fashioned, since we'd been satieted by the crass and over-indulgent, and had found that modernity wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Why did golf course architects begin building anti-strategic golf courses in the second half of the 20th century?

JNC, Dr. Klein's famous quote about rich people comes to mind. But the real answer is not just one thing. Looking at Behr's warnings of "Whims of the day", I believe, catches most of the reasons why. Ignorance and a rush to build are the others.

This leads into one of your other questions about gca's roll.

IMO, the roll has been to disseminate information, not so much as guiding a movement. I suppose in the end, armed with the facts and the information, people will end up making the intelligent choice. But, even today, that isn't always true.

[Peter Pallotta]

JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).

P

[Tom_Doak]

JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).

P

Peter:  Not only that.  Perhaps, psychologically, the people who won the war (or simply survived it) yearned for an earlier day when right and wrong were simple and straightforward, where there was little room for nuance or freedom if it could lead to trouble.  That's certainly what Trent Jones and Dick Wilson gave them, and they ate it up.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).

P

Peter:  Not only that.  Perhaps, psychologically, the people who won the war (or simply survived it) yearned for an earlier day when right and wrong were simple and straightforward, where there was little room for nuance or freedom if it could lead to trouble.  That's certainly what Trent Jones and Dick Wilson gave them, and they ate it up.

Yes, but what I see from RTJ is not usually straightforward.  One example is a type of long par he uses often.  The green will be bunkered to the left and open to the right.  However, he builds up the green so that a long, running shot will either find the bunker or be shrugged off to the right of the green.  15 at Crag Burn, 16 at Seven Oaks, and 6 at Palmetto Dunes all contain this type of green.  Many of his holes appear straightforward, but they are only straightforward if you hit long, high tee shots.  There is one standard for the best players at his courses, but for anyone else his courses are gimmicky.  They can be unrelenting and impossible to play without perfect shots.  Is this what the postwar world wanted or needed, something that was uncompromising?

I'm not sure it was a renewed search for security.  It may have been an oft-repeated tendency to tear down what had come before.  People saw the old order (Golden Age courses) as obsolete, and tried to replace them with a new order.

How much of a role did the new equipment play in this type of architecture?  Does modern equipment restrict the renaissance movement that Tom Paul proposes?

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.

Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.

I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?)  at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.

All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.

Bob   

   

 

 

[Sean_A]

Peter -

I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.

Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.

I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?)  at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.

All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.

Bob   

   

 

 

How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII? 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Peter -

I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.

Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.

I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?)  at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.

All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.

Bob   

   

 

 

How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII? 

Ciao

Sean: 

A very good question!

In the USA, of course, World War I had nowhere near the impact on daily life that World War II did.  It was more like a recession, with a vigorous bounce back after two or three years of relative inactivity.  World War II, on the heels of the Depression, was a sea change, not least because the gap was so long that very few of the architects who were busy before the Depression were still around to pick things up after the war.

But in the UK, certainly, World War I should have had a deep psychological impact, and yet the end of it was the kick-off to a very busy and creative period for Colt, MacKenzie and Alison, among others.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I wondered about that too. I'm not sure I have a good answer, but a couple of thoughts.

Frist, from the American perspective, WWI was brief and involved sacrifices from relatively few people. We went immediately into the Roaring Twenties and all of that. A happpy, care free decade. Nothing like the post -WWII recessions, Korean War, Cold War, nuclear bombs, Vietnam, civil rights and on and on.

WWI was, however, a meatgrinder for Britain. Note, though, that nothing like the Great Depresssion preceded WWI. The Edwardian Age as a prosperous couple of decades. But I don't know why British designers in the Twenties didn't take the no-nonsense approach of RTJ in the US in the 1950's. I don't have much of a feel for British attitudes at the time. It would be worth looking into.

Bob    

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - that's a better thesis than mine, fuller.  And I like and think true that men like RTJ felt the shift "in their bones".  And yet, architects weren't philosophers -- they were, among other things, business men, and so by temperament and necessity they transmuted the spirit of the age into practical expression, literally, on the ground. And in that practical sense, I think the spirit of the post war age -- growth and stability and new homes and suburbs and technology as the saviour -- did lead to, for lack of a better word, a 'utilitarian' view of golf and giolf courses and what courses should be and how they should be built.

Sean - just a guess oif course, but I think that after shock of the first world war, many felt the need to let loose and celebrate life and passions and personal expression (e.g. the jazz age, and market speculation, and F SCott Fitzgerald and 'Ulysses' etc), while after the second war a more sombre and utilitarian view took hold.

Peter

edit - just saw the two good posts

[Mac Plumart]

WWII was preceded by The Great Depression as well.  Maybe that fits into Peter's call on a more somber mood for the people of the era.

[JNC Lyon]

Bob - that's a better thesis than mine, fuller.  And I like and think true that men like RTJ felt the shift "in their bones".  And yet, architects weren't philosophers -- they were, among other things, business men, and so by temperament and necessity they transmuted the spirit of the age into practical expression, literally, on the ground. And in that practical sense, I think the spirit of the post war age -- growth and stability and new homes and suburbs and technology as the saviour -- did lead to, for lack of a better word, a 'utilitarian' view of golf and giolf courses and what courses should be and how they should be built.

Sean - just a guess oif course, but I think that after shock of the first world war, many felt the need to let loose and celebrate life and passions and personal expression (e.g. the jazz age, and market speculation, and F SCott Fitzgerald and 'Ulysses' etc), while after the second war a more sombre and utilitarian view took hold.

Peter

edit - just saw the two good posts

Peter,

Most architects in the Golden Age did not make golf architecture a business, mainly because they were already set financially.  Donald Ross managed to make golf course architecture a business, but he built courses that go beyond basic utilitarian needs.  His courses have a charm and flair that go beyond most architecture in the modern era. He even built many of these courses in the Depression and postwar periods.  Furthermore, Robert Trent Jones did some of his most daring work in the earlier part of his career in the immediate postwar era.  How should we reconcile that?

I'd still like to know if this change in the mindset about golf architecture was due to changes in technology.  Does this technology, which remains today, restrain a renaissance movement?