Can we change Minimalism to Naturalism?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Probably more than any architect, you have been linked to the word "minimalism".  This, along with the successful courses that you have designed, certainly has served you extremely well.  However, I think over the last couple of years, the word has been given a meaning of "not moving dirt" instead of many of the concepts that you espoused in "Anatomy".  Based on your posts, I have never gotten the feeling that you have a problem with moving dirt where necessary to have the best golf course.  

I was wondering though whether you think the word "minimalism" (and your link to it) has recently and unfairly hurt your chances to get a job.  For instance, have you ever sought a job where the owner did not hire you because he wrongfully felt that you would not "move any dirt".  

Michael:

If you're referring to the Olympics, no, I don't think minimalism stood in the way at all -- after all, they selected someone who learned his approach from me.  It's possible that my take on sustainability [using the materials right on site, as opposed to importing materials, starting with no USGA greens] was a bit too radical for the Olympic jury, but mostly I just think the politics were on Gil's side.

There have certainly been some jobs over the years where I think clients were afraid that my "minimalist" style was not suited to their fairly dull site ... they just couldn't imagine that I could come up with an exciting course without moving a bunch of dirt.  [They probably wouldn't have been happy with Donald Ross, either.]  Usually, though, I wouldn't even be interviewed for those sorts of jobs.  Of course, we have built a couple of courses which required wall-to-wall shaping, and we've also built some very good courses on relatively plain ground [Riverfront and The Renaissance Club and Common Ground are probably the best examples], so I would disagree with the premise ... I hate to be pigeonholed!  But, you can't be all things to all people, and I can't complain about the number or quality of projects we have landed.

Honestly, the more disturbing trend is the reaction of the golf industry [in the U.S., anyway] to anyone trying to be more sustainable.  I recently brought along a friend of mine who is an expert on sustainability on a consulting visit, trying to get him a little work at a club which could stand to think about the topic.  Their reaction seemed extremely defensive.  I think there are way too many people in golf -- members especially, but also club managers and superintendents -- who are afraid to tackle the topic of sustainability because they imagine their current standards are really more harmful to the environment than they are.  They can't stand the thought of "going backwards" on those standards, or worse yet, losing control of the debate to the radical environmental lobby.  So their solution is to start humming loudly and hope the subject goes away! 

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

There is no question in my mind that Superintendents would embrace a more sustainable approach to golf maintenance now if they knew their jobs were not linked to the current level of expectations.

Members need to understand that the ball will still roll exactly the same even if the greens occasionally look a little less than perfect in appearance. They need to realize a quality surface is about roll, not colour or uniformity.

They need to understand that while this change in approach sounds like a lot of change, the reality is that they will barely notice the difference.


Change will come in Canada through legislation. My fight right now is getting the authorities to allow me enough tree removal to make a lower input style of maintenance possible. Yes tree removal is legislated in many areas here ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Back when we interviewed for the El Paso job that Faz got, it struck me as odd that the city had both a tree planting ordinance and a water conservation ordinance, even though trees suck up far more moisture than turf.  There are just enough examples of legislated environmentalism that are a bit off to make many fearful.  Especially at the national level on countries as big as Canada and the US, where "one size fits all" regulations often fail because the issues are way different from coast to coast.

[Michael George]

Tom - thanks.  I was not talking about the Olympic job but jobs in general.  Really I was just wondering whether the term and the misconstrued meaning of the term has caused problems.  At some point in time, Fazio and Nicklaus got pigeonholed for their manufactured, green look.  While I would not be for it, I would imagine trends will change again in golf course architecture.  

Your discussion on sustainability is interesting.  Has anyone written a book on the subject?  Are you considering it?  

[Jud_T]

Is there any chance that the silver lining of today's difficult economic environment is that it will force some of these sustainability and maintenance issues to the front burner?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Using Firekeeper as my last course and because it was named best public course in KS by Brad Klein and GolfWeek recently, so its among my best, here is your breakdown:

Fairways - No Grading
1, 2, 8, 10, 13,17 and the par 3's (5, 7, 13, 16)

Fairways - Limited/Specific Problem Grading
6 (filled and piped major swale in LZ)
9 (Lowered Green subtantially on uphill hole, grading out maybe 100 yards to tie green in)
12(cut swale in front of green for pad fill, and to create "dead ground for vision deception, a la Pinehurst 15)
14 (Slight cut for vision, level fw
15(Level LZ cross slope)
18(Level LZ cross slope, add "save lip" along creek, shaper added grass bunkers beyond the LZ to help visually split the double fw

Fairways with major grading for vision (routed over hills.....)
3, 4, 11.

So, its 10-6-4 on the fw.

We probably differ a bit on green construction, as most had fill added, none were right on grade, and only greens 8, 10, 14 were built balancing on site cut and fill.  On other projects, I have had more of those.

As for tees, the numbers would be similar to the greens, but more were cut and fill balance in the gentle hillsides.

Overall, I moved 90,000 CY of bulk dirt there. LUI thinks we went over by 20%, which may be the case, we really didn't measure, but still, that is a pretty low earthmoving number.

Moreover, its not all that unusual for me.  Firekeeper replaced Colbert Hills as the top public in KS, and I would have to check the files, but because of rock, we didn't move a lot of earth at all, finding ways to scrape up what we needed.  I think you commented on the lack of earthmoving when you visited there.  Also, I recall you commenting on how little earth was moved on my first project as an associate with Killian and Nugent - Kemper Lakes.

By contrast, my other KS course (now ranked third public in the state) at Sand Creek Station in Newton sits on a floodplain site, with water table a few feet below the surface, and had a requirement for detention ponds as part of the housing.  The earthmoving was over 400,000 CY there.  So, as Tim says, a guy does what a guy has to do!

Hope that answers your question, but I always fell into, and was trained as the forced minimalist by budget....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

I will say that a combo of budget and rising costs did have an effect on Firekeeper.  Aa native americans, they were into all the sustainability we could provide and less disturbance of the land was a given.  Oddly, we seemed to be the only ones who focused on that in our presentation.....

It was also the first time I really could see how budgets would eliminate the desire for 7600 or more yard courses.  We ended up at 7400, but the back tees are about 15 x 15 feet, and require a 200 yard carry over natives to the fairways to save costs.  Still, you have to stretch cart paths irrigation mains all the way around a course, although on a core course, it was much easier than a housing course.

[James Boon]

I've always been sceptical of the various names chosen for different (building) architectural styles, neo this, post that, thingy'ism... as Tom Doak says its just not possible to sum up such complex designs and styles, set in different areas and with different heritage in such a way. The different building styles often manage to do it by having sub genres as it were such as The International Style of Modernism, but even that needs breaking up in all honesty.

Anyway, that aside, I do agree with Ian that Minimalism just isn't the right phrase for the style of golf architecture it is assigned to, especially in relation to other art forms that use the term and that Naturalism is possibly better? Naturalistic is often used in gardening and landscaping but it does grate on me somewhat. I think this has been touched on before somewhere on here, but is it possible that it should be termed Post Modern? Discuss...  

A pity that the guys practicing the "X" style of architecture in question don't  have the egos that the likes of CBM or MacKenzie had, as they could possibly have taken a leaf from the dutch artists and architects of the post WWI period and called it THE Style!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Stijl
(Note: this is a poor attempt at humour and in no way do I see comparisons between the works of Rietveld and Doak   )

Cheers,

James

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks much for your answer in post No. 24.  It fits with the picture you described in another thread about the dominant trend in gca in the late 70s and early 80s, when Pete Dye was the go-to guy for turning poor sites into good courses. (I also liked the image of you and Jim having a discussion with Jack N; Jack seems to me a smart fellow, and a direct thinker/talker: his question as to why 'do less' is in fact a good and valid one). At the risk of getting simplistic/boring, another question: can you identify a point in your career wihen the foundational approach you'd decided to take (minimal earth moving) had added to it a second 'layer', i.e. the layer of naturalism (e.g. blending the edges between the found and the made/the natural and the artificial, so that in theory at least the golfer has unlimited options as to how to play the hole, instead of one or more options obviously prescribed by the architect.)? Did you find it a two-step approach, or instead did you find that the latter, N, was inherent in the former, M?

Thanks, I'm really enjoying this practical-philosophical take on the work; it's like Max Behr and RT Jones squished up together.

Peter

[JMEvensky]

Tom,

There is no question in my mind that Superintendents would embrace a more sustainable approach to golf maintenance now if they knew their jobs were not linked to the current level of expectations.

Members need to understand that the ball will still roll exactly the same even if the greens occasionally look a little less than perfect in appearance. They need to realize a quality surface is about roll, not colour or uniformity.

They need to understand that while this change in approach sounds like a lot of change, the reality is that they will barely notice the difference.


Change will come in Canada through legislation. My fight right now is getting the authorities to allow me enough tree removal to make a lower input style of maintenance possible. Yes tree removal is legislated in many areas here ...

Ian,I think you're spot on about Supers.In my experience,they are only going to espouse sustainability if their Board or Green Chairman backs them up with the membership.Who can blame them not wanting to get crossways with their employers?

If clubs would just get out of the way,Supers would generally deliver a better golf course--and probably with savings in the maintenance budget.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

There is no question in my mind that Superintendents would embrace a more sustainable approach to golf maintenance now if they knew their jobs were not linked to the current level of expectations.

Members need to understand that the ball will still roll exactly the same even if the greens occasionally look a little less than perfect in appearance. They need to realize a quality surface is about roll, not colour or uniformity.

They need to understand that while this change in approach sounds like a lot of change, the reality is that they will barely notice the difference.


Change will come in Canada through legislation. My fight right now is getting the authorities to allow me enough tree removal to make a lower input style of maintenance possible. Yes tree removal is legislated in many areas here ...

Ian,I think you're spot on about Supers.In my experience,they are only going to espouse sustainability if their Board or Green Chairman backs them up with the membership.Who can blame them not wanting to get crossways with their employers?

If clubs would just get out of the way,Supers would generally deliver a better golf course--and probably with savings in the maintenance budget.

JMEvensky:

Sadly, I think Ian is right, it's more likely that memberships are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to sustainability, via legislation ... and honestly, I don't even see that legislation on the horizon, in the current U.S. political and economic climate.

I agree that many superintendents would do much better on that score if they were just left to their own devices, and backed up by their green committees and board.  However, often they pretend that what they're doing is sustainable when they know they could do better, because they need to keep up appearances and they know their bosses don't have their backs.

[David Harshbarger]

Do any of you have experience with Audobon International and their Audobon Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ACSP) program for golf courses? 

http://acspgolf.auduboninternational.org/

Does bringing in an outfit with the strong brand of Audobon help move the needle on sustainability with the membership?

[Don_Mahaffey]

In the golf world, defining sustainability is part of the problem.
Most seem to associate sustainability with environmentalism, and environmetalism with reduced course conditions...less chemical, less water, more native areas, wildlife habitat…etc

But, from what I remember about the roots of sustainability, its about the people and the economics as well. Running a business that is sustainable means the economics work.

Sustainability means employment is sustainable and employees make a living wage, reducing turnover and increasing productivity through long-term retention of qualified people.

I think we always run to the ecology/environmental side of things in golf out of the desire to be viewed as “green”. However, IMO, sustainability driven business practices are just as important and should be talked about every bit as much as the environmental side of things.
Using less chemical is great. Using less of everything is better. Using sustainability as a guide is good business.  

[Steve Howe]

To quote John Lennon (and Ferris Bueller quoting John Lennon):

"A person shouldn't believe in an 'ism', they should believe in themselves"

[JMEvensky]

I agree that many superintendents would do much better on that score if they were just left to their own devices, and backed up by their green committees and board.  However, often they pretend that what they're doing is sustainable when they know they could do better, because they need to keep up appearances and they know their bosses don't have their backs.

Agreed.Even if a Super knows his back is covered today,there's no guarantee that it will be tomorrow.The new boss may not be the same as the old boss.

[DMoriarty]

No architect in their right mind is going to step up and say "I waste my client's money by doing much more than in necessary to build good golf course," especially not in this economy.   They are all going to claim to be minimalists (whether by choice or by necessity) and that are all going to claim that they merely did what they had to do in order to create a solid product.  To understand the difference in varying approaches one might consider the role of nature in golf and ask why designers bother striving to make a course fit into its natural surrounds at all?

To build on what Tom Doak wrote in post 25 about going back to "the old method" of building golf course, I would suggest that generally nature does a much better job of building golf courses than does man.   The best architects realize this and are better able to plan their courses to better utilize all that nature has given, and to understand that they really don't have to do nearly as much as they think they might.

As for the terminology, I don't much like either, but think perhaps one way to distinguish the two terms is to view minimalism as focused on the process, whereas naturalism is more a description of the result.

[Mike Tanner]

The effect of this post didn't immediately lead me to decide whether minimalist or naturalism best described the gca so often debated here.
Reading the comments prompted me to think about the basic human need to answer the question, "What is this thing?"

From there my thoughts ran to the multitudes of names for snow in northern latitudes, picture books for beginning readers, the old saw, "If it quacks like a duck…" and so on. None of those idle thoughts got me any closer to the topic.

Minimalism? Naturalism? Riffing off Tom Doak's reply about being influenced by the way the ODGs designed and constructed courses, I thinkt Old School would be appropriate. Or to spiff it up a bit and borrow from the humanities, Neo-Classical as a nice ring to it.
 

 

[DMoriarty]

A number of years ago I was considering the interrelationship of product and process, and came up with this oversimplyfied graph, although I think I used different terms then:


                                       Artificial Aesthetic
                                                 /\
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l          
                                                  l                                                  
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
Minimal                                                                                Extensive                            
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Alteration                                                                             Alteration
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l
                                                  l                                    
                                                 \/
                                       Natural Aesthetic


The idea was to try and place courses where they fit on the graph, to see what could be learned.   It didn't gain much traction then and I doubt it will now, but I'll speculate that were we to chart world's best courses, most of the old greats would end up somewhere in the bottom left quadrant.  Sort of an extension of the land suitable for golf approach.

Modern courses might present a bit more of a challenge, though, depending upon our understanding of the terms.  Where would we place a course like Shadow Creek? Definitely Extensive Alteration, but could we consider it a natural aesthetic if it does not at all fit in its environment?  

How about a course like Rock Creek, which (for the most part) uses natural contours and fits about as well as it could into its natural environment, yet it required dealing with boulders which covered much of the site?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - thanks much for your answer in post No. 24.  It fits with the picture you described in another thread about the dominant trend in gca in the late 70s and early 80s, when Pete Dye was the go-to guy for turning poor sites into good courses. (I also liked the image of you and Jim having a discussion with Jack N; Jack seems to me a smart fellow, and a direct thinker/talker: his question as to why 'do less' is in fact a good and valid one). At the risk of getting simplistic/boring, another question: can you identify a point in your career wihen the foundational approach you'd decided to take (minimal earth moving) had added to it a second 'layer', i.e. the layer of naturalism (e.g. blending the edges between the found and the made/the natural and the artificial, so that in theory at least the golfer has unlimited options as to how to play the hole, instead of one or more options obviously prescribed by the architect.)? Did you find it a two-step approach, or instead did you find that the latter, N, was inherent in the former, M?

Thanks, I'm really enjoying this practical-philosophical take on the work; it's like Max Behr and RT Jones squished up together.

Peter

Peter:

I would say that four of my associates -- Tom Mead, Jim Urbina, Bruce Hepner, and Brian Slawnik -- all had a hand in moving me from minimalism to naturalism, in different ways.  But I think it took me until we worked on Pacific Dunes to put it all together.  Working in the dunes took me back to thinking about how the links courses I saw in Britain melded everything together, as opposed to the Golden Age courses here in the U.S. which had served as more of a model for our courses up to then.

I'm still getting to the point of really understanding the sustainable part, and Tom Mead has been a big help with that.  A lot of sustainability is just a matter of practicality, which is sorely lacking in how many modern courses are built.  [i.e., Let's ship sand from Ohio down here to Florida!]  But that practicality has effects throughout the rest of the project, and I've always understood that.  If you don't tear up an area in the construction process, you don't have to irrigate it or re-landscape it or fertilize it -- but you've also preserved the ecology and the microorganisms in the soil, and you've saved another place from being mined, and you've saved the fuel to move the materials from A to B, and the damage that traffic would cause on your site.  It's like a domino effect, except we are winding the tape backward and setting the dominoes back up instead of knocking them over in the modern approach.

Sadly, I have yet to have a single client who really appreciates this aspect of what we do, except as how it impacts the bottom line.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks Tom, much appreciated: on a personal level (for me, I mean) I value learning about how your creative processes and goals have evolved for you over time, and how the input of others played a role in that; on a gca/gca.com level, your posts of the last few days and weeks have helped establish a kind of time-line (and a professional narrative) from the early 80s to now that makes it much clearer to me the practical requirements and artistic goals that first set you on the path, the building approach/process which you then utilized, and the aesthetic that evolved over time.  I don't know if you'eve ever written it all down like that before -- and maybe you shouldn't!! And don't worry, neither do I have any plans to set your "narrative" down in stone

Peter    

[Kalen Braley]

David,

I really like your use of Quadrants here.  Using the mathematical model to number them....



I would think the most desirable courses, at least from a GCA perspective, would be in the bottom left hand corner of Quadrant III, and the least desirable in the top right hand corner of Quadrant I.

However, courses that are in Quadrant IV are still going to be pretty good in my book too, and is really what I think defines "Naturalism" on this site.  A nice natural aesthetic, even if means moving a fair amount of dirt to accomplish that.

[DMoriarty]

David,

However, courses that are in Quadrant IV are still going to be pretty good in my book too, and is really what I think defines "Naturalism" on this site.  A nice natural aesthetic, even if means moving a fair amount of dirt to accomplish that.

Maybe, but I am not so sure.  I don't think that it is all that easy to fake natural in a manner that produces compelling golf.  I can think of a few holes that look natural despite major earth moving (I'm not saying where) but what are some courses where excessive dirt was moved to create what looked to be a completely natural environment?     

Also, I'd expect to find some quality courses in what you label as the 2nd quadrant, where the terrain was largely taken to be the way it was, but where the site didn't look all that natural to begin with or where no effort was made to look natural even with the minimal changes made.   Perhaps some of the old links courses might qualify, with their use of RR ties, RR's, sheds, walls, and such.   Or perhaps US example might be Garden City.   

[Colin Macqueen]

Now this is a thread to be printed and cherished. Philosophical, practical and insightful.

Thank you gentlemen, yours in frugality,

Colin

[Kalen Braley]

David,

As it pertains to Quadrant IV, it would seem the Rawls course would qualify here.  A lot of dirt was moved from what started off as a nearly flat site....and it was turned into a naturalistic golf course.  I haven't seen it in person, but this is what I understand from what I've read and seen in person.  Others might claim a course like Chambers Bay could qualify...but with an active quarry right next to it, and the massive quarry wall to the east, its seems fairly easy to deduce that its not a natural occurring piece of land.  Ditto perhaps for a place like Shadow Creek...if they were blind folded on the way to the course and didn't know they were in the middle of the desert.  

As for Quadrant II, nothing is really coming to mind in terms of a course where little earth was moved, yet it still looks fairly artificial in appearance.

P.S.  Would Bandon Dunes be considered a QIII course?  Dream Golf seemed to indicate a lot of dirt was moved...

[Steve Strasheim]

Seems to me that perhaps minimalism is simply one technique to get to naturalism.

Can you get to naturalism, without minimilism? Say you cut down a dune to open a view of the Eye of Ireland and a picturesque coast. That's not mimimalist, but by opening up the natural beauty of the property, could it be described as naturalist? I would think so.