Does minimalism really matter to anyone

[Patrick_Mucci]

other than the developer interested in costs ?

NGLA might appear like a minimalist course to some, but, it's far from it.

Yet, the product is outstanding.

Does anyone playing NGLA care that the greens and footpads that hold the greens were constructed ?
Ditto many of the tees ?

Isn't minimalism typically a by-product of the site ?

It would seem that the sites at Sand Hills, Friars Head and GCGC would better lend themselves to minimalism than
Yale, Lido or Shadow Creek.

If the product is outstanding, does the methodology for achieving greatness matter ?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Spot on with minimalism vs earthmoving to achieve a great course.
Bayonne may look natural, but is completely bottom of the harbor sand fill, and there are many coueses that could have used quite a bit more earthmoving to have achieved a reasonable layout.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RMD,

How could I forget about Bayonne, good call and a perfect example of a course that fits my question ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Minimalism matters to me (in the way that I apply it) regardless of site....

But yes - every site is different - some need more, some need less. You therefore have to apply the word minimalism differently each time.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think minimalism matters, because if you dismiss it then you have the opposite -- every course being judged on why they didn't move as much earth as Shadow Creek and Bayonne [or, if you prefer, Lido] to achieve a "perfect" design. 

That's the way things seemed to be going twenty years ago, and it's still the way they're going as far as construction standards, which is one reason new golf construction has become unaffordable.

I don't think a course should be JUDGED based on whether it's minimalist or not ... in the end, the only thing that matters is what you've given the golfer to play.  But I do think you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible.

[Sean_A]

But I do think you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible.

Is this really true?  Mind you,how does one define "possible"?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

While I have at times been part of the "land is putty" school, I do think most great writings about design say that there is an unseen but always present and felt connection between man and nature.  Going further, feeling good is somewhat dependent on keeping as much nature as possible to retain that connection.  That holds for architecture, landscape architecture and golf course architecture, maybe even interior design.

To me, that would be the big intent of minimalism, especially since most golf courses have been built that way for 500 years, perhaps for economic reasons, but also, designing for the function of golf is less intrusive to nature inherently than a parking lot, structure, etc.  It seems a shame to not utilize that human-nature connection to your best effect.

Otherwise, in theory (and a few times in practice) minimalism is just another forced design style that an archie chooses.  As to defining "possible" that of course varies and the best do it well, others not.  There are hundreds of Midwest courses that are minimalist, by budget, but poorly executed in design.  There is still the artistic content and whatever style an archie chooses, he must provide both playable conditions and aesthetic features. 

That might mean only grading a few fw, vs. perhaps Faz grading every one of them to achieve a valley and containment effect.  One style accepts a different type of shot value to leave the land where it is, another style sets a particular play value and manipulates to get it to a far greater degree.

Hard to define exactly what possible is, and its all along the gradient.  In the end, very few know what the architect accepted, did do, didn't do but considered, etc. to achieve their vision of the final product.  To answer the direct question, no, it doesn't matter as long as its executed well and the final product is pleasing to enough golfers to get reasonable play levels.  In some cases, like Wolf Point, maybe the threshold of how many golfers must like it is exactly 1!  But, that is rare.

[Tom_Doak]

But I do think you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible.

Is this really true?  Mind you,how does one define "possible"?

Ciao

Well, I guess I've made the assumption that the site has its share of natural character.  Some don't, obviously. 

The only natural character we had at The Rawls Course was the wind ... it was all so flat it didn't really drain anywhere, and there were no features at all.  So you had to move earth there, the only question was when to stop.  And, as I said before, you don't want to face that question every time out.

[Carl Johnson]

Question for the experts.  How does drainage come into play in the minimalist equation, or does it?  My layman's thinking has been that over long (geologic) periods of time, land comes to take the best form for natural drainage, and that you should leave as much of that alone as you can.  If you start pushing dirt around, then you're likely to create drainage issues (I've seen it).  Of course, I'm assuming that you're not trying to build in a swamp (or other unsuitable land).

[Jason Thurman]

There are hundreds of Midwest courses that are minimalist, by budget, but poorly executed in design.  There is still the artistic content and whatever style an archie chooses, he must provide both playable conditions and aesthetic features.

I've debated this with friends before. Is a course that's "minimalist" by budget also inherently a minimalist design?

Growing up in Central KY, I played a lot of courses designed by Buck Blankenship. You could argue that he was a minimalist architect, since most of his courses were low-budget and he moved little dirt. However, the dirt he did move was always readily apparent. It didn't blend in to the natural contour of the land nearby. His courses also were often built on old farms, so they'd regularly feature manmade irrigation ponds and heavily graded, flat sections.

Personally, I don't consider Blankenship's courses to be examples of "minimalism" even though he moved less dirt than any other architect whose courses I've played. I think of minimalism more as an aesthetic than a stipulation of a budget. But I could be wrong.

[Brad Isaacs]

Minimalism is about how the course psychologically fits in the brain. Take Atlanta AThletic Club as a example of not minimalism,when a fairway sits hanging in the air, it sets up a discordance that just isn't right to the brain. It is the visual look of the golf golf course and how it fits into the terrain that the brain says,,,,, this looks right. You can achieve this by moving a lot of dirt or not.

Some designers get this,some don't.

[Tom Dunne]

Isn't minimalism typically a by-product of the site ?

It would seem that the sites at Sand Hills, Friars Head and GCGC would better lend themselves to minimalism than
Yale, Lido or Shadow Creek.

Not necessarily, Pat. I interviewed Bill Coore on this subject back in 2006--he asserted that based on the amount of earth moved, Kapalua Plantation is much more of a "minimalist" golf course than the two at Talking Stick.

And Sand Hills, when you get right down to it, is a pretty bold site. That wasn't the easiest routing in the world to dream up, and it would've been really easy for an architect to have wound up with blind shots all over the place. Even some of the outlying holes on the C&C constellation map, had they been chosen for the final draft, would've led to awkwardness in one way or another. I think it's easy for us now to look at that site and see a minimalist approach being the obvious/natural way to go, but it certainly wasn't at the time.

[Tom_Doak]

Question for the experts.  How does drainage come into play in the minimalist equation, or does it?  My layman's thinking has been that over long (geologic) periods of time, land comes to take the best form for natural drainage, and that you should leave as much of that alone as you can.  If you start pushing dirt around, then you're likely to create drainage issues (I've seen it).  Of course, I'm assuming that you're not trying to build in a swamp (or other unsuitable land).

Carl:

That's always been exactly my approach -- if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  It's never more valuable than when applied to surface drainage.

[Adam Clayman]

Minimalism is about how the course psychologically fits in the brain. Take Atlanta AThletic Club as a example of not minimalism,when a fairway sits hanging in the air, it sets up a discordance that just isn't right to the brain. It is the visual look of the golf golf course and how it fits into the terrain that the brain says,,,,, this looks right. You can achieve this by moving a lot of dirt or not.

Some designers get this,some don't.

Brad, this is a modern version of a Behr interpretation.

That a golfer will be negatively affected, either consciously and/or subconsciously, when the hand of man detracts from the natural.

However, I believe one has to experience that indescribable joy of appreciating naturalness, whilst golfing their ball, to pick up the antithesis.

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that we have so many examples of incongruous architecture that pulling out the hand of nature card is a bit cheeky.  Sure, if it ain't broke don't fix it - I am much more in favour of that to a far greater degree than practically anybody on this board.  BUT there is something wonderful about the 16th at North Berwick etc etc on forever that just can't be achieved without an archie thinking outside the box.  There is a place for that bold OTT architecture that most sites will not provide. Not only is there a place for it, but I think every course should have a few moments that just don't add up when the golfer surveys the land. Why not?  Why must creativity be the slave of nature when at least to a certain degree the golfer must suspend his belief of what nature is to call golf a game in nature?  Faking/blending man-made shaping imperceptibly into nature is fine, but so is the out of the box shaping which we see from 100+ years ago that looks very cool regardless of how well it fits the landscape.  I think sometimes we are guilty of not allowing courses to fully mature - that is let them get beat by weather for 50 years - before passing judgement.  There are obvious reasons for that.  I spose the archie just needs to know when and where he can pull of the outrageous, but I think most archies aren't overly interested in being radical because golf and golfers are in the main by nature conservative.

Ciao

[JC Urbina]

Patrick,

I live in the Denver area and I know that some of the regional golf course designers have been creating minimalism designs since the 50's and 60's .

Very simple greens and bunkers on pretty flat sights.  They were building very cost effective golf courses long before the 80's and 90's rolled around.

I think the phrase that Ron Whitten coined back in the 80's was a statement that was simply going against the norm of big budgets and home development golf courses.  People like Bill Coore were really doing creative things using far less dirt.  I am almost positive that Bill figured out that a set of cool greens were the key and it didn't take much to shape in those features.

I came from the school of moving dirt, Pete and his sons were not afraid to move a million yards on every golf course.  I was involved as the lead Design Associate for The Rawls Course at Texas Tech, after several years away from the mega dirt operations  I found myself working hard to find ways to be more creative with the dirt.  With help from very talented shapers the land form turned out pretty good.

Contrary to when I was building Pacific Dunes where cool landforms appeared at every turn and for me knowing when not to touch the Dirt/ Sand made the golf course appear way more intersting.

I don't think the term minimalism is always  the description for good golf.  I think a good landform is the key.  I have looked at few sites that lend themselves to good landforms.  It remains to be seen how good the golf turns out

Pacific Dunes was an excellent landform.

[Jud_T]

Aside from costs, environmental impact etc.,  minimalist courses have a certain naturalism, for lack of a better word.  Just compare say Pac Dunes and Whistling Straights, both highly rated courses.  The latter just leaves a funny aftertaste for those who care about such things.  The best shapers in the world can only do a reasonable facsimile of the micro and macro humps and bumps that Mother Nature can.  If one of the salient points of golf is to commune with nature then one can only fully do so on a course that is built and maintained with a minimalist aesthetic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I think minimalism matters, because if you dismiss it then you have the opposite -- every course being judged on why they didn't move as much earth as Shadow Creek and Bayonne [or, if you prefer, Lido] to achieve a "perfect" design. 

That's the way things seemed to be going twenty years ago, and it's still the way they're going as far as construction standards, which is one reason new golf construction has become unaffordable.

I don't think a course should be JUDGED based on whether it's minimalist or not ... in the end, the only thing that matters is what you've given the golfer to play.  But I do think you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible.

Tom,

I understand what you're saying and I understand the "can you top this" mentality.

A friend of mine built a house in the Hamptons a few years ago.
He was so impressed with the builder's work that he went into a partnership with the builder.
He bought land and the builder built five homes.
Four of the houses sold shortly thereafter, but, the last home, listed for $ 14,500,000 sat on the market for three (3) months.
He was about to lower the price to $ 12,500,000 when someone familiar with the market in that area told him that he was nuts, that he should increase the price.  He thought the person was crazy, but, what did he have to lose, he could always reduce the price.
So, he increased the price by $ 4,000,000 to $ 18,500,000 and the house sold within a week.

WHY ?  Why did it sell for $ 18,500,000 in the blink of an eye, when it sat on the market for months at $ 14,500,000

Because some people want to announce how much they spent on their house.
Call it a twisted "Red Badge of Courage" syndrome.
And for a while, that's how golf course developers felt.
Is Liberty National not "Exhibit A"

Even Arthur Goldberg had a little of that syndrome in him, he wanted to out Wynn, Steve Wynn.

Often, I play an old course and say to myself, that most modern day (1950-1990) architects wouldn't let this natural fairway remain, they'd bulldoze it flat.

I think that some of the qualities/features that endure, without fear of alteration, are those features found naturally, that have been incorporated into the design.

Manufactured features seem to be more at risk, because trends, fads and what's en vogue changes, but, nature doesn't.

Just a thought.

[Charlie Gallagher]

My two cents.
It's a combination of site topography, budget, and the creative mindset of the architect as to how minimalist one can be. There are architects who see a ledge out crop who want to blast it and others who would employ the feature as a natural defensive butress in the creation of a hole. I'd say one of those architects is more of a minimalist than the other, and most likely, more creative.
   It seems to me that there has to be balance in creating a pleasing course.  No site is perfect and there is going to have to be earth moved on any course to create 18 solid golf holes that are a test of skills and enjoyable to behold. If creativity is in abundance, then imagination might lead to a design where earth moving can be minimized. I doubt on most sites it can be eliminated.
   As additional elements the minimalist approach should also incorporate creativity in the choice of grasses and sand used, the number of sprinkler heads needed, the type of green engineering employed, and the cost of maintaining the finished product.  It seems to me that minimalism is a tool to be used judiciously to create a good, sustainable, course.
     

[Michael Ryan]

Does a minimalist approach ever become the "reason" a particular course can be built in an area that might have complications due to zoning or land use?  If so, I would say that is one of the only reasons that a regular golfer would care. 

As an amateur golfer with no "skin in the game" as far as being a course owner/operator or involved in construction or design-I am always impressed when I hear that a course was designed with a minimal amount of dirt moved.  However, I have also been very impressed when playing Bayonne and Yale-which I understand were significant projects in this context during their specific times of construction.

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - thanks for a good post.

A decent enough label, minimalism is, but your post reminds me that of course it all comes down not to the label or even to the goal, but to the talent and intention and tastes and belief system of an individual architect/team. 

There can be great landforms aplenty on a given site, but without they eyes to see them, without a heart that loves them in their natural state, without the creative intergity to use -- simply because on believes it will work -- a landform that many others would find bland/uninteresting, and without the talent and imagination and understanding of golfing principles to turn that landform into a a quality feature of lasting value and interest, an architect can spout off all he/she wants about minimalsim and even give the approach his best college try -- but it will all be for nought.   

In gca, the proof is certainly in the pudding. What's actually on the ground says it all -- but of course neither aechitects nor us amateur egg-heads around here can leave it at that...

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

PPallotta,

Your statement:

What's actually on the ground says it all would support the premise that minimalism is mostly irrelevant if the product is superior ?

[Peter Pallotta]

It might support that premise if you're loooking for black and white answers, save for two previous statements from the professionals implicit in my post: Tom D's point that "you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible", and JC's point about how his minimalist experiences helped him, after years of being away from the dirt moving model, to "find ways to be more creative with the dirt." In other words, as I hoped my post clearly suggested, in the right hands and with the right land the minimalist approach/ethos will bear good fruit, and will indeed be made manifest on the ground (as oppossed to in theory only).

Peter 

[DMoriarty]

PPallotta,

Your statement:

What's actually on the ground says it all would support the premise that minimalism is mostly irrelevant if the product is superior?

Not if "minimalism" is the best methodology for a producing superior product on a quality site.

[Jason Topp]

The 18th at White Bear Yacht Club is a miserable hole by any reasonable analysis.  It is 340 yards blind over a big hill to a round green with some water placed around the green to catch a truly bad approach by a high handicap player but not really impact a decent golfer.  A modern architect would have done something different - likely flatten the hill and create some sort of 400 yard hole that is visible.  The theoretical modern hole would likely be a better golf hole but the current version creates something quirky in keeping with the rest of the course.  You remember the finish and wonder what in the world they were thinking when they chose that hole.

The advantage of minamalism is that it forces solutions that are unique, memorable and reflect the land upon which you are playing.  The pieces might be inferior but the total experience seems superior.

[Tags:]

Tags: