Is the Setting of a Golf Course Part of Architecture?

[BCrosby]

"To either artist, I would suggest, the separation of the two -- background and artistic creation -- is impossible as they are inextricably linked."

That is almost verbatim the conclusion I reached in my post above.

Spectacular views, however, have a way of compensating for less than spectacular architecture. But teasing out where one ends and the other begins is pretty much impossible for most of us.

Bob

[Niall C]

Tom D mentioned some of the old dead guys use of surrounding views in their designs, citing MacKenzie as an example. MacKenzie may well have made the most of the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape as Tom suggests, however he also advised against the development of what is now Royal Tarlair, with it's panoramic views of the coastline, in favour of developing the nearby inland and flattish Duff House Royal course. He did so because of the respective ground conditions. I wonder if modern architects/developers would make the same choice if given the option today ?

It just seems to me that views are a much more important criteria now than perhaps they were in the past which possibly explains the increased popularity of skyline greens in design.

Niall 

[David_Tepper]

Castle Stuart is certainly a good (and quite successful ) example of using surrounding views in the routing/design of a modern golf course. Hanse/Parsinen made a conscious decision to use the landmarks along the Moray Firth as scenic backdrops on many of the holes there.

From the CS website:

"The centrepiece for this Scottish destination golf resort is Castle Stuart Golf Links, a championship links course overlooking the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks that are synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle - Kessock Bridge and Chanonry Lighthouse perhaps the most notable."

[Kirk Gill]

Ah, the classic Huckaby/Mucci divergence. Good memories !

[James Boon]

I've started various responses from both a golf course and a building perspective, but essentially... context is everything!


A good piece of golf course architecture can be in a good or bad setting, but it has still had to respond to it and as its a good piece of architecture it will have no doubt responded well. In exactly the same way a bad piece of golf course architecture can be in a good setting and yet still respond to it badly.


Cheers,


James

[Niall C]

Castle Stuart is certainly a good (and quite successful ) example of using surrounding views in the routing/design of a modern golf course. Hanse/Parsinen made a conscious decision to use the landmarks along the Moray Firth as scenic backdrops on many of the holes there.

From the CS website:

"The centrepiece for this Scottish destination golf resort is Castle Stuart Golf Links, a championship links course overlooking the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks that are synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle - Kessock Bridge and Chanonry Lighthouse perhaps the most notable."

David


I think it was more than them using what they had, I understand that MP chose the site largely because of the views. Rumour had it he saw and passed on the Balmedie site because it largely offered internal views only even though in terms of the raw material ie. sand, it was much better.


I'm just not sure that the promoter of a golf site back in the golden age would have good views that high up his/her list of priorities.


Niall

[Wade Whitehead]

Of course it is.  Without the ocean, 18 at Pebble is just another par five.

WW

[Niall C]

do you mean the ocean as a setting or as a hazard ?

[Mark_Fine]

I really never liked this question and frankly think that common sense should make the answer obvious.  That said, there are clearly mixed responses so that shows there is still confusion on what is part of the design and “architecture” and what is not.  The fundamental problem is that the definition of “architecture” is by no means black and white.  Is the Pacific Ocean next to the 8th hole at Pebble Beach “part of the architecture”?  I am sure some here would say NO.  Are the trees on the inside of the elbow hole (#12 at Pine Valley) “part of the architecture”?  There are some here who would say NO.  Is Mangrove Lake on the famous cape hole at Mid Ocean (#5) part of the architecture?  There are some here who would say NO.  Is the road on the 17th hole at The Old Course part of the architecture?  There are some here who would say NO.  Each of these features plays an integral part of each golf hole yet none of them were “built" by the architect. 


The aspect of golf course design that makes the answer to me obvious is that golf is a game played mostly “in the air”.  As much as I like “the ground game” the ball is in the air most of the time from tee to green.  It also flies in the air over areas that might not even be within the property lines of the golf course (such as the carry over the Pacific Ocean on #8 at Pebble or at #5 at Mid Ocean.  Since the ball travels in the air, this also forces the golfer to look up and look around at his/her surroundings. As such, the design of the golf course is much much more than simply what is on the ground and “on the property” and "in control" of the architect. 


So to answer the question, a golf course design and its “architecture” includes the surrounding space, views, light, shadows, and ambience in its totally and as presented to the golfer in the design of his/her holes by the architect!

[Jon Cavalier]

I'd argue yes, and offer Fishers Island as Exhibit A.

[Joe Hellrung]

IMO, yes.  When you play a course, you should feel as though you are in the place in the world where you are located, and it should give you a greater appreciation for that place. 

This is why I like the Blackwolf Run courses more than the Straits courses at the American Club Resort.  Playing the BWR courses, you know you are in Wisconsin, and a beautiful part of Wisconsin at that, whereas the Irish and Straits courses may as well be on the moon.  Don't get me wrong, Irish and Straits are great courses in their own right, but they don't feel like Wisconsin.  They feel like Pete Dye. 

 

[Brent Hutto]

Another pairing that illustrates Joe H's point is True Blue and Caledonia down in Pawley's Island. I have a lot of respect for True Blue because shot for shot, hole for hole it is very, very good golf. The setting feels like generic "Myrtle Beach" though. It's arguably one of the better courses in the Grand Strand but looks much like any of a couple dozen mediocre ones in terms of the surroundings and the visuals.


But then you play a round at Caledonia where a few of the holes are less than ideal (that little shoehorned in Par 3 for instance). I'd say that hole for hole the shots and options on offer at Caledonia are definitely a notch below True Blue. But it wends it way through Live Oaks and intermittently open ground combined with cool, quiet Lowcountry South Carolina shade and water features. The setting is very relaxing and feels more like Charleston, Beaufort or Savannah than it does the touristy Grand Strand.


Which is why at least 9 out of 10 golfers who've played both express a preference, usually a strong one, for Caledonia over True Blue.

[Jud_T]

Joe,

That's a very astute observation that I hadn't thought of specifically.  I agree completely, except for the part about the Irish being a great course 

[Joe Hellrung]

Definitely debatable on the Irish course Jud!  Of the four, it is definitely my least favorite.  History be danged, I don't care for a golf course that includes a blind par three.

[Brent Hutto]

Tastes differ, I guess. Last year I played at Aberdovey which had two blind Par 3's and also at Royal St. Davids the 14th hole blind and that sucker is 209 yards from the visitors tees and 220+ from the tournament tees. I liked the ones at Aberdovey (probably because I birdied one of them!) but 209 yards of blindness with mounds covered in brambles between the tee and green is pushing it...