Is the Setting of a Golf Course Part of Architecture?

[Frank Kim]

Is the setting, surroundings, or location of a golf course part of the architecture of the course or just "eye candy"?

[Jason Thurman]

Maybe not per se, but how the design makes use of those surroundings to either emphasize them or minimize them is a big part of architecture. Surroundings are also a huge part of the overall experience.

[Mark Bourgeois]

No. If it was, people would endlessly praise the architecture of Old Head. Architects can incorporate the surroundings into their design using concepts like genius loci.

[Adam Clayman]

Clearly, the setting is becoming a huge part of the design because the retail golfer is heavily influenced by it. Much more so than the actual minutia in the ground within the confines.  i.e. whether or not a feature is shaped with the respect to the grade, or a green is receptive to 360 degree recoveries etc.

[Michael G. Miller]

If the setting isn't part of the architecture, then it should be. For the course, regardless of its design qualities, has to seem to fit "naturally" into its surrounding lest it appear to be "placed." Whereas everyone has Cypress Point in mind in this context, it is non the less true that a great deal of the beauty and charm at CP comes from MacKenzie's masterful achievement of "marrying" natural landscape with golf design. The result is that each is enhanced by the presence of the other.

[Pete Lavallee]

Frank,


I realize you just played Banff and probably Jasper too. Those are both great examples of the architect framing his holes with the views in the distance. In fact Thompson actually returned to Jasper and did things like build the mounds behind the 11th green which mimick the outline of the mountains in the background. How can any sane golfer not acknowledge that this adds to the overall experience?

[Mark Bourgeois]

We could be talking past each other. My understanding of the question is do surroundings count as architecture not how do architects incorporate things outside their design into the design.

Nobody would say a restaurant's food is great because it has great views.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sorry but you used Latin so perhaps you are talking through me! Granted in the sense that the view can't affect a golf shot it's not a part of the architecture but to dismiss the effort to frame the hole with a distant view would be demeaning to the architects efforts. Kinda like plumb bobbing, Crenshaw does it so it's good enough for me! Tom Doak has admitted to incorporating distant vistas into the routing so I don't think it can be summarily dismissed.

[Carl Rogers]

This topic is probably why Riverfront (early TD-Renaissance housing development course) does not get the recognition, I think, it should get.  Plus the fact that it has not been stretched out to 7,000 yards from the back tees.

[BCrosby]

As someone once said, there is a tendency in golf architecture to confuse the painting and the canvas.


That's probably inevitable, though they are strictly speaking separate things. But both count in terms of how we experience a golf course. They are impossible to separate.


Bob   

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe not per se, but how the design makes use of those surroundings to either emphasize them or minimize them is a big part of architecture. Surroundings are also a huge part of the overall experience.

Absolutely.  It's not just eye candy, as you can see from the work of MacKenzie and Stanley Thompson and for that matter, James Braid.


Surely some sites start with a distinct advantage over others on this basis, but golf course architecture is all about making use of what you're given, and on a beautiful site, views and trees and prevailing winds all add a great deal to the golfer's enjoyment of a course ... if you use them well.


P.S. to Carl:  Lots of my other courses are not 7,000 yards, either.  Riverfront gets no recognition because it is part of a housing development, and in this era there's a five-point deduction for having houses around the golf course.  That's silly, really, but that's just the way it is.

[Mike Hendren]

Forgetting team allegiance, which stadium would your rather visit:  1) U. S. Cellular Field in Wrigleyville; or 2) Wrigley Field in Armour Square?
 
Wrigley Field in Wrigleyville or Wrigley Field in Armour Square?
 
Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Some people say "No", by which they mean "I am experienced and thoughtful enough to separate the broad surrounds from the actual field of play, and recognize only the latter as being in any way architecturally significant".
 
Some people say "Yes", by which they mean "I think in terms of a golfing 'experience', and not only can't I separate the architecture from the scenery, I wouldn't want to even if I could -- and I don't think anyone else can or really wants to either".
 
I'd say: if the backdrop for the short 7th at Pebble was a farmer's fallow field instead of the rolling Pacific Ocean, would it even exist (let alone be talked about)?
 
Architects say: Give me the best and most beautiful site possible, every single time. I'll figure out the architecture later.
 
Peter

[Mark Pavy]

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/enhancing-architecture-appreciation-through-spatial-perceptions-cultural-studies-essay.php

[Marty Bonnar]

Ref the redacted Pacific Ocean of the splendid 'Mucci-Huckaby Divergence' thread...

F.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ref the redacted Pacific Ocean of the splendid 'Mucci-Huckaby Divergence' thread...
F.

Exactly.
 
Mucci takes the "No" side, Huckaby the "Yes".  I've ping-ponged between the two ever since, but the Huckaby's "Yes" was very persuasive (and I now lean towards it despite my essentially purist/theoretical nature).
 
Unfortunately, Mr Huckaby no longer seems to post here. Sadly, Mr Mucci does....

[Marty Bonnar]

PP, agreed!
I took a lot out of that thread. As, essentially, a 'landscape' guy, I find it impossible intellectually, spiritually and philosophically to ignore the surroundings in which the golf course is situated. A viewpoint which isn't shared universally, apparently.
Luckily, it's a big world.

F

[Jud_T]

No.  If it was Whistling Straights, Bandon Dunes, Torrey Pines, The Alotian and Arcadia Bluffs would all be very highly rated courses.  Oh, wait a minute....

[Jim Lipstate]

Perhaps I am biased as I was lucky enough to play Baxter Spann's Black Mesa course today. The course organically is part and parcel with the amazing landforms of the Southwest. The desert mountains, canyons and arroyos are intrinsic to the design and can in no way be considered just "eye candy". Consider also the "replica" courses that replicate various famous holes but in my estimation almost always fall flat. A great golf hole removed from its natural setting is like a gourmet meal served in the setting of a fast food restaurant. All the ingredients are there but the ambiance is sorely lacking ruining the experience.

[cary lichtenstein]

Definitely

[Mike_Young]

Of course it is if you design by "finding" the course.  If you design by placing the course it is also but it might not be utilized and appreciated as much.

[Sean_A]

It doesn't much matter if the setting is part of architecture or not.  Most golfers are greatly effected by the setting of a course.  Architects understand this and take steps to enhance or mitigate the setting.  If folks don't want to call that architecture thats fine by me (though I disagree), regardless, the setting is important simply because most golfers appreciate beautiful surroundings. 


Dialing down a bit, many courses don't have the benefit of a great setting, but the site itself may be attractive. Is it architecture when an archie takes out trees etc to open up lovely interior views?  I gotta believe the answer is yes.


Ciao 

[Frank Kim]

Pete,


Stanley Thompson actually used the setting in his architecture for his courses at Banff and Jasper.  Tom pointed out to me that it was no accident that Stanley Thompson put green sites where the mountains formed a "V" in the gap.  Adam noticed this also. 


Frank

[Eric Smith]

It is important, I think, to note that the highest rated modern course and the highest rated classic course are both inland courses and have a commonality (besides their great architecture) of being built on sand over great topography.

Will the Sand Valley courses settle into the top tier moderns with the courses at Bandon Dunes? I'd guess that they probably will if the land is as good as it appears to be in the photos I've seen.

Sand+Land+Great GCA is the magic recipe!

[Frank Giordano]

Reply to B. Crosby

"As someone once said, there is a tendency in golf architecture to confuse the painting and the canvas."

I'm sure you're aware that a painting is created on a canvas ... or some linen, or some plywood, or some Masonite, or some other support of the artist's selection (or, in the case of an artist accepting a commission, the client's choice).  And the canvas, or any other of those supports, may be entirely covered by the paint or pastel or colored pencil, etc.; or parts of the support might be left untouched by the painting medium.  Moreover, those supports might be larger or smaller, rectangles or squares or circles or ovals.  To the painter, the canvas, or support, is as much a part of the painting as, for the golf course architect, the environment is to the architecture.  To either artist, I would suggest, the separation of the two -- background and artistic creation -- is impossible as they are inextricably linked.