Most copied architect out there?

[Mark_Fine]

I gave a talk last night in San Francisco on golf architecture and hazards and Bobby Jones Jr was in the audience.  At one point I was commenting about how Flynn used design ideas from Pine Valley in many of his courses and Bobby chimed in in full agreement stating, "architects, himself Included, steal good ideas from other architects all the time"!  Everyone laughed and it got me thinking, which architect today is the most copied and what is it that other architect's are copying? 

[Martin Lehmann]

In the Dutch language there is a motto saying: 'Its better to steal something good then to invent something bad'. I think this applies to golf course architecture as well.


The question remains what's good and what's bad though. My feeling is that copy cat behavior has to do more with fashion, then with sound design. I see a lot of new build courses with (artificial) waste land and excessive use of rough edged bunkers. Why this popular design style is called "minimalistic" still puzzles me. Other fashionable features, at least in North Western Europe, still are island greens. Architects who keep building those (probably to please course owners) in my view should reconsider their profession.


 

[Tim Gallant]

In the Dutch language there is a motto saying: 'Its better to steal something good then to invent something bad'. I think this applies to golf course architecture as well.


The question remains what's good and what's bad though. My feeling is that copy cat behavior has to do more with fashion, then with sound design. I see a lot of new build courses with (artificial) waste land and excessive use of rough edged bunkers. Why this popular design style is called "minimalistic" still puzzles me. Other fashionable features, at least in North Western Europe, still are island greens. Architects who keep building those (probably to please course owners) in my view should reconsider their profession.

Martin,


Others will know better than me, but the rough edged bunker styling on inland courses originally was meant to replicate the look & feel of those found within the links, before bunkers were shaped - a bunker was a blown out sand dune where the sand was exposed beneath. I suppose the origin of the 'rough-edged' bunker is minimalistic, but take your point that in practice, this is not always the case these days. Sand Hills would be minimalistic, and I suppose at the time that the course was built, it was so different from the pot bunkers you find on links courses now and the perfect manicured look you find at Augusta. It took bunker styling back to its origins before it was considered a style, and therefore is seen as being minimalist.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ed Seay.
He took the baton from Dr Mackenzie, had Arnold Palmer bless it, and then handed it over to Bill Coore.
Pete Dye was occupied elsewhere.
Jack Nicklaus worked along the same lines, but without the King's brand of genial populism.
That's where it splits: 2/3rds following JN, but without his 18 majors; 1/3rd following the Coore line, but sans his partner Ben.
And then TD, like his mentor Dye, said forget all that, I'm doing it myself. I'm going straight back to Mackenzie,  but not to his Augusta.

[Scott Weersing]

Can an architect copy himself? Would it be considered copying if an architect built a course with duplicate holes?


If so, then I nominate Rees Jones. Many of his holes look and play the same. Often time, his routing has a par 4 going east and then the next par right next to it going west, each one the same distance. I just played a Rees Jones course and it had 6 par 3 holes and they all played and looked the same.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My guess would be MacKenzie.  For a long time, it seemed most architects (including me) when interviewed mentioned his name the most. 


And, he did have the most artistic bunkers, which have always been in demand (if you are going to build one, shouldn't it look great?) although, whether designing for easier machine maintenance, or lack of attention to detail (like making every cape and bay the same width and heights most fell short of Mac's. But, you still see the basic cape and bay style of his in there somewhere.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Nicklaus and RTJ snr.


Most designers of the 90's and early 2000's had passed through their practices at one time and took the styles with them... gradually been changing to copying a more natural looking style. If the current trend continues for another 15 years, then it will be Doak and Coore

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall my mentors, Killian and Nugent, telling the story of opening their own biz in 1964.  Having worked for Robert Bruce Harris, and staying in the same town, they figured they had to style differently, plus they never liked the clamshell bunkers they drew for RBH for years.  That left them having to decide whether to copy RTJ or Dick Wilson, and they picked Dick Wilson.  They then softened his style for their typical low budget and muni styles.


In a way, I figure there is some Dick Wilson left in my style because of it.  As related earlier, I left them because they refused to try steep bank bunkers, chocolate drop mounds, grass bunkers, etc.  In my last project for Killian, he even tried to stop placing the backing mounds several yards behind the green, because they just "didn't do that" even though he liked the look a lot.


But, I never adapted to the Dye style of flat strip bunkers, and rarely use anything like the JN steep shelf (although it is a tool we do use if steep grades require it) or Strantz, etc.  Of course, the hard part about copying anyone is that you probably won't be perceived as being better at it........and, in theory every project ought to reflect its site and owner needs more than a preconceived style.......

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent is it copying a particular architect or copying what's on TV? To what extent is it even copying a maintenance style?
Atb

[MCirba]

Mark,

The interesting thing about William Flynn to me is that there is no evidence that he ever went abroad to study the great courses.

Instead, his learning seems to be almost pure Americana, from Merion to Myopia.   When he was building the greens and features at Cobb's Creek circa 1915 we have an article where he went back to New England to study Myopia, Essex County, Braeburn, Woodland, The Country Club, and others to get ideas.   

Given the relatively limited number of excellent golf courses in the US at the time he was learning his craft, it's rather remarkable that he designed such a high percentage of exceptional golf courses in his overall portfolio.

[Mike_Young]

The most copied architect is the one who did 18 holes     After that it's hard to tell who did what. 

[Michael Whitaker]

Old Tom Morris

[Tom_Doak]

I recall my mentors, Killian and Nugent, telling the story of opening their own biz in 1964.  Having worked for Robert Bruce Harris, and staying in the same town, they figured they had to style differently, plus they never liked the clamshell bunkers they drew for RBH for years.  That left them having to decide whether to copy RTJ or Dick Wilson, and they picked Dick Wilson. 

Because, of course, there was nobody else back before those two guys to admire.


Pete Dye was widely imitated, and didn't like it much.  At one point, he got so sick of people talking about his golf courses "burning down," that he stopped using railroad tie walls altogether.  And nobody noticed!  Because it was already such a stereotype.


If we're going with bunker styles as the key element, I agree with Jeff that Alister MacKenzie is currently the most-imitated architect.  Pretty much every form of the "hairy edged" bunkers Rees Jones likes to make fun of was tried out by MacKenzie somewhere in the 20's ... from the ragged edges Robert Hunter built at The Meadow Club to the steep sand faces of Royal Melbourne.  But there aren't many people building greens like MacKenzie's ...

[Mark_Fine]

Yes we all agree that most design concepts can be traced back to the dead guys but what about the current guys? 

Mike,
Agreed, Flynn never made the trip across the pond.  It is amazing what he designed despite that.  His lack of travel to see the great links courses is also reflected in his beliefs about blindness, trees, bunker styles,...

[Matt_Cohn]

I gave a talk last night in San Francisco on golf architecture

Was this a public event? I never heard a peep about it.

[Martin Lehmann]

In the Dutch language there is a motto saying: 'Its better to steal something good then to invent something bad'. I think this applies to golf course architecture as well.


The question remains what's good and what's bad though. My feeling is that copy cat behavior has to do more with fashion, then with sound design. I see a lot of new build courses with (artificial) waste land and excessive use of rough edged bunkers. Why this popular design style is called "minimalistic" still puzzles me. Other fashionable features, at least in North Western Europe, still are island greens. Architects who keep building those (probably to please course owners) in my view should reconsider their profession.

Martin,


Others will know better than me, but the rough edged bunker styling on inland courses originally was meant to replicate the look & feel of those found within the links, before bunkers were shaped - a bunker was a blown out sand dune where the sand was exposed beneath. I suppose the origin of the 'rough-edged' bunker is minimalistic, but take your point that in practice, this is not always the case these days. Sand Hills would be minimalistic, and I suppose at the time that the course was built, it was so different from the pot bunkers you find on links courses now and the perfect manicured look you find at Augusta. It took bunker styling back to its origins before it was considered a style, and therefore is seen as being minimalist.

Hi Tim,

In art and architecture minimalism refers to a style in which things are as basic as possible. The famous phrase "form follows function" says it all. For me, golf course architecture is an art as well. St. Andrews is an example where form follows function. As is the case with British course like Huntercombe and Royal Ashdown Forest. I would like to see modern variations on these courses. They could be truly "minimalistic". Instead of the overly designed, expensive, bulldozed courses with a rugged look that in fact are as artificial as can be. They are retro in the wrong way and as far as I am concerned, more baroque and kitsch than modernistic.

[Tim Gallant]

In the Dutch language there is a motto saying: 'Its better to steal something good then to invent something bad'. I think this applies to golf course architecture as well.


The question remains what's good and what's bad though. My feeling is that copy cat behavior has to do more with fashion, then with sound design. I see a lot of new build courses with (artificial) waste land and excessive use of rough edged bunkers. Why this popular design style is called "minimalistic" still puzzles me. Other fashionable features, at least in North Western Europe, still are island greens. Architects who keep building those (probably to please course owners) in my view should reconsider their profession.

Martin,


Others will know better than me, but the rough edged bunker styling on inland courses originally was meant to replicate the look & feel of those found within the links, before bunkers were shaped - a bunker was a blown out sand dune where the sand was exposed beneath. I suppose the origin of the 'rough-edged' bunker is minimalistic, but take your point that in practice, this is not always the case these days. Sand Hills would be minimalistic, and I suppose at the time that the course was built, it was so different from the pot bunkers you find on links courses now and the perfect manicured look you find at Augusta. It took bunker styling back to its origins before it was considered a style, and therefore is seen as being minimalist.

Hi Tim,

In art and architecture minimalism refers to a style in which things are as basic as possible. The famous phrase "form follows function" says it all. For me, golf course architecture is an art as well. St. Andrews is an example where form follows function. As is the case with British course like Huntercombe and Royal Ashdown Forest. I would like to see modern variations on these courses. They could be truly "minimalistic". Instead of the overly designed, expensive, bulldozed courses with a rugged look that in fact are as artificial as can be. They are retro in the wrong way and as far as I am concerned, more baroque and kitsch than modernistic.

Martin,


Great post - and very interesting example provided with RAF. In that case, as you'll know, the club couldn't make any artificial construction on the ground, and therefore, couldn't actually put any bunkers or other hazards on the course that weren't present on the site. You are correct, this is truly minimalistic. However, I would still argue that a place like Sand Hills is minimalistic as well, with greens costing next to nothing to 'create'. I'm sure there was some shaping done, but overall, the holes were 'found'.


The difficulty comes when designers try to replicate the look of a place like Sand Hills on a site that doesn't have the same features and benefits as the site in Mullen. Then a minimalistic vision turns into something different (as you point out!). I started a thread, which I believe is on page 2 now about homogeneous design, which might be of interest.

[Ronald Montesano]

Are you at the hookah again? Ed Seay? AP courses are some of the worst I've played and, thankfully, not imitated by anyone other than one other designer.

Mark Fine:
Would you say that Hanse imitates Doak, as one mentored the other? Does Doak imitate Dye in the same way that Coore might, that Strantz did?

This is a tough thread. I wave the white flag.

Ed Seay.
He took the baton from Dr Mackenzie, had Arnold Palmer bless it, and then handed it over to Bill Coore.
Pete Dye was occupied elsewhere.
Jack Nicklaus worked along the same lines, but without the King's brand of genial populism.
That's where it splits: 2/3rds following JN, but without his 18 majors; 1/3rd following the Coore line, but sans his partner Ben.
And then TD, like his mentor Dye, said forget all that, I'm doing it myself. I'm going straight back to Mackenzie,  but not to his Augusta.

[Tom_Doak]

Martin:  not all minimalistic courses are equal.  Have you seen any of the real ones?  You have painted with a very broad brush and I have no idea what courses you are talking about.

[James Brown]

I would break this down into periods.  In the 60-70-80s everyone was copying from the RTJ playbook.  Long and hard.


Starting in the mid 1990s we started to see a return to the 20s with CBM and MacKenzie being the inspiration. 


The three "reference" architect camps today are Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, and Hanse.  Mike Strantz would have been the 4th distinct camp of modernism if he were still around. 

[Mike_Young]

Where does this Ed Seay stuff come from?  I love what Arnold Palmer did for golf and as a person but I would never consider him a golf architect and more than he was a manufacturer of many of the various products he endorsed.  I think Seay came from the Maples lineage but I'm not sure.  Which one could say came from Ross...
It's funny that no one ever seems to mention Ellis Maples or Joe Lee or Dick Wilson.  Always talking of RTJ when Wilson had his number and RTJ could not stand it.  How can we say someone copies Pete Dye when he was most copying or working from thoughts of Raynor with a little old world mix etc...so I remain sincere that we all are copying the guy who decided 18 was the number...too comlicated to decipher for me...

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,

Talk was to The Honorable Society of San Francsico Golfers.  Great group of people (about 200 strong).  One of the most knowledgeable (about golf and golf course architecture) and passionate groups I have  been privileged to speak to.  It was held at Sharp Park.


Ronald,
I am still on the west coast and tied up.  Will try to answer when back to my office and have some free time.  I was really just curious who of the more current architects gets copied (at least some of their design ideas and/or philosophies) the most.  You have to add Fazio in the mix. 


Maybe to toss out one example, Tom Weiskoph and his drivable par fours.  Was it his original idea to try to always add one in his designs, no, but of the modern guys you might point to him as an architect who brought a lot of attention to the idea and many others started doing the same. 

[Martin Lehmann]

Martin:  not all minimalistic courses are equal.  Have you seen any of the real ones?  You have painted with a very broad brush and I have no idea what courses you are talking about.

Tom,

As a non native speaker in the English language, it can be hard to express myself in a clear manner. Nuances might get lost. My apologies for that.

In essence, the point I want to make is the following: for me there are two main aspects to a golf course. First of all, it's a sports field, suitable for playing the game of golf in the best possible manner. For being that, the field requires a certain size, hazards of different kinds and turf of the right quality. That's all. There is not more to it.

Secondly, there is the aspect of look & feel. Besides being a sport, golf has become a life style kind of thing. For many players, golf is not only about bringing in the best possible score, it's also about having a good time outdoors. For them golf is a stroll in a landscape park as much as a ball game. And they expect a golf course to look in a specific way and to be as pleasant as possible.

There is nothing wrong with these two aspects, the question is how to balance them. You could compare it with a house. The main thing is that a house provides shelter to the people who live in it. But since ancient times, houses are statements of the people who own them as well. That's why castles and mansions were built and beautiful canal houses in Venice and Amsterdam. Until the time of modernism, that started around the beginning of the last century. Building architects began to strip houses and buildings to the bare minimum. Ornaments and showy decorations were banned. The famous French architect Le Corbusier regarded houses as machines to live in. For German minimalist architect Mies van der Rohe less was more.

In golf course architecture this development never took place. There are still two basic references on which all golf courses are based: 1. the rugged, natural look of the classic links; 2. the polished and manicured look of Augusta National Golf Club. Golf course architects vary on these two themes and add more or less personal style elements, but in essence this is it.

Which brings me to the point I would like to make: wouldn't it be interesting to apply the principles of modernism / minimalism from building architecture to golf course architecture? This would mean developing a golf course with the main function as sports field as point of departure. No ornaments, no decorations. It would mean breaking away from the rather conservative golfing world. Many golfers wouldn't understand it and probably most of them would hate it. But for me this would be a very interesting road to go. It could change the way golf is looked at, would make the development and exploitation of golf course less expensive and attract newcomers to the game.

To end with an answer to your question: no, I haven't seen many so called "minimalistic" courses with my own eyes. I would love to play Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes for instance. I have played the two original courses at Streamsong though and various courses in The Netherland that stem from the same school of design.   

[Tom_Doak]

Martin:


Thanks for your response.


I'm trying to imagine a Le Corbusier type of golf course with "no ornament," but it's difficult to imagine.  Perhaps it would be like the early "Victorian" period of golf architecture on inland UK courses and then in the US, with rectangular cross-hazards and the like?  I don't think those bunkers were built to be ornaments, but the style didn't last long before someone thought to make them look nice.


Part of the difference between minimalism in architecture and golf, is the vantage point.  People who live in minimalist buildings DO decorate the inside of them, but outsiders do not see that.  Users and non-users of golf courses tend to get the same views.


I disagree with your last point.  I don't think a golf course in that style would have been much less expensive to build than my own course at Streamsong ... perhaps half a million dollars less for shaping, out of six million total, assuming you were still going to build it to the same length and width.  Actually the savings would be a bit more than that, since you wouldn't need to pay an architect a big fee.  But I'm guessing their revenues would not be as high, either.


P.S.  What courses in The Netherlands stem from the same school of design as Streamsong?

[Carl Rogers]

Martin:  not all minimalistic courses are equal.  Have you seen any of the real ones?  You have painted with a very broad brush and I have no idea what courses you are talking about.

Tom,

As a non native speaker in the English language, it can be hard to express myself in a clear manner. Nuances might get lost. My apologies for that.

In essence, the point I want to make is the following: for me there are two main aspects to a golf course. First of all, it's a sports field, suitable for playing the game of golf in the best possible manner. For being that, the field requires a certain size, hazards of different kinds and turf of the right quality. That's all. There is not more to it.

Secondly, there is the aspect of look & feel. Besides being a sport, golf has become a life style kind of thing. For many players, golf is not only about bringing in the best possible score, it's also about having a good time outdoors. For them golf is a stroll in a landscape park as much as a ball game. And they expect a golf course to look in a specific way and to be as pleasant as possible.

There is nothing wrong with these two aspects, the question is how to balance them. You could compare it with a house. The main thing is that a house provides shelter to the people who live in it. But since ancient times, houses are statements of the people who own them as well. That's why castles and mansions were built and beautiful canal houses in Venice and Amsterdam. Until the time of modernism, that started around the beginning of the last century. Building architects began to strip houses and buildings to the bare minimum. Ornaments and showy decorations were banned. The famous French architect Le Corbusier regarded houses as machines to live in. For German minimalist architect Mies van der Rohe less was more.

In golf course architecture this development never took place. There are still two basic references on which all golf courses are based: 1. the rugged, natural look of the classic links; 2. the polished and manicured look of Augusta National Golf Club. Golf course architects vary on these two themes and add more or less personal style elements, but in essence this is it.

Which brings me to the point I would like to make: wouldn't it be interesting to apply the principles of modernism / minimalism from building architecture to golf course architecture? This would mean developing a golf course with the main function as sports field as point of departure. No ornaments, no decorations. It would mean breaking away from the rather conservative golfing world. Many golfers wouldn't understand it and probably most of them would hate it. But for me this would be a very interesting road to go. It could change the way golf is looked at, would make the development and exploitation of golf course less expensive and attract newcomers to the game.

To end with an answer to your question: no, I haven't seen many so called "minimalistic" courses with my own eyes. I would love to play Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes for instance. I have played the two original courses at Streamsong though and various courses in The Netherland that stem from the same school of design.   

Please read Robert Venturi's essay "Complexity and Contradiction  in Architecture and for extra credit read Charles Moore's "Space, Shape & Scale in Architecture" for a very different point of view.