Naturalism vs Minimalism

[Kalen Braley]

Tom D mentioned in another post that Sweetens Cover isn't Minimalist given what was there.


My question is given a uninteresting site...whats more preferred for the future of a game.  A minimalist course that keeps its featureless land?  Or one that is constructed/manipulated, at greater cost, in such a way to appear Natural with interesting features?  (Think Kingsbarns)

[BCowan]

Raynor or MacD wasn't a minimalist???

[Peter Pallotta]

K -
He'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense is that about 10+ years ago Tom D had a breakthrough in his regard. The two terms are not necessarily synonymous, though they are (or at least can be) part of the same continuum. And they are not necessarily opposites, either.
What naturalism can, I think, more directly aim at and achieve (than minimalism) is a kind of "freedom golf" in which the aesthetics serve to help broaden out the scope and meaning of playability beyond the usual concepts of strategic options. 
Which is to say: I don't think the choice/distinction is between going with what the site gives you and not going with what the site gives you, ie manufacturing it.
Instead, I think the choice/distinction is between designing a course that looks like it's been there a hundred years and is strategic and fun; and designing a course that looks like it's been there a hundred years and is full of freedom and fun.
And I think that choice comes down not to what the land offers or even what talents an architect may have, but to his intention.
SC is not minimalist; but I don't think it's an example of naturalism either, IMO. (And that's not a criticism -- the course seems to me a wonderful one.) And similarly, I don't think Kingsbarn is either minimalism or naturalism -- and least not in the way I understand the term.
I think Tom D, for example, has almost always abided by the minimalist ethos/approach; but has only occasionally chosen to pursue naturalism as well (or instead, as the case may be).
When I think of naturalism in Tom's work, I think of courses like Ballyneal and The Loop.
Peter

[JMEvensky]

All Naturalism is minimal but not all Minimalism is natural?

[Kalen Braley]

All Naturalism is minimal but not all Minimalism is natural?

JM,


That's not how I understand it.


A "Natural" course could be minimalist, or it could be heavily modified to achieve the Natural look...(once again think Kingsbarns)


As well as a Minimalist course could look very unnatural... think squared off putting surfaces and rectangle bunkers....

[Thomas Dai]

When little £$€ is available it's unlikely that much earth/sand will be moved.
And once-upon-a-time, even if there was funding, there wasn't any/much equipment available to do the earth/sand moving expeditiously, especially in more testing terrain.



Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Kalen,


this topic has been done at least once before but certainly is worth a another look. Naturalism is a name often associated with the style so beloved by many GCAs of recent years. Chunked or wispy bunkers and long flowing contours that flow seamlessly in and out of the golfing features. Heralded by some as following in the best traditions of the golden age and the likes of Ross and Mackenzie these proclaimers state it is a style that makes the course look part of the landscape through aesthetics where as the great designers of the golden age actually made the course fit the proportions of the land it lay in.


Naturalism is a tagline and no matter how misguided (which this one certainly is) all styles need a name to categorise them. Fresh and exciting in the early 2000s, naturalism has become somewhat jaded with over use. It will be interesting to see what styles the next generation of GCAs come up with trump the present clutch of golden children GCAs.


Minimalism is not a style but a philosophy. It means doing the bare minimum to create a golf course. There are many examples of very good golf courses built to this philosophy. The golfing features such as bunkers or tees on minimalist golf courses are often very manmade in appearance but given the right piece of land they can also appear to be part of the landscape. However, the important thing is that they are in proportion with the landscape they occupy.


Jon

[Sean_A]

I don't think of the terms minimalism and naturalism as a way to decide how a course will play.  All manner of courses along the fun-hard and penal-strategic spectrums can be covered by minimalism and naturalism.  To me, naturalism is a visual style, not a playing style.  A style which breaks away from the garden-parkland pretty style of which ANGC is probably the best example. Minimalism is more an effort to do as little as reasonably possible in terms of bling, hence the reason sandy, rolling terrain lends itself very well to this ethos. Ironically, it is often these sites on which we see naturalism heavily employed to "complete a picture" with fine details thus throwing out the concept of minimalism to some degree.  Go to anyone of hundreds of public courses in the US and true minimalism will be on offer because it is cheap...yet not so pften cheerful  Naturalism on the other hand is relatively expensive.  Perhaps not quite as expensive as the garden-parkland look, but attention to detail doesn't take care of itself. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

To me, the main goal/purpose of a naturalist approach and aesthetic is not an aesthetic one. Instead, the main goal of naturalism is to enrich the playing experience by blurring not only the edges of the field of play but also those signs & signifiers of strategic options/choices that are (rightly) celebrated in minimalist courses.
In other words, naturalism -- by muting and disguising the key elements/features of good design -- actually adds nuance and subtlety to those elements and features, and thus makes for an even more interesting and challenging game of golf.
That's why I mention the naturalism of The Loop. When greens are designed to accept and facilitate and make interesting and challenging golf shots that will be coming in from two distinct directions, they will necessarily have to look -- and play -- more naturally than even high quality minimalist greens. Why? Because the beloved (but rather distinct) openings and angles that Tom and C&C manage to achieve on their minimalist courses can't work in such a clear cut way on a reversible course.

[Ira Fishman]

I want to go back to Kalen's original question and hope to avoid the lively debate about definitions.  For the future of golf, I would much prefer a developer who is willing to invest the money to transform an originally uninteresting site into a strategically intriguing and fun to play golf course.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Ira,


Thats what I had hoped we would get out of the conversation.  Weighing out the extra costs to turn a featureless piece of property into something interesting from both a design and maintenance perspective to make it more Naturalistic.  As opposed to going with the cheaper costs of keeping it minimalistic and hence cheaper ongoing costs.


Which approach is better for the future of golf?

[Steve Lang]

   As long as I don't see any man made signs that say Environmentally Sensitive Area, I'm good with naturalism...

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen, there's plenty of room for both approaches (and for others).  I just don't like seeing the minimalist label applied to anything and everything new and stylish, as we tend to see now.  Rob Collins' hands-on shaping may be a similar approach to construction as ours, but the style of design is very different I think. Which is great; I would be just as happy if more designers were doing different things

[Jon Wiggett]

Ira,


Thats what I had hoped we would get out of the conversation.  Weighing out the extra costs to turn a featureless piece of property into something interesting from both a design and maintenance perspective to make it more Naturalistic.  As opposed to going with the cheaper costs of keeping it minimalistic and hence cheaper ongoing costs.


Which approach is better for the future of golf?

As Tom Doak says there should be room for both and in answer to your question it is certainly both. Golf needs diversity of choice and the lower end of the market where the vast majority of new golfers come from has been sadly ignored by developers.


I do sometime wonder what people look at when saying that flat sites need a lot of earth movement to make an interesting golf course. Look at a course such as Kilspindie or Mussleburgh Old and you see two extremely fun courses built on flattish sites.
 
Jon

[Tom_Doak]

Golf needs diversity of choice and the lower end of the market where the vast majority of new golfers come from has been sadly ignored by developers.

Jon:


This is a thought repeated often on Golf Club Atlas no matter how many times I correct it.  The problem is not that developers are ignoring the market, the problem is that there's no way for them to serve it profitably, because it costs too much to develop a new course, and no real "developer" is in it to take a risk but eschew the potential reward.


But, I'll make you an offer [and anyone else out there]:  if you want to develop an inexpensive course, I'll gladly design it for one dollar, plus 50% of any profits you take out of it.


I saw Pete Dye get ripped off over this offer once, so there would be some caveats in the fine print of the contract:  I get the profits if you sell the course, for example, or you can't pay yourself a $500,000 "management fee" to make the profits go away.  But, otherwise, it's a legitimate offer.  I just doubt many people will take me up on it, because they aren't really committed to developing a course for the good of the community.

[Peter Pallotta]

That would work, Tom - as long as you also agreed to come out and hit the ceremonial opening tee shot and follow-up with some media Qs and As. 
Which is to say: assuming a quality golf course, it's all about marketing after that. And one could market a public, low-cost, naturalistic and environmentally sustainable golf course by one of the world's top architects just as easily and successfully as one could market yet another sprawling, high-priced resort destination.
An opening tee shot and Q and A is an essential tool in that regard.     
You'll know much better than I do: but I think that an architect's fees are just a fraction of the total development costs; and that those development costs (whether $2 million or $20 million) have little to do with the developer's (predetermined) price point/green fees. 
The difference is in intention; and the kind of people who become golf developers tend to be those who intend to make the golf course a prestige/boutique/high-end experience and charge $200+ for a round there; they want to make money, of course, but more so they want to make sure to impress their wealthy and well-traveled friends.   
But surely theirs can't be the only viable intention.       
And surely, even the most craven and self serving media types will be okay, at least this one time, with not being flown out to a far-flung resort course and fed bison burgers and $9 dollar organic milk shakes if the cause/golf course is a good one.
Indeed, they might be quite easily shamed into praising a new low-cost, sustainable brand of golf that's aimed at being a good for the community instead of merely further lining the pockets of, and serving, the 1%. (I don't think, developers aside, it's really the 1% -- but, you know, that's in the air these days and one might as well use it.)   
Peter

PS - in my neck of the woods, the most successful new course (about 4-5 years old, I think) was built by the same family that owns the "Victoria" family of courses. Vic East was built in the early 70s on flat farmland; 18 holes, 6500 yards, no more than 10 minutes from the centre of town. Vic West, right cross the street, was built at roughly the same time; it was a shorter course, also 18 holes. They sold the latter course a few years ago for luxury housing, but at the same time built 27 new holes about 5 minutes further away -- Vic Valley. A rolling, hilly property, with the 3 nines comprised mostly of Par 3s, some short 4s, and a couple of half-par 5s. Good, decent golf, and very fairly priced....and it is busy all the time: families, youngsters, ladies groups, seniors, and lots of the rest of us nipping out for a fun, quick 9.  You take a course like that but with a naturalistic and minimalist style and ethos, and break some new ground re sustainable maintenance practices, and have some very cool greens, and heck, make it reversible, and you market that and you'll have folks flocking from miles around to play it from morning till night. Design it for $1 dollar and keep construction costs down, and there would be enough profit to satisfy any sane person.     

 

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think its by accident that the one course I've seen which is the best marriage between Minimalism and Naturalism is CommonGround.  I know it was built on a relative shoe-string budget, but still has natural interest and options otherwise without breaking the bank...

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Me going out and hitting the ceremonial tee shot is not worth much publicity-wise - especially if you have seen my swing    That bit is so overrated it's not even funny.  There will be the same story in the newspaper regardless of whether the architect shows up.


Other marketing efforts can make a great difference.


But, the owner has to be incentivized to keep costs down, and most aren't.  The only one among our client list who really walks the walk is the Colorado Golf Association [men's and women's], who own and operate Commonground.  The rack rate for golf there is $60, but it's $45 for CGA and CWGA members, and there are senior and junior discounts on top of that.  They are operating as a non-profit and trying to keep costs down, so I believe that it would be hard to build a new facility and operate for less than those numbers and try to break even.  [And that was after they inherited the land for zero, so it's hard to replicate.]


Hmm ... Kalen just posted on it while I was typing.  Thanks Kalen!

[Jon Wiggett]

Golf needs diversity of choice and the lower end of the market where the vast majority of new golfers come from has been sadly ignored by developers.

Jon:


This is a thought repeated often on Golf Club Atlas no matter how many times I correct it.  The problem is not that developers are ignoring the market, the problem is that there's no way for them to serve it profitably, because it costs too much to develop a new course, and no real "developer" is in it to take a risk but eschew the potential reward.


But, I'll make you an offer [and anyone else out there]:  if you want to develop an inexpensive course, I'll gladly design it for one dollar, plus 50% of any profits you take out of it.


I saw Pete Dye get ripped off over this offer once, so there would be some caveats in the fine print of the contract:  I get the profits if you sell the course, for example, or you can't pay yourself a $500,000 "management fee" to make the profits go away.  But, otherwise, it's a legitimate offer.  I just doubt many people will take me up on it, because they aren't really committed to developing a course for the good of the community.

Tom,


As you may be aware or not I have already put my money where my mouth is so to say. I have developed and am running my own low budget golf course. I do however thank you for your very generous offer and should I ever be in the position to develop a second I will take you up on it 

[Ira Fishman]

Golf needs diversity of choice and the lower end of the market where the vast majority of new golfers come from has been sadly ignored by developers.

Jon:


This is a thought repeated often on Golf Club Atlas no matter how many times I correct it.  The problem is not that developers are ignoring the market, the problem is that there's no way for them to serve it profitably, because it costs too much to develop a new course, and no real "developer" is in it to take a risk but eschew the potential reward.


But, I'll make you an offer [and anyone else out there]:  if you want to develop an inexpensive course, I'll gladly design it for one dollar, plus 50% of any profits you take out of it.


I saw Pete Dye get ripped off over this offer once, so there would be some caveats in the fine print of the contract:  I get the profits if you sell the course, for example, or you can't pay yourself a $500,000 "management fee" to make the profits go away.  But, otherwise, it's a legitimate offer.  I just doubt many people will take me up on it, because they aren't really committed to developing a course for the good of the community.

Tom,


As you may be aware or not I have already put my money where my mouth is so to say. I have developed and am running my own low budget golf course. I do however thank you for your very generous offer and should I ever be in the position to develop a second I will take you up on it 

Jon, maybe Tom will extend a version of the offer to restorations [size=78%].  [/size]
[/size]


Ira