What worthy architecture are we overlooking? The future of the Next Golden Age

[Ben Hollerbach]

It seems like every new project that is discussed in the golf industry all fit under the same umbrella. Whether it's big projects like Sand Valley, Streamsong, Barnbougle, & Cabot or smaller projects like Winter Park and Sweetens Cove. The fundamentals and aesthetics of these projects are similar to the point they are bordering on redundant. The perspective of the architecture industry must look very small, with only a handful of architects and their associates seemingly being the only ones producing any work today.

What are we missing? Who's work is being greatly overlooked? What new concepts are being successfully executed that no one knows about.

Does the more geometric and manufactured look of work by architects like Fry and Stracka at Arcadia Bluffs or Staples at Meadowbrook have the potential to spur more work in this direction?

When will the next great urban golf course be built, or is the industry seemingly only going to be able to expand with remote destination site courses?

[Tom_Doak]

How is attempting to copy the landforms of Chicago Golf Club a new concept?  It wasn't even a new concept in 1925!


I think people see what they want to see, instead of looking closely at what we are doing.  I just got done spending four days at St Emilion, and you can't tell me that is just like Sand Valley (or Pacific Dunes).  Nor is The Loop, nor Stoatin Brae.  Or Winter Park or Sweetens Cove, based on any picture I've seen of them.


Tara Iti is sandy, so I guess it gets lumped in with all the others, but it's not really like Pacific Dunes, either.

[Bill Raffo]

Those golden age guys were prolific, especially in NE, urban centers. The only two TD course I played, I had to get on an airplane and then drive another two plus hours to reach.


Too bad there isn't more of a financial benefit in demolishing bad designs in and around urban centers, so the new generation could create and compete, side by side, against the legends. There are examples but not nearly enough of them.

[Derek_Duncan]

I don't think anything is being overlooked. There just aren't many opportunities for architects to explore or advance ideas. And I'm not sure how much will there is for major designers or developers to push out in uncharted directions. The old firms and spinoffs are still catching up to the naturalist/minimalist style of over a decade ago.



Tom at least seems to be pushing out new ideas and variations, but because, like he says, he keeps getting great sites that have sand in common the nuances are probably only obvious to those who have the luxury of seeing them in person.


It will be interesting to see how radically -- if at all -- the people who have studied or trained under Tom, Bill, etc., move once they start getting their own work. It seems like a pendulum swing is due given the nature of art and the desire for understudies to forge their own identities. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,
After more than a century of golf course architecture there are probably very few truly new and innovative concepts. In the current golf landscape, pinched between the publicized minimalist or naturalist work and the high profile course restorations, a course like Arcadia South is not common and for the majority who play it will be something that looks foreign and new.

The modern movement that has taken over both new construction and restoration work has introduced the idea of width and playing angles back into the golfers perspective. The return of these concepts and the multitude of options they create has gone a long way towards elevating design into it's current era of bliss. While play on these course may provide a breath of fresh air against the near history of courses that preceded them, Its hard to believe that golf design has reached the end of progress. As new courses get wider and bigger, does that open up opportunities for designers to work in the other direction? Would a Harbour Town type course be successful if it was built tomorrow?

It may very well be a perspective issue, having not had the pleasure of playing the full portfolio of modern courses that are spoken so highly of today I very well be missing the great points of distinction between them all. But when you look at courses build during the first Golden Age and the great variety of designs you would see not only from one design to the next but also within each designers portfolio, I have to wonder if too much of what is celebrated today is too similar to one another.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I do think that the question of numbers affects our perspective.  There were hundreds of courses built during the Golden Age (heck, Ross did that number by himself) strewn across the country on all varieties of land form and soil.  Unfortunately, there are far fewer courses built in the past 30 years.


Having said that, even though I too have not played as many as I would like, I think there is more variety in design and design theory that might first seem.  Even at Bandon, I found that BT was a very different course than PD.  And three Mountain courses I have played differ in approach despite some similarities in land form (Kapalua, Red Sky Norman, and Primland).  And if you buy my 30 year demarcation point, the River Course at Kohler certainly does not look or play like the sand-based courses that have tended to dominate the recent discussion.  And the one Strantz course I played (and did not like) certainly is nothing like anything else others have designed.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom is no doubt right that some of us see what we want to see (and then, in my case at least, don't even see what we're seeing all that clearly!). But I think this thread ties in with the restoration fad thread, ie when you read about the number of 'commonalities' in the approaches that various restorers take on various restorations, I do get the feeling that we're in fact 're making' and 're invigorating' the past in our own (quite modern) image and (quite specific) ideal.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong (or anything less than very good) with the current ideal in gca -- but if it's not recognized as such and openly discussed that ideal can, I think,
easily devolve into rather superficial homage


 

[Tom_Doak]

As new courses get wider and bigger, does that open up opportunities for designers to work in the other direction? Would a Harbour Town type course be successful if it was built tomorrow?

It may very well be a perspective issue, having not had the pleasure of playing the full portfolio of modern courses that are spoken so highly of today I very well be missing the great points of distinction between them all. But when you look at courses build during the first Golden Age and the great variety of designs you would see not only from one design to the next but also within each designers portfolio, I have to wonder if too much of what is celebrated today is too similar to one another.

Ben:


OK, Harbour Town is a great example, as it inspired a certain 10-year-old to become interested in design.  ( I hit it straighter then.)  HT was a once-in-a-generation course and a reaction to the 1960's obsession with longer courses.  Yet you might have dismissed it as too similar to The Golf Club and Crooked Stick, or complained that those railroad-tie bulkheads had become a fad.


Also, HT stands out today precisely because it wasn't that influential.  It didn't cause other architects (or even Mr Dye) to start building shorter and tighter courses.  In fact, the narrow fairways were much more accepted by pros than resort guests, and the tiny greens didn't handle 60,000 rounds a year very well, so later imitations tended back toward the mean.


I still think the problem is with the raters and the magazines not digging deep into the differences between courses instead of the similarities.  It's just that when I build something that looks different - Common Ground or Aetna Springs 😢 or St Emilion or The Loop - it doesn't get 1/10 the press attention of Mike Keiser's latest sandy project, and you fail to note the differences.  But, I remember after I worked for Mr Dye, he noted that he had stopped using railroad ties for several years and no one had even noticed.


Bill Coore and I don't build the same stuff; we are always amused to see what the other guy comes up with, and kind of amazed that people can't tell the difference.

[Tim Martin]

As new courses get wider and bigger, does that open up opportunities for designers to work in the other direction? Would a Harbour Town type course be successful if it was built tomorrow?

It may very well be a perspective issue, having not had the pleasure of playing the full portfolio of modern courses that are spoken so highly of today I very well be missing the great points of distinction between them all. But when you look at courses build during the first Golden Age and the great variety of designs you would see not only from one design to the next but also within each designers portfolio, I have to wonder if too much of what is celebrated today is too similar to one another.

Ben:


OK, Harbour Town is a great example, as it inspired a certain 10-year-old to become interested in design.  ( I hit it straighter then.)  HT was a once-in-a-generation course and a reaction to the 1960's obsession with longer courses.  Yet you might have dismissed it as too similar to The Golf Club and Crooked Stick, or complained that those railroad-tie bulkheads had become a fad.


Also, HT stands out today precisely because it wasn't that influential.  It didn't cause other architects (or even Mr Dye) to start building shorter and tighter courses.  In fact, the narrow fairways were much more accepted by pros than resort guests, and the tiny greens didn't handle 60,000 rounds a year very well, so later imitations tended back toward the mean.


I still think the problem is with the raters and the magazines not digging deep into the differences between courses instead of the similarities.  It's just that when I build something that looks different - Common Ground or Aetna Springs 😢 or St Emilion or The Loop - it doesn't get 1/10 the press attention of Mike Keiser's latest sandy project, and you fail to note the differences.  But, I remember after I worked for Mr Dye, he noted that he had stopped using railroad ties for several years and no one had even noticed.


Bill Coore and I don't build the same stuff; we are always amused to see what the other guy comes up with, and kind of amazed that people can't tell the difference.

Tom-The idea that the blame for not researching differences between courses lies at the feet of raters seems a gigantic stretch. The proprietary rating systems for Golf Digest and GolfWeek have no such criteria or category to evaluate same. I know that Golf Magazine uses a more free form approach but like the other two rates the course in question and not the differences between it and others. To lament the press that the Goliath of golf course development(Mike Keiser) gets in comparison to some of your own projects seems odd. At the end of the day the consumer weighs in on the differences with his or her wallet especially when it comes to repeat play. Thanks.

[Kyle Harris]

As new courses get wider and bigger, does that open up opportunities for designers to work in the other direction? Would a Harbour Town type course be successful if it was built tomorrow?

It may very well be a perspective issue, having not had the pleasure of playing the full portfolio of modern courses that are spoken so highly of today I very well be missing the great points of distinction between them all. But when you look at courses build during the first Golden Age and the great variety of designs you would see not only from one design to the next but also within each designers portfolio, I have to wonder if too much of what is celebrated today is too similar to one another.

Ben:


OK, Harbour Town is a great example, as it inspired a certain 10-year-old to become interested in design.  ( I hit it straighter then.)  HT was a once-in-a-generation course and a reaction to the 1960's obsession with longer courses.  Yet you might have dismissed it as too similar to The Golf Club and Crooked Stick, or complained that those railroad-tie bulkheads had become a fad.


Also, HT stands out today precisely because it wasn't that influential.  It didn't cause other architects (or even Mr Dye) to start building shorter and tighter courses.  In fact, the narrow fairways were much more accepted by pros than resort guests, and the tiny greens didn't handle 60,000 rounds a year very well, so later imitations tended back toward the mean.


I still think the problem is with the raters and the magazines not digging deep into the differences between courses instead of the similarities.  It's just that when I build something that looks different - Common Ground or Aetna Springs 😢 or St Emilion or The Loop - it doesn't get 1/10 the press attention of Mike Keiser's latest sandy project, and you fail to note the differences.  But, I remember after I worked for Mr Dye, he noted that he had stopped using railroad ties for several years and no one had even noticed.


Bill Coore and I don't build the same stuff; we are always amused to see what the other guy comes up with, and kind of amazed that people can't tell the difference.

Tom-The idea that the blame for not researching differences between courses lies at the feet of raters seems a gigantic stretch. The proprietary rating systems for Golf Digest and GolfWeek have no such criteria or category to evaluate same. I know that Golf Magazine uses a more free form approach but like the other two rates the course in question and not the differences between it and others. To lament the press that the Goliath of golf course development(Mike Keiser) gets in comparison to some of your own projects seems odd. At the end of the day the consumer weighs in on the differences with his or her wallet especially when it comes to repeat play. Thanks.

With today's photo recognition software one could program a robot to do what you're suggesting, Tim.


...and probably get better results.


I'll leave the other leaps in that post to others.

[Tim Martin]

As new courses get wider and bigger, does that open up opportunities for designers to work in the other direction? Would a Harbour Town type course be successful if it was built tomorrow?

It may very well be a perspective issue, having not had the pleasure of playing the full portfolio of modern courses that are spoken so highly of today I very well be missing the great points of distinction between them all. But when you look at courses build during the first Golden Age and the great variety of designs you would see not only from one design to the next but also within each designers portfolio, I have to wonder if too much of what is celebrated today is too similar to one another.

Ben:


OK, Harbour Town is a great example, as it inspired a certain 10-year-old to become interested in design.  ( I hit it straighter then.)  HT was a once-in-a-generation course and a reaction to the 1960's obsession with longer courses.  Yet you might have dismissed it as too similar to The Golf Club and Crooked Stick, or complained that those railroad-tie bulkheads had become a fad.


Also, HT stands out today precisely because it wasn't that influential.  It didn't cause other architects (or even Mr Dye) to start building shorter and tighter courses.  In fact, the narrow fairways were much more accepted by pros than resort guests, and the tiny greens didn't handle 60,000 rounds a year very well, so later imitations tended back toward the mean.


I still think the problem is with the raters and the magazines not digging deep into the differences between courses instead of the similarities.  It's just that when I build something that looks different - Common Ground or Aetna Springs 😢 or St Emilion or The Loop - it doesn't get 1/10 the press attention of Mike Keiser's latest sandy project, and you fail to note the differences.  But, I remember after I worked for Mr Dye, he noted that he had stopped using railroad ties for several years and no one had even noticed.


Bill Coore and I don't build the same stuff; we are always amused to see what the other guy comes up with, and kind of amazed that people can't tell the difference.

Tom-The idea that the blame for not researching differences between courses lies at the feet of raters seems a gigantic stretch. The proprietary rating systems for Golf Digest and GolfWeek have no such criteria or category to evaluate same. I know that Golf Magazine uses a more free form approach but like the other two rates the course in question and not the differences between it and others. To lament the press that the Goliath of golf course development(Mike Keiser) gets in comparison to some of your own projects seems odd. At the end of the day the consumer weighs in on the differences with his or her wallet especially when it comes to repeat play. Thanks.

With today's photo recognition software one could program a robot to do what you're suggesting, Tim.


...and probably get better results.


I'll leave the other leaps in that post to others.

Kyle-You could very well be right that a robot could do as well or better. That doesn't address my point that it's not incumbent on raters to highlight differences in courses or design styles in their individual course ratings. The idea is that each course is rated individually according to each magazine's proprietary formula as least as far as Golf Digest and GolfWeek are concerned.

[Ben Malach]

Would anyone really notice or care is my answer. Honestly the longer I have spent in thinking and working in golf the more I have diverged from the average golfer and even the average rater in most cases. Unless a change is apparent and drastic would anyone notice.


The change from Rape it and Shape it to returning  to the land was a huge visual and change in the way people looked at routing golf courses. Same with Mr. Dye’s changes mentioned earlier. The only cool thing brought back in the last half decade that I think could take off a bit is the whole reversible routing idea. But that takes a great architect on a great site and a little bit more time and effort in a few areas. Its also a concept that is challenging to sell to a client who wants a traditional big hang your hat golf course. Tom has also talked about the smaller visual impact of these courses as the landforms and features need to work from almost all angles. This reduction in visual impact will certainly make the course lose points to a majority of raters and golfers.


The one area that I think what would be a cool change to the industry would be if every architect took each project as an opportunity to inspire a 10 year old to pick up a club. These changes would be small but make a huge impact at the margin of the game that are often forgotten. But the thing is they would go unnoticed by almost everyone that talks or has a deep opinion on golf. So would they matter or even come up on a board like this or in a meeting of raters.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim Martin:


I take it you're a rater?


My comments were not meant to be personal (unlike some of yours).  The initial post wondered why there isn't more variety of work being produced, and I tried to explain that the rankings have a lot to do with it.  Architects tend to copy cat the courses that get awards and magazine features, and editors tend to pay extra attention to the few and already celebrated.


You said it yourself - the whole system is designed to produce certain results, and not to recognize those doing something different.


If I was still a rater I'd be  pointing out that flaw, rather than defending it.

[Tim Martin]

Tim Martin:


I take it you're a rater?


My comments were not meant to be personal (unlike some of yours).  The initial post wondered why there isn't more variety of work being produced, and I tried to explain that the rankings have a lot to do with it.  Architects tend to copy cat the courses that get awards and magazine features, and editors tend to pay extra attention to the few and already celebrated.


You said it yourself - the whole system is designed to produce certain results, and not to recognize those doing something different.


If I was still a rater I'd be  pointing out that flaw, rather than defending it.

I didn’t take it personally but remain perplexed as to the role raters have other than performing the rating process under the guidelines set forth by the publication they rate for. I never said that “the whole system is designed to produce certain results, and not to recognize those doing something different”. If you want to extrapolate that statement from my comments that’s your prerogative but that was not my intent. Further I find it amusing that somehow the golf magazines are supposed to take each new commission and I’m guessing in your view write an article describing not its virtues but it’s differences with other courses/design styles? I don’t know what you found personal but if it was the comment about Mike Keiser I think you should go back and reread your original post as it just sounds like sour grapes.

[Sean_A]

So The Loop gets mentioned a few times in a thread about overlooked courses. Is this really the case... is The Loop overlooked  Even if it is overlooked, there is a ton of classic courses which get overlooked  The issue isn't about old VS new. I think The issue is about poor coverage by raters.


Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

My sense is that media coverage/advertising/word of mouth affects ratings more than the other way around. Golfers as all other people are influenced by trends. Hence, Bandon reinforces Cabot which reinforces Streamsong which reinforces Sand Valley. So golfers plan their big trips there, and the raters follow suit.


It bears emphasis that unless one is a rater (and I am not), most of us have access only to the well known public/resort courses. So the cycle begins again.


But having said all of that, the original post was about the absence of differences in modern design. I think that the absence is more perception based on media attention and word of mouth than reality.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know how it surprises anyone that, on a website that dismisses almost 40 years of golf course architecture and lumps together with almost brutal nonchalance (what must have been) a wide variety of courses and architects and relegates them all to the outer reaches of the "dark ages", there are some here who might now suggest that the current style of architecture is as much a product of its time & value system & socio-economic milieu as the dominant style from 1949-1985 was back then -- with 'individual differences' among various architects/courses to be sure (and I understand Tom's desire to make that clear), but with the majority of courses nonetheless sharing a common set of presumptions and conventions and approaches and techniques. 
I mean, if I didn't think this was true -- i.e. didn't think that when we're *in* a given 'system' we can't clearly *see* that system -- I'd have to conclude that our beloved leader has done 4 decades worth of work a very grave disservice indeed...and spawned an entire generation of aficionados who are similarly willing to lump disparate work under one & the same heading! 

[Kyle Harris]

Tim:


Tom Doak is likely only going to speak to his projects. How much have you heard about Ohoopee Match Club, Mossy Oak, Trinity Forest, and Big Cedar Lodge?


That's two each from Gil Hanse and Bill Coore that have gotten little "rater fanfare" and not on a predominately sandy-site. All have opened in the past three years.

[Tim Martin]

Tim:


Tom Doak is likely only going to speak to his projects. How much have you heard about Ohoopee Match Club, Mossy Oak, Trinity Forest, and Big Cedar Lodge?


That's two each from Gil Hanse and Bill Coore that have gotten little "rater fanfare" and not on a predominately sandy-site. All have opened in the past three years.

Kyle-I've heard of all four and none are remotely close to where I live. Further I'm not aware of their level of "rater fanfare". That said I watched a fair amount of the AT&T Byron Nelson on tv and thought Trinity Forest looked fantastic and it's one I would like to play. Thanks.

[Tom_Doak]

So The Loop gets mentioned a few times in a thread about overlooked courses. Is this really the case... is The Loop overlooked  Even if it is overlooked, there is a ton of classic courses which get overlooked  The issue isn't about old VS new. I think The issue is about poor coverage by raters.

Sean:


I would certainly not say The Loop has been overlooked, generally.  It's had a large dollop of free advertising from the magazines because of the concept, and because there aren't many courses each year to compete for that. 


By the same token, it's a very different golf course than what I've built the past 10-15 years.  It's deliberately toned down in bunkering and green contours to serve the reversible concept ... but pretty much no review of it has mentioned that.  And I'm pretty sure that it hasn't gotten the same attention as, say, Tara Iti, precisely because it's not so sandy, and not on a large body of water.

[Ira Fishman]

So The Loop gets mentioned a few times in a thread about overlooked courses. Is this really the case... is The Loop overlooked  Even if it is overlooked, there is a ton of classic courses which get overlooked  The issue isn't about old VS new. I think The issue is about poor coverage by raters.

Sean:


I would certainly not say The Loop has been overlooked, generally.  It's had a large dollop of free advertising from the magazines because of the concept, and because there aren't many courses each year to compete for that. 


By the same token, it's a very different golf course than what I've built the past 10-15 years.  It's deliberately toned down in bunkering and green contours to serve the reversible concept ... but pretty much no review of it has mentioned that.  And I'm pretty sure that it hasn't gotten the same attention as, say, Tara Iti, precisely because it's not so sandy, and not on a large body of water.

Tom,


Regarding the failure of the reviews of The Loop to note the differences from your other designs, I wonder (and do not know the answer) whether the reviews of Colt, Ross, MacKenzie, Dye et. al. courses noted differences from their prior designs.


As I stated in my posts above, I think that there is more variety in the current era than the OP may recognize. But I think that the reality is that GCA.com in 50 years may make that judgment rather than current reviews. Most of us won’t be around to see whether that holds true, but neither were the ODGs.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Regarding the failure of the reviews of The Loop to note the differences from your other designs, I wonder (and do not know the answer) whether the reviews of Colt, Ross, MacKenzie, Dye et. al. courses noted differences from their prior designs.

As I stated in my posts above, I think that there is more variety in the current era than the OP may recognize. But I think that the reality is that GCA.com in 50 years may make that judgment rather than current reviews. Most of us won’t be around to see whether that holds true, but neither were the ODGs.

Ira:


I'm sure the first half of your post is true ... but the golf magazines back in the day didn't have Architecture Editors who were paid to note such things, or panels of hundreds of people who are presented to us as knowledgable enough to rate all the courses being built.


Likewise, GCA.com is supposed to have a lot of knowledgable posters who see new courses and comment.  For instance, there was a great post just the other day about the fairway bunkering at CommonGround being outside the norm.  Maybe you are right, it just takes a few years for people to stop rating courses and actually observe what makes them different.  That's the main problem I have with all the rankings, there is no real credit given to the sort of features that lie outside their formulas, and those are the features that make for the rare compelling course.

[V_Halyard]

I still think the problem is with the raters and the magazines not digging deep into the differences between courses instead of the similarities.

This speaks to the crux of opportunity, understand what makes a course unique, special or subjectively better, especially in the public access group. Heralded new courses by TD, C&C, Hanse, the Keisers etc give the public a sense of what golf architecture could/should be in contrast to less golf-architecturally focused developments, courses or resorts. I have seen phenomenal restorations by Prichard, Ron Forse/Bobby Nagle, that have reinvigorated sleeping classics.
It is also important to recognize that places like Chambers Bay, Torrey Pines, Washington County, Gold Mountain, Harding Park, Cobb's Creek etc and the like should be celebrated as municipal recognition that investments in great golf are positive community asset.  I would extend this line of reason to solidly executed restorations, especially those with public access.


The US challenge is that access to well tended classic and golden age golf can be somewhat restricted to privates. In contrast, access to good golf in Scotland is more prevalent, akin to the way there are playgrounds in the US. Scottish golf has thousands of years of a head start.
Perhaps an added category to explain "How do you score this course's break with the cycle of golf architecture mediocrity?"

[Peter Pallotta]

From his last post, I think Tom is giving most of us too much credit/expecting too much.
I don't think there's one in a hundred who can see what the expert (in any profession) can see -- because that seeing is a product/result of the *doing*.
There's an old saying/bit of advice in the writing business -- one that I can't stomach or put into practice (much to my own detriment, because alas I know that it's true and leads to commercial success):
1. Tell them what they're about to see, 2. Show them what they're seeing, and 3. Explain to them what they just saw.
You do that consistently and you'll have a big hit -- and *only then* will most fans, critics, bloggers, writers and raters be able to tell everyone else all about what they will 'see there' if they take a look.
To put too fine a point on the analogy: the Keiser 'brand' (and any 'copy-cats') clearly tells golfers what to expect, provides them a marvelous example/fulfillment of that expectation, and gives them a clear context to explain what it is they just saw. Is it any wonder then that most of us (via the writers/bloggers/raters) see what we've been told to see, and don't notice the differences? 

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think that there is more variety in the current era than the OP may recognize. But I think that the reality is that GCA.com in 50 years may make that judgment rather than current reviews. Most of us won’t be around to see whether that holds true, but neither were the ODGs.

Ira

Ira,


What points of differentiation am I missing?


When I compare the current batch of work to what was being produced 100 years ago it seems very hard to see the distinction. When you compare the work of Ross to Raynor, to MacKenzie, to Tillinghast, to etc... they are all very different. While the philosophy on play might have been very similar, the look, feel, and style of their courses were much more distinct. That is something I, and I believe others in the golfing world, are not seeing in much of the work being produced today. The distinct designs of the courses from the golden age have been significant in their longevity and it is in the uniqueness of their design that the great courses of the world have in common. We talk about places like Pine Valley, The Old Course, and Oakmont  so favorably in part because there is nothing else like them in the world.


Was it only after time that the great courses of yesterday showed themselves to be unique and distinct, meaning that evolution will occur with the courses of today, or was their just a greater breadth of design styles that produced a broader range of work than is going on today?