The site or the setting?

[Thomas Dai]

The site or the setting?
Which is more important these days and was it, early times links and heathlands particularly apart, always the case?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

The answer is the permitting 

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:


Let me understand the distinction clearly:


Site = topo, vegetation, everything on the 150 acres


Setting = everything outside of that?




I had never really thought about the distinction between the two, as I'm always looking at both.  Now that I think about it, I have been fortunate in many places to be given very large sites, and in such cases you can spread out the holes enough to bring the "setting" into the course . . . which is a big part of the appeal of places like Rock Creek and Stone Eagle and St. Patrick's.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The setting is probably the most important if you want greatness. That is not to say the site is not important but to a degree time and money could overcome some obstacles.


In the real world a combination of setting, soil, topography are the ingredients, with a flavouring of the right services and location playing a part, after all if you can't irrigate as you have no electric or the site is frozen for nine months there is no point.

[Thomas Dai]

Yes Tom, the distinction you draw is where I’m coming from. Mark and Adrian’s points are understood and appreciated too.
What got me wondering about this matter was some photos of a currently under construction course on a rocky clifftop position located nearer the Equator than the North Pole with stunning ocean views. The views seem a big time wow, the terrain, well, it seems pretty severe, not somewhere the average person would think of as being a location for a potential golf course.
My initial thoughts on seeing the photos were not just to wonder whether the site or the setting has become more important over the years but whether the setting has become more important than site when compared to say courses built before WW1. Obviously changes in construction/maintenance technology and $£€¥ are factors but have the perceptions and expectations of golfers and developers changed too and if so why?
Atb

[Mike_Trenham]

Here’s one way I make this distinction:


At Secession Golf Club you could easily say it’s more about the setting but the impact of low and high tide make me say it’s about the site.


Liberty National - setting
Cobbs Creek - site
Carnoustie - site
Wexford - setting

[Kalen Braley]

Which course(s) has the greatest disparity between site and setting?  I'm guessing Sand Piper would fit here.  Fantastic setting, but very low on the site scale...

And would Pebble Beach have a higher aggregate score than say Cypress Point?  They certainly score well in both categories.

[Marty Bonnar]

I can’t help but think of Streamsong when questions like this are asked.
Let’s face it. An incredibly unprepossessing location (setting) in the desolate ‘Great Plains of Florida’, combined with a post-industrial brownsite landscape canvas (site).
And yet...
THREE phenomenal (I assume, I haven’t seen the Black  ) golf courses created largely from the vernacular landforms, local vegetation, contaminated soils etc, utilising available views (such as they are). Very interestingly, much of the course detailing and site furniture make a great deal of the site history with old materials being reused for signage and suchlike.
F.

[Mike_Trenham]

Everything at Streamsong is an example of where site trumps setting.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes Tom, the distinction you draw is where I’m coming from. Mark and Adrian’s points are understood and appreciated too.
What got me wondering about this matter was some photos of a currently under construction course on a rocky clifftop position located nearer the Equator than the North Pole with stunning ocean views. The views seem a big time wow, the terrain, well, it seems pretty severe, not somewhere the average person would think of as being a location for a potential golf course.
My initial thoughts on seeing the photos were not just to wonder whether the site or the setting has become more important over the years but whether the setting has become more important than site when compared to say courses built before WW1.
Atb

Thomas:  I would still vote for site over setting if it's one or the other:  see the Streamsong comments above.


But, why not have both?  There is no doubt that many of the modern era's most celebrated courses are celebrated more for their setting than for the site or indeed what was done with them.  That's a product of trying to compete for attention globally, instead of just building a golf course for people to play, which was the only real thought 100 years ago.


Today's developers thrive on attention for themselves, too, if you hadn't noticed.

[Marty Bonnar]

My guess would be that the old Scots who wanted a golf course in their town/village as golf spread from the coast, didn’t care much about where it went (setting), just that they got one!
Often, the local landowner might have been a golfer so might also have been amenable to leasing some of their estate for the course (site). I’d bet this would usually be on the least agriculturally productive terrain with too much slope or poor fertility to be usefully farmed. Might have produced some damn fine golfing ground though!
F.

[Sean_A]

Site takes precedence for me. Alhough many of my favourite courses have at least a good setting. To some degree I expect archies to create attractive interior views. In some way this is at the heart of many urban and suburban courses. Hence good use of trees for blocking ugly exterior views and removing interior trees to enhance views. Interesting, artist shaping also creates good interior views. There are routing choices that can also help.

If am interested in a setting its very easy to go for walks.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

To be I'd rather have setting as you can make your site, albeit artificially. I don't think it is any coincidence that the classic courses have some great settings, which have stood the test of time. As Mark mentioned, sites with water or coastline are environmentally tough to get permits and permissions.

We had a thread recently about the best courses on bland sites, which were primarily parkland courses. Take that and put it on Fisher's Island or Southhampton and I'd be surprised is anyone would say the course is worse. So to be setting adds to the entire golf experience as we are in nature, beautiful surrounds add to that.

[Tom_Doak]

To be I'd rather have setting as you can make your site, albeit artificially.

Really?  Can you think of one really great course where the "site" is made artificially against a great background?

[Jeff Schley]

To be I'd rather have setting as you can make your site, albeit artificially.

Really?  Can you think of one really great course where the "site" is made artificially against a great background?

I'm thinking Kingsbarns, do you agree?

Also what would Tara Iti be without some serious logging?
We tend to think of earth moving as artificial, but removing a forest as natural? Sand Hills would be the ideal for site as no trees were removed and I don't believe hardly any dirt was moved.
A seaside links in the UK like a Royal St. Georges is a great example of what i think is a great site and setting. Of course you could mention CP, RCD and others. That is what makes the seaside links so great in the UK is the marriage of the two IMHO.

[David Wuthrich]

I agree with Tom, the great courses have both!

[Tom_Doak]

Really?  Can you think of one really great course where the "site" is made artificially against a great background?

I'm thinking Kingsbarns, do you agree?

Also what would Tara Iti be without some serious logging?
We tend to think of earth moving as artificial, but removing a forest as natural? Sand Hills would be the ideal for site as no trees were removed and I don't believe hardly any dirt was moved.
A seaside links in the UK like a Royal St. Georges is a great example of what i think is a great site and setting. Of course you could mention CP, RCD and others. That is what makes the seaside links so great in the UK is the marriage of the two IMHO.

I suppose Kingsbarns is as good an example as any.  I respect all the work that went into it, but honestly have never really loved the course, because Mark Parsinen showed me every single visual trick he had tried to create, so I can't suspend disbelief for long enough to feel like it's natural and not contrived.  I don't know if that's a problem for anyone else.


Tara Iti was certainly a lot of work, but there was some pretty good stuff underneath those trees, too.  Most people seem to think it's natural, so, mission accomplished!


I never really thought of clearing as artificial work, though I remember now how Bernard Darwin marveled at St. George's Hill.  Clearing and trying to keep the natural contours underneath is certainly a lot more "work" but it is no more "design".

[Jeff Schley]

Really?  Can you think of one really great course where the "site" is made artificially against a great background?

I'm thinking Kingsbarns, do you agree?

Also what would Tara Iti be without some serious logging?
We tend to think of earth moving as artificial, but removing a forest as natural? Sand Hills would be the ideal for site as no trees were removed and I don't believe hardly any dirt was moved.
A seaside links in the UK like a Royal St. Georges is a great example of what i think is a great site and setting. Of course you could mention CP, RCD and others. That is what makes the seaside links so great in the UK is the marriage of the two IMHO.

I suppose Kingsbarns is as good an example as any.  I respect all the work that went into it, but honestly have never really loved the course, because Mark Parsinen showed me every single visual trick he had tried to create, so I can't suspend disbelief for long enough to feel like it's natural and not contrived.  I don't know if that's a problem for anyone else.


Tara Iti was certainly a lot of work, but there was some pretty good stuff underneath those trees, too.  Most people seem to think it's natural, so, mission accomplished!


I never really thought of clearing as artificial work, though I remember now how Bernard Darwin marveled at St. George's Hill.  Clearing and trying to keep the natural contours underneath is certainly a lot more "work" but it is no more "design".

While I'm not a tree huger, we all know their view on the evils of even removing one tree. So while most of us don't subscribe to cutting down a large mass of trees on "unnatural", there is ardent opposition out there. If we are talking natural landforms I certainly cosign Tara Iti had phenomenal potential and kudos to you for seeing it, while curating it to fruition.
BTW I'd also put Ardfin in the conversation for great setting, but had to bring in massive amounts of sand IIRC. Today it is almost impossible to build in great settings anyway, so the point is almost moot (Coul Links case in point).

[Sean_A]

Kingsbarns did have an original core of linksland no? I thought that was an important reason for choosing the site.

It's interesting that Sandwich was mentioned. I don't think of that setting as special. Practically all the cool views are essentially interior. The setting doesn't screw up the visuals, but I think of it as good, not special.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

To be I'd rather have setting as you can make your site, albeit artificially.

Really?  Can you think of one really great course where the "site" is made artificially against a great background?

Definetly you need setting if you want a great course. You can't have a nice site if you have power cables across it and it will never be great. Motorways, factories even housing are all bad views. Mountains, valleys, rocks, coastline are the desires.
You can't make a setting. You can make the site. Obs its best if you got both.

[Adam Lawrence]

BTW I'd also put Ardfin in the conversation for great setting, but had to bring in massive amounts of sand IIRC. Today it is almost impossible to build in great settings anyway, so the point is almost moot (Coul Links case in point).

No, they didn't. Sandcapping the site was the initial plan, but it went the way of all flesh when they realised just how difficult getting any serious amount of material to site would be. They ended up having to scavenge across the whole of the estate to find enough topsoil to grow grass.

[Jeff Schley]

BTW I'd also put Ardfin in the conversation for great setting, but had to bring in massive amounts of sand IIRC. Today it is almost impossible to build in great settings anyway, so the point is almost moot (Coul Links case in point).

No, they didn't. Sandcapping the site was the initial plan, but it went the way of all flesh when they realised just how difficult getting any serious amount of material to site would be. They ended up having to scavenge across the whole of the estate to find enough topsoil to grow grass.

Gotcha.  So they did have to move a lot of dirt, but not via water on a barge.

[Tom_Doak]

Kingsbarns did have an original core of linksland no? I thought that was an important reason for choosing the site.

2 green, 3rd hole, 12th, 16th and 17th holes were all more or less links terrain to start.  #1 #4 etc were all farm fields.  6 -7 - 8 were shaped into the bank.

[Tom_Doak]

Definetly you need setting if you want a great course. You can't have a nice site if you have power cables across it and it will never be great. Motorways, factories even housing are all bad views. Mountains, valleys, rocks, coastline are the desires.
You can't make a setting. You can make the site. Obs its best if you got both.

I noted in GETTING TO 18 that there was a time early in my career when every site I looked at had power lines going across it:  Quail Crossing and Riverfont both have them, but so did a few others I wound up not building.  But then things changed for the better!


However I would argue that places like Winged Foot and Oakmont are more about site than setting.  Pine Valley does not look outside itself, either.  Even the Scottish links do not make much of vistas etc., the interest of the course is all about the contours within, and of course the effect of the wind.


Whereas, there are hardly any great courses where the land is all re-shaped.  IN THEORY, it could be done, but in practice, it's much harder than architects will admit.

[Thomas Dai]

Sadly, as essentially a site over setting enthusiast, I get the notion of where Tom is coming from with his comment about developers thriving on attention for themselves and Adrian’s comment on ‘making’ a site.
I do wonder though as time progresses to what extent mankind will be ‘making’ the setting too? Oh to have a crystal ball, or maybe best not.
Atb