The site or the setting?

[Peter Pallotta]

Like others, I'd say the site is more important than the setting.

But I wonder if, for an average golfer & observer like me, there isn't more going on than I realize, namely:

That maybe the setting unconsciously influences & even dictates my thoughts about the site

In other words, to a non-expert who doesn't know what makes for a 'great site' and couldn't identify one in the abstract, maybe it's the 'great setting' that actually suggests to me/ fools me into believing that the site is a great one too -- and a poor/boring setting has me thinking that the site isn't much good either

[Mark_Fine]

We have talked about this before, Pete Dye might be the best ever at designing “building” something special on less then ideal sites.  Look at what he did at Whistling Straits with a great setting and a crappy site.  Most people didn’t know there wasn’t a grain on sand on that site.  He truly built that golf course.  Then take a look at Shadow Creek. Even if you are a purist, you can’t help but be amazed at what Fazio did with a completely blank and barren canvas.  Actually a lot of desert courses are built on landscapes “sites” like this.  Then take an amazing setting and an absolutely impossible site like Mauna Kea in Hawaii.  EVERY golden age architect would have looked at that site and said are you f-ing kidding that you want to build a golf course here!!  RTJones might not be anyone’s favorite but some of the things he designed changed golf forever.  Nanea probably doesn’t happen (I call it Sand Hills in a lava flow) and others there without what RTJ did at Mauna Kea.


These days architects build great golf courses on garbage dumps but some are lucky enough to start with both a great site and an amazing setting. If money isn’t an issue, take the setting 

[Tom_Doak]

We have talked about this before, Pete Dye might be the best ever at designing “building” something special on less then ideal sites.  Look at what he did at Whistling Straits with a great setting and a crappy site.  Most people didn’t know there wasn’t a grain on sand on that site.  He truly built that golf course.  Then take a look at Shadow Creek. Even if you are a purist, you can’t help but be amazed at what Fazio did with a completely blank and barren canvas.  Actually a lot of desert courses are built on landscapes “sites” like this.  Then take an amazing setting and an absolutely impossible site like Mauna Kea in Hawaii.  EVERY golden age architect would have looked at that site and said are you f-ing kidding that you want to build a golf course here!!  RTJones might not be anyone’s favorite but some of the things he designed changed golf forever.  Nanea probably doesn’t happen (I call it Sand Hills in a lava flow) and others there without what RTJ did at Mauna Kea.


These days architects build great golf courses on garbage dumps but some are lucky enough to start with both a great site and an amazing setting. If money isn’t an issue, take the setting 

Mark:


How many courses have you designed where money wasn't an issue?


All of the courses you named didn't just cost $$$, they cost $$$$$$$$$$.  (Actually Shadow Creek cost more than that.)  They are good examples, and they are also the exceptions that prove the rule.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
No question some of those courses were crazy expensive.  We all know the quote about Shadow Creek, Tom Fazio was given an unlimited budget and he exceeded it    Regarding Pete, you would know better than most what kinds of budgets he had at many of his great designs on crappy sites.  One area where you might not be correct though about super large budgets would be some of the desert courses.  I wonder what the budget was for courses like Talking Stick (pretty flat barren site) or either of the Troon courses? 


Gil once told me he’d prefer a piece of featureless rolling farmland over many others because it allowed him complete creativity. 


No question, if you get a site like Sand Hills you pitch yourself and see if you are in heaven but there has been a lot of great work done on marginal land.  You have done some yourself before getting the best of both. 


Note:  We will never know but I wonder what it cost to build Oakmont.  Talk about a marginal site that drained horrible and was all clay soils.  It turned out ok 

[Tom_Doak]

Gil once told me he’d prefer a piece of featureless rolling farmland over many others because it allowed him complete creativity. 

I have never thought Gil was a minimalist; he just got lumped in with me and Bill and Ben because that was the current category for top architects of the day.


P.S.  Also, that is NOT the quote about Shadow Creek.  I heard that said about Austin Country Club several years earlier, and I doubt that was the first time it was uttered.  [Mr. Dye asked Corby Robertson how he could have exceeded his unlimited budget, and Mr. Robertson replied that he had been assured Pete couldn't spend more than $6 million building a golf course.  It cost $8m.  Shadow Creek, for comparison, was 4.5x Pete's "excessive" number.]  But, the owner Steve Wynn is the one who drove the budget for SC so high.  Fazio's guys never would have thought to spend that much on landscaping.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Regarding Shadow Creek; let’s put it this way there was no budget.  I do agree Fazio didn’t intend to spend that kind of money but Wynn’s deteriorating eye site was a driver to basically build the golf course as if it had been there 20+ years using mature trees etc vs those much smaller and younger.  We both agree no expense was spared. 


Do you know some of the other budgets like for Talking Stick or other desert courses?  I know some were quite expensive. 

[mike_malone]

Can’t play the setting

[Tom_Doak]

Do you know some of the other budgets like for Talking Stick or other desert courses?  I know some were quite expensive.

I don't know those numbers, which is why I only commented on the three courses you named earlier.  I knew the number for Shadow Creek (and how much of it was landscaping) because Steve Wynn told me himself.


Bill Coore did show me his grading plan for Talking Stick North when I visited during construction; I didn't see any earthwork calculations, but based on the fills I'd guess he only moved half as much dirt as we did for The Rawls Course (because he didn't have to build a berm on two sides of the property to block the view).  So, that would only have cost $1m more than building a course in the desert where you didn't have to move dirt.  They are all big irrigation jobs, though, because it's a desert.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Wasn’t the number around $40MM for Shadow Creek?


Mike,
You are right you can’t play the setting but even though it just sits there it can move you 


I remember telling the owners at Tucker’s Point Club in Bermuda that people don’t want to look at pine trees when come to Bermuda to play golf.  They want to see the ocean backdrops and vistas and the turquoise waters and the pink sand beaches.  We took out lots of silly trees that blocked these views and “framed” many of the green sites.  The difference was dramatic and they loved it. Talk about a setting that moves you.  The golf course isn’t bad either.  Last one Banks designed.  We made quite a few changes but wish we could have finished more of our plans but the club went into receivership 

[Ira Fishman]

My guess is that the budgets for Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart were quite a bit higher than for North Berwick or Brora. Results are not nearly as good. Only being somewhat snarky.


Old Head strikes me as an example of the setting not overcoming the site. I happen to think Kapalua Plantation is another, but I know I am in the minority.



Ira

[Thomas Dai]

When a few centuries ago large gardens were laid out around the big houses of the UK’s landed gentry a feature, usually called a ‘folly’, was often built on a nearby hill or somewhere else where it could be seen from the windows of the ‘big house’ the client lived in.
Are there examples of such things deliberately being built in the far distance to enhance the setting on some golf courses? I’m not thinking aiming a hole at some distant object that already exists, I’m thinking deliberately creating some new distant object.
Atb

[Niall C]

Ira


I think it is impossible to compare KB and CS to North Berwick as the former were built in one go while the latter were expanded and adapted over a hundred year period.


When you refer to the setting not overcoming the site, do you mean the shortcomings of the site aren't adequately compensated for by the setting ?


Niall

[Ira Fishman]

Niall,


I agree which is why my comment was at least partly snarky.


Yes to your clarifying question.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Old Head strikes me as an example of the setting not overcoming the site.

Mark would probably think Old Head would have been great with better ideas or more $$$, but I do not.  Better, certainly, but I do think the site had shortcomings that could not be fully resolved.  For one, any time you are working on top of rock and you have to do all of the construction with fill, it is much more difficult to get the sorts of shapes you might like to get.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I see Tom Doak just chimed in before me and he may be correct in his assessment. 


I was going to ask, do you think the site was the problem or was it the actual design and use of the property?  I was supposed to be back in that area again last year but Covid canceled our trip.  I have only played there once and always wanted a second look to make a more careful assessment.  Honestly I would take that site in a heartbeat if I had that chance.  I guess Tom disagrees but I think most architects would. 


I know it has issues but look with Kidd did with a potato field at St. Andrews.  That site was ten times worse (I walked it early in construction with Paul Kimber).  Again, Tom might be right about site issues at Old Head but these days I find it amazing what architects can do with marginal land. 

[Niall C]

Niall,


I agree which is why my comment was at least partly snarky.


Yes to your clarifying question.


Ira

Thanks Ira, I wasn't being deliberately obtuse. Unfortunately it just comes naturally sometimes !


Niall

[Ira Fishman]

Niall,


I did not find your post obtuse in the least.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
I see Tom Doak just chimed in before me and he may be correct in his assessment. 


I was going to ask, do you think the site was the problem or was it the actual design and use of the property?  I was supposed to be back in that area again last year but Covid canceled our trip.  I have only played there once and always wanted a second look to make a more careful assessment.  Honestly I would take that site in a heartbeat if I had that chance.  I guess Tom disagrees but I think most architects would. 


I know it has issues but look with Kidd did with a potato field at St. Andrews.  That site was ten times worse (I walked it early in construction with Paul Kimber).  Again, Tom might be right about site issues at Old Head but these days I find it amazing what architects can do with marginal land.

Mark,


The land away from the coast is pretty flat and uninteresting, but perhaps with enough money, more could have been done. But I learned on here that the site is quite cramped which is the primary reason for the number of awkward holes.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
You and Tom are most likely right about the site.  Still it seems some potential was missed but easy for me to say without a thorough study.  As I have learned over the years in this business there are sooooo many factors that impact a design. We all see the end result and that is what gets judged but most will never know why things ended up they way they are.  Of course the architect has to shoulder the blame (or the glory).  In the thread on Streamsong Tom pointed out many things that impacted what got built that few of us would ever know.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
You and Tom are most likely right about the site.  Still it seems some potential was missed but easy for me to say without a thorough study.  As I have learned over the years in this business there are sooooo many factors that impact a design. We all see the end result and that is what gets judged but most will never know why things ended up they way they are.  Of course the architect has to shoulder the blame (or the glory).  In the thread on Streamsong Tom pointed out many things that impacted what got built that few of us would ever know.

Exactly. You repeatedly state across more threads than I can count that with enough research that you can divine intent i.e. “why things ended up the way they are.” Nope.


Ira