I don’t agree. I hate busyness on a golf course. I hate furniture on a golf course.
Cross-hatching is about as busy as it gets. Presentation is a part of architecture.
Amen to that!
OK, but the course is great, yes? While I agree aesthetics are important to a degree, it's all too easy to judge a course on how it looks rather than how it plays. The current drone footage fad encourages this PoV.
Ciao
Aesthetics play a much bigger part than even most on here would realise; and more than most architects would admit.
Whether it’s scale, hiding transitions, ensuring top lines / back lines look cool, bunker positioning in to natural mounds rather than “strategically” placed etc… etc…
If all courses were designed with the same look, people would have a much harder task in deciding what was “great” and what wasn’t.
Ally
Your point is taken. I like what I consider to be well presented courses as much as the next guy. I am not sure folks are getting my point. Sunny Old is great. You could strip all the heather and its still great. If cut style and heather determine its greatness...something is badly amiss with those offering opinions. The cut style is irritating and I don't understand it, but it doesn't effect playing conditions. These aesthetics are serious eye candy issues. How a course plays is more important imo...and yes, I am aware that opinion varies widely on this issue as well.
Ciao
Absolutely Sean. No disagreement here. And in the case of the cross-hatching, it is purely aesthetics whereas many design decisions can affect how a course plays at the same time as how it looks (the best kind of decisions).
However, many would be surprised at how often looks drive choices.