I think there is no question that Tom himself was a visionary, using what he learnt to break away at 180 degrees from Pete Dye’s style (whilst holding many of his philosophies and working methods). We’re also lucky that Tom himself still appears to want to try new concepts.
But it’s just as well he does. Because no-one else is pushing him to.
Which is kinda Ian’s point. When someone feels challenged or even usurped, they tend to pivot and try something new, interestingly so.
All that said, a question or two back to Ian: Are there really any good examples of what you seek in GCA? Dye brought something new. But did it raise RTJ’s game when he felt challenged? I don’t think it did. He kept on doing the same thing with ever diminishing returns….
And when an architect gets given a fantastically undulating sandy site, is there really any sensible solution other than to be minimalist? In some ways, much of the minimalism I’m seeing isn’t minimalistic enough for me! From a personal perspective, one thing I’d like to see is the use of less sand on sandy sites. A little less loudness perhaps….. Sometimes what an architect really needs is constraints put upon him, whether it be a small budget or a small site. Those constraints can force brave design decisions; part of the reason I hold The Loop in such high esteem.
Maybe - just maybe - we shouldn’t be getting hung up on an overarching design philosophy. Perhaps the focus should be on the similarity of the development sites and model: All vast, remote resorts on sandy sub-soils. From afar, that can make the courses seem as similar as the actual design solution does.
Ally:
All of the praise which I feel compelled to deflect notwithstanding, I agree with your post and especially that there is too much focus on minimalism and not enough on what we actually do (which few writers understand).
On some of my minimalist designs every square inch had to be reshaped- either because they were flat and had to be drained, or completely covered with trees that had to be cleared and grubbed. Tara Iti was one of the latter. I wish I could’ve built it as simply as High Pointe v1.0 or St Andrews Beach or my new project in north Texas, but we had to shape and revegetate EVERYTHING.
The one thing I question as feasible is people wanting sites like that or like St Patrick’s to feature less sand. I am of a like mind to Sean that there are too many bunkers on most courses today, but you’ve got to stop making fairway somewhere, and usually you need a transition from tight turf to lost ball country. On a sandy site, what else would you consider? Bigger areas of irrigated and mowed rough? We actually discussed that for Te Arai North, but the sexier sand and short grass approach was what the client preferred.
I do think one of the main problems today is that sites are so big and designers are afraid to put holes close together, so there are a lot of decisions about what goes in between, and everyone makes the same choice. There are about eight holes on our new Florida course that I’ve put deliberately close together to try and mimic the feel of a real links, and I’m just hoping I got them close enough.
I never came back on your response to sandy sites:
For St. Patrick’s, I see four kinds of open sand, three of which make perfect sense to me:
1. Existing blowouts. Leave that to nature to take its course
2. Created “bunkers”. Nothing wrong with the number or look. In fact, everything right
3. The man-made sand scars from Nicklaus construction. This - for me - is my favourite part of the design. To see how the elements had shaped them over 15 years and then to incorporate them in to holes such as 5 and 6 was very sensible.
4. The construction scars created to transplant marram. These are the ones that I’d like to see disappear. And through natural succession, most will over time.
In a place like Tara Iti, where the entire site had to be cleared and open sand was what remained, it also seemed to be the sensible (and easiest / cheapest) solution to leave all that sand off the fairways. However, it actually makes the fairways look more manufactured or artificial. If that site was left to the elements, I’m sure it would end up all grass in 50 years time.
That is what would happen to most sites. That’s why we don’t see all those open sand scars we used to on our classic links courses. Everything succeeds to vegetation in those climates.
Therefore whilst loads of open sand may look cool on opening, it is - counterintuitively - a less natural solution. Almost all of these sandy courses will look very different in two generations time if they are maintained minimally and $’s aren’t pumped in to keep them sandy.