Creative Tension

[Kyle Harris]

To the point of the thread, I actually think a creative choice right now would be to take a sandy site and NOT expose acres and acres of sand, if only to kick against the norm.

Heh. About that...

[Tom_Doak]

@Tom--without asking you to breach any confidences, I'd love to hear some examples of this at both ends of the spectrum.

What were some wild/unusual ideas you abandoned due to discouragement from owners/developers?

What were other ideas that met resistance but made it through to the final product?

Well it would be pretty impossible to answer your first question without "breaching confidences" and I don't particularly want to do that.


One that I have mentioned previously was the wild par-3 hanging off the cliff at Cape Kidnappers below where the current 13th hole resides.  [Way below!]  Actually in that case the client was pretty encouraging for a long time, but we sort of talked ourselves out of it over the course of building the rest of the holes, and in hindsight I think that was the better choice.


Another that I have not mentioned is that a few years ago I was signed up to build the new par-3 course at Bandon and the Mulligan course at Ballyneal, at the same time, and my marching orders for the guys at Ballyneal was to build "all of the holes that Mr. Keiser will not let us build."  We wound up not doing the latter project at all after years of delays and us getting so busy, but I'm happy we got to do the one we did, with no restrictions.




Some examples of holes that met resistance but made it through to the final product:


the 17th at Stonewall (Old) - it took years for them to let me do what I intended
the 4th at Lost Dunes
the 9th and 17th at Pacific Dunes
the 9th at Tumble Creek - they wanted that fairway for housing
the 19th at Stone Eagle - after I couldn't convince them to make it the 1st
the 18th at Old Macdonald
the 11th at The National (Gunnamatta) - they really resisted the long par-3 because it was impossible to make it play equally well for women members
the 9th at Sedge Valley


I thought the 8th hole at Pinehurst #10 was going to meet resistance, but it turned out that the client loved it.

[Tom_Doak]

A footnote to the above:


Note that most of the holes I mentioned are NOT among my most famous or memorable holes, although I thought they were important pieces of those particular courses.


Generally, if a hole is exciting enough, there won't be much resistance from clients even if it might be a bit out of their comfort zones.  [The hole at Pinehurst #10 is a good example of that.  So are the 7th and 16th at Pacific Dunes.]


But, also, clients are different, and you've got to know when and where to pick your arguments.  I would say that I've only had a few projects where I was given 100% freedom to build whatever I wanted, and you should not be surprised that those places display my wildest and most creative work . . . though some would argue whether it's really my best work, because it's all a matter of opinion.




P.S.  Special kudos for this to my client Jeff Shearer at Lost Dunes, which I was building through my divorce . . . he did not give me TOTAL freedom, but he did always frame his concerns as "Are you sure you want to do this?", or "Can you explain this green to me?", instead of "I don't like this," or "You've got to change that."  Mike Keiser saw those greens and almost backed out of letting me build Pacific Dunes!  Luckily for me several of my mentors [and people Mike respected] assured him I would respect what he wanted, and save my wilder ideas for other projects.

[Ira Fishman]

@Tom--without asking you to breach any confidences, I'd love to hear some examples of this at both ends of the spectrum.

What were some wild/unusual ideas you abandoned due to discouragement from owners/developers?

What were other ideas that met resistance but made it through to the final product?

Well it would be pretty impossible to answer your first question without "breaching confidences" and I don't particularly want to do that.


One that I have mentioned previously was the wild par-3 hanging off the cliff at Cape Kidnappers below where the current 13th hole resides.  [Way below!]  Actually in that case the client was pretty encouraging for a long time, but we sort of talked ourselves out of it over the course of building the rest of the holes, and in hindsight I think that was the better choice.


Another that I have not mentioned is that a few years ago I was signed up to build the new par-3 course at Bandon and the Mulligan course at Ballyneal, at the same time, and my marching orders for the guys at Ballyneal was to build "all of the holes that Mr. Keiser will not let us build."  We wound up not doing the latter project at all after years of delays and us getting so busy, but I'm happy we got to do the one we did, with no restrictions.




Some examples of holes that met resistance but made it through to the final product:


the 17th at Stonewall (Old) - it took years for them to let me do what I intended
the 4th at Lost Dunes
the 9th and 17th at Pacific Dunes
the 9th at Tumble Creek - they wanted that fairway for housing
the 19th at Stone Eagle - after I couldn't convince them to make it the 1st
the 18th at Old Macdonald
the 11th at The National (Gunnamatta) - they really resisted the long par-3 because it was impossible to make it play equally well for women members
the 9th at Sedge Valley


I thought the 8th hole at Pinehurst #10 was going to meet resistance, but it turned out that the client loved it.

Given that I have Pac Dunes 17 and Old Mac 18 on my All Bandon Eclectic that I posted last year, I am glad that Mr. Keiser relented.

[Ian Andrew]

I thought about this some more. I don’t want architects like Tom, Bill and Gil to change their path. I want them to continue to express themselves till they decide they are done. But I would like to see developers take a chance with the next generation of designers, particularly when they have multiple courses in a project.
 
It would be nice if someone would finally explore the other end of scale and presentation. Scale can be three dimensional as much as it can be two-dimensional. There are a lot of options...

But when you take their ages and the inevitable transition that will eventually come, I really don’t want to see a next crop of architects following their same playbook. I would like to see the next generation of architects chart their own path. Take this somewhere, or better yet, try something a little different.

I’m going to see work of Brian Schneider and Kye Goalby in the next few weeks to see where they choose to go with their opportunities.

[Niall C]

Scale can be three dimensional as much as it can be two-dimensional. There are a lot of options...

Ian


Can you elaborate on your comments on scale ?


Niall

[Ben Stephens]

I thought about this some more. I don’t want architects like Tom, Bill and Gil to change their path. I want them to continue to express themselves till they decide they are done. But I would like to see developers take a chance with the next generation of designers, particularly when they have multiple courses in a project.
 
It would be nice if someone would finally explore the other end of scale and presentation. Scale can be three dimensional as much as it can be two-dimensional. There are a lot of options...

But when you take their ages and the inevitable transition that will eventually come, I really don’t want to see a next crop of architects following their same playbook. I would like to see the next generation of architects chart their own path. Take this somewhere, or better yet, try something a little different.

I’m going to see work of Brian Schneider and Kye Goalby in the next few weeks to see where they choose to go with their opportunities.

Agree with you Ian, I am still finding my design style or a different style that I like which aims to be different to the 'norm' these days. Am in some ways looking outside golf course architecture as an inspiration.

[Ian Andrew]

Scale can be three dimensional as much as it can be two-dimensional. There are a lot of options...

Can you elaborate on your comments on scale ?
Niall

One of the fascinating things about Stanley Thompson is when I was looking at Thompson’s design evolution from the mid 1920’s to the end of the decade was the changes in style and approach.

At Jasper Park, for the first time he employed a massive scale (compared to previous work) in his bunkering to match the scale of the setting in Jasper valley. The features were often double anything before it, but they were also simple. The detailed bunker we know now came later.

At Banff Spring (the next year) he continued with the same scale, but this time added human scale details to make massive bunkering feel in scale to the golfer. He also mixed sizes and used more clusters instead of large features. It was a more impressive presentation of that style but still felt horizonal in nature

At St. George's (which followed Banff) I find the emphasis to be on the vertical. He reduced the size of the bunkering (setting plays a role too) and added depth creates a greater third dimensional impact on his architecture.

I’ve always thought that can be played out in everything from contouring to bunkers and even the presentation of mounds (think Walter Travis on this one, but Stanley used mounds too).

[Philippe Binette]

Ian,
this question about the creative process is a great one...
I think it's really hard for anybody to go against its own instincts... human are creature relying on habits, pattern


In the design or any creation process, very few people can flip the problem around and look at a project from a completely new perspective...
which often explain why the first album of a band, the first course of an architect is often its most out of the box...


Even if some would deny it, there are some personal tendancies, some perceptions that any architect have, not that they are making it an official rule for their design, but subconsciously, they'll follow what they think is better based on their experience.


Let's say you look at a site and there is a right to left 4%-5% incline on the piece of ground in front of you... it would take extra mental effort to envision a left to right, against the slope hole. it would probably take an outside factor, like a great spot for the next tee and the next hole to built a left to right hole.


Subconsciously, when designing, you'll look for opportunities to create what you think is best. Very few people are searching for a 10th hole at Elie-type of landform when figuring out a routing.


Very few artist can go against their own instincts and create something really 'new'.. David Bowie comes to mind...
in golf, maybe tobacco road has this convention defying aspect to it...


No matter how far you go, you're always stuck with yourself !!!

[Tom_Doak]

Ian,
this question about the creative process is a great one...
I think it's really hard for anybody to go against its own instincts... human are creature relying on habits, pattern

In the design or any creation process, very few people can flip the problem around and look at a project from a completely new perspective...
which often explain why the first album of a band, the first course of an architect is often its most out of the box...

Even if some would deny it, there are some personal tendancies, some perceptions that any architect have, not that they are making it an official rule for their design, but subconsciously, they'll follow what they think is better based on their experience.

Philippe:


Thanks for your take, which I do think is correct.  While I may be pushed by clients or particular projects to do something a bit differently than I've done before, the primary driver of every course I build is my own experience in golf.  You may get little influences of a lot of random different places within that, because of everything I've seen, but in the end, the work is about golf as I understand it.  And that's what it should be!  Anything else would be a fake.


Tobacco Road is very different than my own work, and I would never have built anything like that, although I've learned some things from it.  But I don't know why you assume that Mike Strantz was "going against his instincts" in building it. That was 100% his instinct, to defy the conventions of the day.  Mine, too; we just saw those conventions differently.