News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


DMoriarty

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2003, 10:54:25 AM »
Ian and Andrew.  I dont think anyone is suggestion "copies" or "replicas" of NGLA.  At least I* am not.

My original post asked whether we need more courses like NGLA and modeled after NGLA.  take a look at my response to Mike Benham for a list of qualities I'd like to see more of. . . .

Andrew,  I really dont think that MacDonald merely marked out the tees and greens and let the land suggest the rest at NGLA.   At least I know he didnt at the Lido . . .

I used to agree that we needed better land, but now tend to believe that some architects and developers have no driving interest in working on "better land" but instead the quality of the golf land as an after thought.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2003, 10:56:24 AM by DMoriarty »

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2003, 11:27:45 PM »
I didn't mean MacDonald merely marked out courses, but that he learnt from what the early Brits were doing. Without being able to move too much soil, guys like Old Tom Morris allowed the land to dictate the routing. This is, I believe, an important skill even today, & one that the best architects have. The routing of MacDonald courses is generally exceptional.

As earth moving became easier & there was a greater need to produce more courses quickly on poor land, the temptation became too great for architects to reproduce the same holes, course after course without giving any concern to the land.

David, I totally agree with your statement that the quality of the land is an after thought. Too much money & opportunity for housing development is involved these days.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2003, 01:28:38 PM »
David:

I'm not sure what you mean by "another NGLA."  From my point of view, there are lots of private clubs being developed for national memberships, whose architects are trying to assimilate all they've studied about architecture over the years into their designs.

Unfortunately, not many do it as well as C.B. Macdonald.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2003, 01:50:10 PM »
You bring up a GREAT point Tom. But why is that? IMHO I think its because most want try their own spin where it changes too much of the intent of the hole that it was emulating. But then they get into the territory of not being able to produce something as wild as NGLA because it won't be well received. This is where I think Golf Architecture begins to suck in modern terms.

DMoriarty

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2003, 03:58:57 PM »
David:

I'm not sure what you mean by "another NGLA."  From my point of view, there are lots of private clubs being developed for national memberships, whose architects are trying to assimilate all they've studied about architecture over the years into their designs.

Unfortunately, not many do it as well as C.B. Macdonald.

Tom, take what I have to say about NGLA with a large grain of salt, as I have only seen the course one time . . .

When I asked why not build more NGLAs, I meant to focus more on the architectural and strategic themes which seem present at NGLA, but lacking at many other courses.  That is what I kept muttering to myself as I staggered around the place . . . "Why dont more architects try to do this type of thing?"

For example, I havent seen many modern courses with green complexes as vibrant, vivid, or daring as NGLA's . . . Nor have I seen many greens so rich in texture and flow, nor have I seen many greens which orchestrate strategic options all the way back to the tee and beyond.  

Nor have I seen many courses which so ingeniously use slope and short grass to define strategic options.

Nor have I seen many courses which repeatedly and subtly tempt the golfer's ego, so that even after a lifetime of plays that proud golfer might not know that more often than not, he has been had.  

Nor have I seen many courses which were so secure in the subtlety of their features, nor as unflinching in the face of the modern onslaught of power golf.  Through its width and half-par holes, NGLA invites and encourages the power puncher to fire away and even amply rewards his perfect execution.  Yet it would seem that the course will more often than not hold its own without resorting many of the defenses which the rest of the golf world seems to take for granted as inevitable.  

But I could be wrong, as my experiences at NGLA and in the rest of the golfing world are limited.

Quote
The object of a bunker or trap is not only to punish a physical mistake, not punish a lack of control, but also to punish pride and egotism.   -- C.B. MacDonald.

________

Your point that most architects just arent as good as CB MacDonald is well taken.  But here is what concerns me:  I dont think they are trying.  Most architects have no interest in emulating the majestic details of a place like NGLA.  
. . . Just my continuing mantra that most of the golf world is mistaken in its interpretation of the past and misguided in its ambitions for the future.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2003, 04:03:29 PM by DMoriarty »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2003, 12:05:55 PM »
On the contrary, David, I think there are too many modern architects trying to be "majestic" in their work.  What we could use is some more who try to be as humble as Donald Ross.

I know that's difficult -- it doesn't win awards, so it isn't what the clients are asking for.

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2003, 02:05:12 AM »
Kelly Blake Moran, you wrote a beautiful post (#13).  Kind of Blue is one of my favorites as well and you've presented a terrific and thorough analogy.

  It's a good reminder that there is science, nature, and a plethora of personal inspirations in art that, when understood, makes the arts even more powerful.  

NGLA is, I can only assume, a wonderful and transcendental golf course.  Let the archies draw strength from it's magnificence but hope that they don't try to replay the same music.  

  "Do not seek to walk in the footsteps of the wise.  Seek what they sought."   Basho
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 02:06:10 AM by Slag__Bandoon »
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

DMoriarty

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2003, 11:56:22 AM »
On the contrary, David, I think there are too many modern architects trying to be "majestic" in their work.  What we could use is some more who try to be as humble as Donald Ross.

I know that's difficult -- it doesn't win awards, so it isn't what the clients are asking for.

Tom, maybe "majestic" is the wrong word for NGLA, although I think in context it works.  Definitely one man's majesty is another's travesty, especially when it comes to new courses.

But . . . do you really think that many architects are out there trying to apply and incorporate specific principles/motif/qualities into their own work?  Or is it that their (or their developers) idea of "majesty" is something entirely different.  

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2003, 12:10:24 PM »
What we could use is some more who try to be as humble as Donald Ross.

I know that's difficult -- it doesn't win awards, so it isn't what the clients are asking for.

Tom -- Would you please elaborate on this?

What would we see more of (and less of) on the ground if we had more architects with the humility of Donald Ross and more clients eager for (or tolerant of) such humility?

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

DMoriarty

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2003, 02:39:30 PM »
But . . . do you really think that many architects are out there trying to apply and incorporate specific principles/motif/qualities into their own work?  Or is it that their (or their developers) idea of "majesty" is something entirely different.  

This was supposed to read:

But . . . do you really think that many architects are out there trying to apply and incorporate NGLA's specific principles/motif/qualities  into their own work?  Or is it that their (or their developers) idea of "majesty" is something entirely different.  

I wonder wny Brad Klein suggested we might all consider proof-reading????

A_Clay_Man

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2004, 08:28:02 PM »
The Nebraska Sandhills
Excerpts taken from "An Atlas of The Sand Hills"
Ann Bleed and Charles Flowerday, Editors
Resource Atlas No. 5a, Conservation and Survey Division, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1990
 ----------------------------------------------------------
The Sandhills region, is approximately 19,300 square miles of sand dunes stretching 265 miles across Nebraska. It is the largest sand dune area in the Western Hemispere and is one of the largest grass-stabilized dune regions in the world.
Topography, among other things, distinguishes the region from the surrounding prairies. Dunes are as high as 400 feet, as long as 20 miles, and have slopes as steep as 25 percent. Another distinguishing feature is that the large sand masses now held in place by grasses were formed by blowing sand during a surprisingly recent time, mostly during the last 8,000 years or less.

Precipitation in the Sandhills ranges from an average annual total of 23 inches in the east to slightly less than 17 inches in the extreme west. This decline from the east to west is the result of a combination of factors: 1)Nebraska's interior location; 2)the blocking effect of the Rocky Mountains on moisture from the Pacific Ocean; and 3)increasing distance from the Gulf of Mexico, the region's primary source of moisture.

The Sandhills are generally viewed as a semiarid region where sandy soils, low precipitation, and high evaporation rates support primarily dry grassland. Yet paradoxically, the Sandhills also are known as a land of lakes and wetlands. While many of the interdunal valleys are dry, many others contain lakes, marshes, and/or wet meadows. The Sandhills lie over a groundwater reservoir that holds about half of all the groundwater found in Nebraska, an estimated 700-800 million acre-feet of water.

As far as is known, there are about 720 species of vascular plants growing without cultivation in the Sandhills. About 670 of them are native species, and about 50 are introduced from elsewhere, especially from Europe and Asia. The number of species in the Sandhills appears low when compared with other grassland areas. However, perhaps because of moderate rainfall and plentiful groundwater, it is high compared with other areas of similarly sandy, relatively infertile soils.

The vegetation in the Sandhills is unique, not because it consists of many unusual species, but because it is a mixture of so many different types of vegetation. Although some authors have regarded the Sandhills as a western extension of the tallgrass prairie, this interpretation is not supported by observation. Rather than referring to the region's prairie as an extension of one type of prairie, it is better simply to recognize the unique association of plants and call the region's vegetation a Sandhills prairie.

In a sense, the vegetation of the Sandhills is "borrowed" because most plants probably moved into the area from elsewhere during and after the retreat of the glaciers. Thus, many species that are abundant in the Sandhills are also common outside the area. Some of these species, like blowout grass and the Sandhills milkweed, grow only on sand. Others, such as many of the other milkweeds and small soapweed (yucca) can also be found on many heavy but well-drained loess soils outside of the Sandhills.

The ecological communities of the Sandhills can vary tremendously, ranging from permanent wetlands to arid areas with almost desert-like conditions. Even within the wetland habitats, a great deal of variation occurs, ranging from permanent lakes and marshes, some of which are alkaline, to semipermanent and highly ephemeral marshes and wet meadows.

Of special importance are the many lakes and marshes of the Sandhills, which support the most significant waterfowl production area in Nebraska and one of the finest collections of water birds in the continental United States. The giant Canada goose, which disappeared from the Sandhills by about the beginning of the last century, was reintroduced by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission in the 1970's. The mallard, blue-winged teal, pintail, and shoveler are the most common ducks in the Sandhills, but many other species also can be found.

Other water birds, including herons, grebes, terns, killdear, spotted sandpiper, least sandpiper, Wilson's phalarope, greater and lesser yellowlegs, and the American avocet are also common. In the late summer, the alkaline lakes in the western Sandhills produce an abundance of invertebrates, which provide food for large numbers of migrating shore birds. In one recent year, this area had one of the largest concentrations of American avocets in the entire United States.

The land-use pattern of the Sandhills has changed little during the past century compared to many other regions. Although cultivation has increased due in part to the advent of center pivot irrigation, livestock grazing is still the predominent land-use.
----------------------------------------------------------

Brought this up FYI. There have been several threads on the origins of the region.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2004, 10:40:00 PM »
IMHO Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Kingsley Club are in the vein of NGLA. These are all courses that I walked thinking why aren't more architects doing courses like these. Of course, not everyone likes the courses I do. I would think that Pac Dunes probably comes closest to what Tom is talking about in the understated brilliance department a la Ross. Its just that the darn setting is so magnificent that understated goes out the window.

I second Dave's opinion of Lost Dunes' greens. I don't care for some of the routing and forced carries/ball gobbling rough of LD, but most of the greens are genius. I can't imagine going on a golfing trip to Michigan without stopping by LD to show my traveling companions the greens there.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

DMoriarty

Re:Why Not Build Another NGLA?
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2004, 12:02:39 AM »
IMHO Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Kingsley Club are in the vein of NGLA. These are all courses that I walked thinking why aren't more architects doing courses like these. Of course, not everyone likes the courses I do. I would think that Pac Dunes probably comes closest to what Tom is talking about in the understated brilliance department a la Ross. Its just that the darn setting is so magnificent that understated goes out the window.

Ed, I agree with you regarding Pac Dunes (the only one of the courses you named that I have played), but didnt want to get into naming courses and starting the same old boring bias/favored nation discussion.  

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back