Design Gut Check?

[Ben Stephens]

Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.

Ha, yes, but Ben has less experience with my work than many people here.  The last time we had this same discussion, I think he had seen, what was it Ben, two of my 45 courses?  That's what ticks me off; I could not think of anyone here who is LESS qualified to judge the breadth of my work.


Ben, FYI, I've been employing Brian Zager the past 2 1/2 years to work on Lido and also on a new project in Florida.  The technology is interesting, and I know Brian believes that it has good application to a site with more complex interest, and I've been trying to let him show me what he can do on the computer.  But the idea that it's going to be BETTER off the computer than it would be if I went out there and worked on the ground with a great shaper . . . well, I'm just not convinced of that, yet, at least not for me.  The results might be more DIFFERENT and maybe it would make my work look more like Jim Engh's, but that's not a direction I'm looking to go.


Just today I was discussing with a client the possibility of building all of the conceptual designs I've got rattling around in my brain . . . if I do THAT deal I will invite you to come over and eat crow in person.

Lot of your courses are seen visually and fly throughs online (I know they may play differently in reality however it gives you clues what you are up to). Watching Rick Shields at St Patricks was interesting. The quality is still there however it is less appealing for me these days - maybe it's having one feet in GCA and the other in EIGCA in recent years that have opened my eyes up more to different things. I am afraid I don't get that excited any more for the next Doak course maybe it's because we know what to expect from a Doak course now as there is more and more of them.   


I have played 3 not 2


Have you tried to explore using computers yourself rather than rely on Brian Zager? I probably have a lot more experience of using computers than you have and have better understanding of its potential even in future having researched it - not sure if you know Rhino and Grasshopper or even CATIA for example? having used/seen/heard it in used in areas other than Golf Course Architecture.


There are more 3D Landscape software like Vectorworks Landmark that is becoming more advanced plus easier to use catching up with BIM. Plus a lot of render software is becoming more advanced that individuals will be able to use it thanks to the advance of AI.


There is increasing likelihood that not only buildings but also golf courses could be built by robots using AI and computer designs in future which is scary and exciting at the same time.


You have relied on others to use the technology rather than test it yourself

[Ben Stephens]

Also Jim Engh is successful in his own regard whether you like his designs or not. Some clients like his approach and others dont. I do think it's interesting some of you might not like it. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dear All,


Tom has done a hell of a lot for the golf course industry, he has been a huge influencer or mentor for future golf course architects. I did really look up and was fascinated with his designs from the early 2000's (when I first came on GCA) onwards however it doesn't intrigue me now as it did then. I am being honest here. 

However I have both feet in Architecture and Golf Course Architecture as an occupation which many of you don’t so I can see from both angles from experience. Architecture has used computers to further advance more different designs which are now possible. Golf Course Architecture is a long way back in my opinion.

I know some of you has raised about CAD use and Lido – to me that is a reproduction of a CBM course not an entirely new course which is part designed by computer and human brain using something like Parametric Architecture which has been around for a while which has allowed for new building forms made possible. No GCA has used this approach as far as I have seen it. I have followed design in many other areas like fashion which is ever-changing, product design, cars etc their pace of design evolution is much faster than both Architecture and Golf Course Architecture.

Secondly as we get older sometimes our likes and dislikes can change over time. I am now not a fan of large wide fairways which several GCA (not only Tom) are doing at present - its irritating for me as it is too easy for the driver plus less punishment when I started playing the game the driver and 1 iron were the hardest club to hit and new course fairways then were narrower than now.

The shaping of golf courses are too similar from a wider perspective and has become rather boring for me as most GCAs are doing that it's like reproducing classic architecture buildings over and over again. Some like this and others don't for me variety is the spice of life and you learn more about what to do and what not to do when there is greater variety.

How many Golf Course Architects will have the chance to do what Tom does - great piece of land and acres of them. The reality is that most of us GCAs working in places like the UK and Europe we have less land to play with plus like Robin said the UK is very clay based which can have more implications on the budget and what we can do golf course design wise.

Tom has influenced many golf course architects especially the younger ones coming through in EIGCA, and they have tried to do what he does however the budget and soil conditions does not allow for it in many places in Europe which takes time for them to realise and adapt to different design approaches. The reality is most of us work on far less detailed and tighter areas plus a smaller budget and use golf course contractor rather than a specialist shaper which Tom is lucky to have in his arsenal.

Several clients do not want large rolling shaped greens they would prefer simpler and more subtle greens which can be faster and more playable to putt on which is the anthesis to a Doak, Hanse and C+C greens.

We work on smaller greens with less shaping fewer bunkers and tees plus narrower fairways. Sand is very expensive in the UK so we are finding different ways and sometimes it's sometimes not helpful when a client sees a Doak, Hanse or C+C with lots of beautiful frilly edged natural looking bunkers of varying sizes small and large functional and aesthetic then they see the cost on the bottom line which makes can make the design process longer.

So with my time I rather see and explore the new courses in the UK and Europe (especially Scandinavia) which are on a tight budget as it’s the area where most professional GCAs near me work on and gain experience from it. Also interested in seeing EIGCA partners coming up with new innovative products and integrating them to the golf course. Plus others using new ideas in the virtual world which I would like to look further into. Top Golf is flying in the UK.

A new Doak course would cost a lot more from a construction and future maintenance standpoint overall than a standard new golf course in the UK like the Kings course in Inverness by Stuart Rennie which is a great effort with the budget, site conditions and limitations they had.

We are in a period of climate change and innovative sustainable approaches are needed which golf course architects are using that more of as a priority when they design future courses plus using technology to make it more cost efficient overall in short and long term in the hidden areas of the course that many don't see where more of the budget tends to go towards these days on some projects. Also reducing maintenance and areas of sand can be a priority which has led to artificial bunker linings which is quite recent and becoming popular. Is that high priorty on a Doak, Hanse and C+C course – probably not.

There are other golf courses I would like to see that I haven't played there is so many in the world that you need a lot of time and money to travel there. For example Ireland I have not played Carne, Ballybunion, Lahinch and Royal Portrush they are higher up the list than St Patrick's for me. Also if you go to areas like East Lothian how many GCAers would play Gullane, Muirfield, North Berwick ahead of the Renaissance.

Looking back to BUDA if I had two courses to play again out of the three I would have stuck with Balcomie and changed Craighead with Eden course.

Sometimes you have seen things once and rather explore something different within the timescale - not only I see golf courses but travel to see buildings and amazing landforms to learn from/experience them.

One key thing I haven't said Doak courses are bad which some of you seem to have interpreted what I have said which is wrong there are elements of it I like and don't like plus I dont see them as innovative like some of you do. It’s that I have seen a few of Toms courses and done it would like to explore other architects' golf courses in the time window we have left on this planet.

The reality is that for us in the UK some Doak, Hanse and C+C courses are far afield that we can’t travel to regularly and possibly in a one in a lifetime trip for most of us plus a very costly exercise for example I would prefer to go to Monterrey (Pebble/Cypress) or Long Island (Shinnecock/NGLA) or Hilton Head than Bandon if I had the choice of travelling to the USA.

Regarding innovation they will come over and over in time. One wonders what golf will be like in the 22nd century the future is a mystery.

Cheers
Ben

Ben, this is a better post. More measured.


I certainly don’t agree with much of it - and there are some bits I fully disagree with - but you are right that design in all fields needs to keep pushing itself, morphing and changing.


None of which changes the fact  that Tom has moved the boundaries of GCA, particularly in the artistry and mastery of the build itself.

[Ben Malach]

Ben:


As a fellow young golf designer named Ben.


I really don't understand what you are doing or saying as it has limited basis in reality. Almost every sentence you have written in this thread is false. Which is impressive.

Why does the architect themselves need to handle every step of the process. Isn't that why we all work in teams?


For example, can you shape? Because, personally I would rather have my architect be able to shape with me and we can fight for the contours and look we want together rather than my architect being focused on learning new software.


If your so worried about cost can't maybe spend less time on the internet and more time in the can of an Ex or Dozer. While your at it can you install drainage and irrigation? When was the last time you layed your own sod son. Because  those are some other things you can do to save costs. As cutting large scale contractors out of it saves a lot more money than whatever the heck your rambling about. That's not even mentioning that when we do the work ourselves we can hold the crews to a higher standard as our clients can pay us to be there everyday not just to watch but to actually you know do the work of building golf.


That's not even mentioning how learning those skills going to make you a better architect, than spending your valuable time on this planet learning some random software that's going to be out of date in a decade.

This those are a couple of the lessons. I learned having had the chance to briefly work with Tom and C+C. It's also why both continue to grow and evolve. Both are more innovative than firms you have mentioned are consistently creative rather than the frankly regressive architects you hold up as examples of being ground breakers.

[Ben Malach]

Ben:
Tom is far to kind to do this but here are few examples within the last decade that he has done that are more innovative than the work of anyone you glazed off.


At Sandglass Tom blended[size=78%] [/size]lidar recreations of holes and unique holes on a golf course. Thats not only as a concept but also the execution very forward thinking. As Tom fit the new holes and classical into his own routing. I could bring up more examples like the routing at Punta Brava with its cross overs and par 3's. Tom also brought back the concept of reversible golf courses to the conversation by building a successful modern reversible course at Forest Dunes. But, you just seem desperate to have your myopic view reinforced, but there is nothing ther[size=78%]e.[/size]

It's fine not to be excited for every new course by Tom and a lot of the other top practicing firms. But, to say they aren't innovative is kind of BS. As I could do this for all of the big dogs.

Again, for someone critical of someone not innovating and evolving. I looked over your work in the same way you looked over Tom's. Let's just say the old dog has you lapped before you have even left the gate. I would rip apart your small catalog but that's punching way down and it's not a good look.


Another thing, as an architect you should also know it's super bad form to be hyper critical of a place that you have only had an experience with through visual media. As a majority of what makes golf golf special and different is in that 2-3" that cameras struggle to pick up. That's not even discussing the total experience of a project. As great golf is tied into the edges of the landscape to create a holistic experience that is only possible to discuss once one has experienced it in person.


Anyway, I hope this helps you get to a place of joy in creation because that's what all of this is about anyway.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben:
Tom is far to kind to do this but here are few examples within the last decade that he has done that are more innovative than the work of anyone you glazed off.


At Sandglass Tom blendedlidar recreations of holes and unique holes on a golf course. Thats not only as a concept but also the execution very forward thinking. As Tom fit the new holes and classical into his own routing. I could bring up more examples like the routing at Punta Brava with its cross overs and par 3's. Tom also brought back the concept of reversible golf courses to the conversation by building a successful modern reversible course at Forest Dunes. But, you just seem desperate to have your myopic view reinforced, but there is nothing ther[size=78%]e.[/size]

It's fine not to be excited for every new course by Tom and a lot of the other top practicing firms. But, to say they aren't innovative is kind of BS. As I could do this for all of the big dogs.

Again, for someone critical of someone not innovating and evolving. I looked over your work in the same way you looked over Tom's. Let's just say the old dog has you lapped before you have even left the gate. I would rip apart your small catalog but that's punching way down and it's not a good look.


Another thing, as an architect you should also know it's super bad form to be hyper critical of a place that you have only had an experience with through visual media. As a majority of what makes golf golf special and different is in that 2-3" that cameras struggle to pick up. That's not even discussing the total experience of a project. As great golf is tied into the edges of the landscape to create a holistic experience that is only possible to discuss once one has experienced it in person.


Anyway, I hope this helps you get to a place of joy in creation because that's what all of this is about anyway.

Ben

Its ok to have a difference of opinions and great to know that you have had experience of working with Doak and C+C long that may continue.

Some people interpret innovation in different ways.

My sorry but I do think ripping off other holes using lidar technology to use it/create elsewhere is not innovative in my view - could that be a potential copyright issue or plagiarising something that has already been done of using exact or similar shaping elsewhere? plus take the credit for it  . It's an approach helped by technology NOT an innovative design idea that's the difference for me. It just sounds to me that it could be a case of like running out of ideas and using other designs.

Doak, Hanse and C+C have been a massive influence on golf course designers globally - is that a good or a bad thing?. Some will have different views on this. In general I think golf course architects are copying each other too much, the courses all look similar and for me there has been no new innovative style/approach or ethos (whatever you want to call it) for more than a quarter of a century that is different from the eye in terms of the aesthetics, shaping and materiality. If you look at the past timelines the styles have changed in shorter time I guess this period is longer til the next era OR no one is willing to take the risk to be different which means it will be longer to the next era. Is it down to the internet and the speed that information is being passed on globally that people see things that they like and try to replicate that as a safe option rather than try to do something different.

3D printing is in its infancy in the building trade a former classmate of mine is dedicating their career to this approach. Could this be done on golf courses in future? you never know. Is it innovative? the technology is however the design may still look the same. 

Future wise possibly 10 years time or further afield I do think there will be an increase in virtual world golf wise and a decrease in new or current 'physical' golf courses one wonders will technology enhance physical golf courses or kill it off? Things like Trackman and Top Tracer will then become more affordable. I was fortunate to see an awesome presentation by Klaus Jorgensen the owner of Trackman earlier this year and he is convinced that the technology will become more affordable in future and more will use it. Climate change could be another factor.

That's the danger the virtual world will become more and more innovative producing unusual golf courses than physical golf courses could possibly do. The next generation of golfers are kids mostly brought up on computer games rather than golf. The numbers could dwindle as the real golfers generation fades away.

This would take jobs away from shapers/contractors unfortunately - it's all about adapting to change if you don't have the tools you would then be left quite far behind. I have a large collection of architecture and design books some of which are radical some are theories that can are really interesting and scary thoughts - far more radical than golf architecture and design books. I guess the majority of you only see it from a golf course perspective I see it in many different avenues - lots of other things are moving on faster in terms of design evolution than golf courses which I think is still stuck in its ways.

I question why people think the recent reversible courses are innovative? Didn't Tom Simpson come up with that idea around 100 years or so ago and wasn't the Old Course a reversible 18 hole course 100 plus years ago - surely that was more innovative at that time it probably wasn't practical for Simpsons idea/proposal to build it at that time like now and yet people praise others for being innovative when someone else way back in the past brought it up first is not right to me.

Maybe I am thinking to far into the future and need to be brought back to the present  

Cheers Ben

[Kyle Harris]

I'm still wondering what exactly counts as "innovation" when it comes to a sport whose rules are simple and whose playfields are still dictated by climate and gravity.

George Thomas's book is littered with innovation.

But it takes more than just someone to doodle on a piece of paper. It takes someone to built it, pay for it, and most importantly sustain it.

I am currently within a tee shot of a reversible 9-hole golf course that only plays in one direction because the operators don't have the motivation to sustain it as a reversible.

The guy that has managed to convince not one, but two, owners/stakeholders to sustain a reversible model seems to be innovating on a level Ben isn't even perceiving.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,


Rather than writing long posts with all sorts of theories, just go build a course you consider “innovative”.


Tim

[Tim_Weiman]

I'm still wondering what exactly counts as "innovation" when it comes to a sport whose rules are simple and whose playfields are still dictated by climate and gravity.

George Thomas's book is littered with innovation.

But it takes more than just someone to doodle on a piece of paper. It takes someone to built it, pay for it, and most importantly sustain it.

I am currently within a tee shot of a reversible 9-hole golf course that only plays in one direction because the operators don't have the motivation to sustain it as a reversible.

The guy that has managed to convince not one, but two, owners/stakeholders to sustain a reversible model seems to be innovating on a level Ben isn't even perceiving.

Kyle,


I share your view. I don’t know what counts as innovation or even why it is important.


Tim

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,


Rather than writing long posts with all sorts of theories, just go build a course you consider “innovative”.


Tim

Hi Tim,


I have some ideas already on the drawing board time and place will tell.

Some maybe too far fetched to build ones for the far future.


Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

I'm still wondering what exactly counts as "innovation" when it comes to a sport whose rules are simple and whose playfields are still dictated by climate and gravity.

George Thomas's book is littered with innovation.

But it takes more than just someone to doodle on a piece of paper. It takes someone to built it, pay for it, and most importantly sustain it.

I am currently within a tee shot of a reversible 9-hole golf course that only plays in one direction because the operators don't have the motivation to sustain it as a reversible.

The guy that has managed to convince not one, but two, owners/stakeholders to sustain a reversible model seems to be innovating on a level Ben isn't even perceiving.

I have George Thomas' book and he was quite innovative for his time 1927? fascinating read TBH. That was nearly 100 years ago!

[Sean_A]

Ben,


Rather than writing long posts with all sorts of theories, just go build a course you consider “innovative”.


Tim

Hi Tim,


I have some ideas already on the drawing board time and place will tell.

Some maybe too far fetched to build ones for the far future.


Cheers
Ben

I know it’s fruitless to try and change your opinion, but I want to know what innovation/opposite design looks like especially if technology isn’t part of the innovation? You mentioned some weird thing about greens floating during floods…isn’t that a technology centred idea? I really am lost here as to what you consider innovation. I read a lot about what isn’t innovative. Furthermore, given the current trends, which are believe are extremely varied and successful, why do you want risk money to build what is likely to be a risky innovative design which in and of itself doesn’t necessarily equate to better design? I suspect you will say that is how progress happens, but I have to wonder I what progress means in the context of gca.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

One of the disconnects here is that Ben is primarily a building architect.


Young architects enter competitions and do lots of designs for commissions they don't get.  With the state of CAD technology, their designs are pretty meticulously thought out and planned and "real" . . . so they think of them as real, even if they never got built.  And it's really easy to be innovative in a computer as opposed to the real world.


I suppose Brian Zager might feel the same way about a golf course design in the computer.  I just can't, and to be honest I can't think about a building that never got built as a real thing, either.  To me, all of the best design work in golf is stuff that interacts with the natural world.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

However I have both feet in Architecture and Golf Course Architecture as an occupation which many of you don’t so I can see from both angles from experience.

And yet, it's ONE perspective. Yours. It's not necessarily shared with a majority, or even a decent number of others.

Architecture has used computers to further advance more different designs which are now possible.

I don't think you really know how you want "computers" to be used in golf course architecture. I have a friend who is an architect (of buildings). Of course they use computers, but most of it is to do some of the calculations (for strengths of materials, loads and balancing, etc.) or to simply speed up the drawing or measuring (widths, heights, etc.).

We don't really need to know how thick of a beam we need to support a penthouse pool when we're building a golf course.


Edit: I see Ben may also be a (building) architect, not a golf course architect. Yeah, the two fields use computers VERY differently. You're not 3D printing a golf course any time soon, particularly on a smaller budget. Ben, your thoughts aren't halfway toward fleshed out, and it's increasingly obvious that you posted prematurely (at best).

I know some of you has raised about CAD use and Lido – to me that is a reproduction of a CBM course not an entirely new course

It's never been claimed by Tom or others to be a "new course."

The reality is most of us work on far less detailed and tighter areas plus a smaller budget and use golf course contractor rather than a specialist shaper which Tom is lucky to have in his arsenal.

So you're… jealous? Some of it reads that way.

Several clients do not want large rolling shaped greens they would prefer simpler and more subtle greens which can be faster and more playable to putt on which is the anthesis to a Doak, Hanse and C+C greens.

You can have rolling greens at higher speeds on larger greens — you just don't put the pins on the slopes, but in the bowls, at the tops… or in all of the other places where there aren't the larger slopes.

We are in a period of climate change and innovative sustainable approaches are needed which golf course architects are using that more of as a priority when they design future courses

Please provide examples of recent Doak courses which are not "sustainable."

 plus using technology to make it more cost efficient overall

Rarely does "using technology" result in lower costs, and I don't think many recent Doak courses are not using the latest advances in the daily upkeep and maintenance practices. Do you feel otherwise? Is Sedge Valley not using the latest knowledge and technology in maintenance?

For example Ireland I have not played Carne, Ballybunion, Lahinch and Royal Portrush they are higher up the list than St Patrick's for me. Also if you go to areas like East Lothian how many GCAers would play Gullane, Muirfield, North Berwick ahead of the Renaissance.

I mean, who wouldn't? But that's a pretty shoddy comparison.

plus I dont see them as innovative like some of you do.

I don't think you've defined "innovative" in this context.

Have you tried to explore using computers yourself rather than rely on Brian Zager?

"using computers" to do what, exactly, Ben?

I probably have a lot more experience of using computers than you have and have better understanding of its potential even in future having researched it - not sure if you know Rhino and Grasshopper or even CATIA for example? having used/seen/heard it in used in areas other than Golf Course Architecture.

One of my degrees is in computer science. I've written software professionally, and still sell and maintain commercial software. I'm as computer knowledgeable as almost anyone else here, and I can say that "using computers" doesn't necessarily mean that something is better, or more "innovative," or more cost effective.

My sorry but I do think ripping off other holes using lidar technology to use it/create elsewhere is not innovative in my view - could that be a potential copyright issue or plagiarising something that has already been done of using exact or similar shaping elsewhere? plus take the credit for it    .

Where have anyone "taken the credit for it"? C'mon man.

It's an approach helped by technology NOT an innovative design idea that's the difference for me. It just sounds to me that it could be a case of like running out of ideas and using other designs.

It demonstrates that he's "used technology" more than you seem to want to credit him with having done.

If you look at the past timelines the styles have changed in shorter time

Have they? In fewer than 25 years?

Things like Trackman and Top Tracer will then become more affordable.

What does this have to do with golf course architecture or "using technology" in building golf courses?

That's the danger the virtual world will become more and more innovative producing unusual golf courses than physical golf courses could possibly do. The next generation of golfers are kids mostly brought up on computer games rather than golf. The numbers could dwindle as the real golfers generation fades away.

Ben, bluntly, you're all over the place. And seemingly, blaming Doak for designing golf courses in the real world, and not "innovating" by operating in a way that you can only do in the "no real rules" virtual world. If you want your fill of that, can I interest you in some of the ridiculous TGL holes that we've seen? Do you like the "Temple" hole? How about the "Hatchet" hole, with virtual housing on the side?

I question why people think the recent reversible courses are innovative?

Because though there are examples dating back, even the Old Course doesn't play as a reversible routing very often (nor do some of the grass lines really work for it anymore), and the Loop is one of the only modern reversible courses. Have you done a reversible course, while tossing your "you're not innovative!" bombs out there? What have your innovations been, Ben?The more you write, Ben, the more it's clear you don't know what you're trying to say, and the more jealous you sound. Tom isn't "innovative" but you haven't really defined the ways in which he could or should be. You don't actually KNOW the extent to which he's used "computers," and when you do (like at the Lido), you mistakenly slag him for "taking credit" when he's done no such thing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Erik,


Wow! You put a lot of work into that post. Hopefully, Ben will learn from it.


Speaking of computers, I am old enough to remember working in the corporate world when there were no personal computers, meaning no such thing as word processing or email.


If something pissed you off and you wanted to respond in writing, you had to hand write out a letter or memo and ask a secretary to type it up.


That world had one big advantage: a person was less likely to fire off a memo that would be widely read (copying machines did exist), scrutinized and criticized. In other words, a person was less likely to write something they would later regret.


As you suggest, technology doesn’t always make things better.


Tim

[Chris Hughes]

Well it seems that you don't seem to take criticism very well I was making a point that you have a design style or approach that you are comfortable with and probably will never go out of the box it has worked well for you and you don't want to take the risk on doing something really different some would say 'stuck in your old ways' - some projects have been a huge success and others haven't

Tom is the last person here who needs anyone defending him, and I'm not aware of any history between you two or anything much beyond what was mentioned here… but to this and the rest of what you've written, wow. I don't remember the last time I read something that came off as so wildly off base.

I concur.

[Matthew Rose]

This is a really strange thread.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wow! You put a lot of work into that post. Hopefully, Ben will learn from it.

Eh, I type fast. 😀

I don't think Ben has a grasp on what he's trying to say. "style" and "innovation" and "computers"… to what end? We don't need CAD apps to do GCA like we do regular building "A".

This is a really strange thread.

Agreed.