Design Gut Check?

[Carl Nichols]

 .

[Tom_Doak]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

[Michael Chadwick]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Pertaining to what? Design? Or talking about design? I never saw the OP.

[Simon Barrington]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

You just won GC Atlas!

[Ben Stephens]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.


I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise


Variety is the spice of life   

[Tom_Doak]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.

I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise

Variety is the spice of life

I can't think of anything more gutless than an architect standing on the sidelines and criticizing me for not being more varied.  If you think it's easy to build something different and better, you should go do it, or be more respectful.


I do have a coherent approach to design, which has not precluded me from taking on different sorts of projects and producing some pretty good variety over my career.  Do you think my work is less varied than that of Harry Colt or A. W. Tillinghast or Alister MacKenzie?  All of them were pretty good but they didn't resort to building anything like Jim Engh just to prove they could.

[Ben Stephens]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.

I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise

Variety is the spice of life

I can't think of anything more gutless than an architect standing on the sidelines and criticizing me for not being more varied.  If you think it's easy to build something different and better, you should go do it, or be more respectful.


I do have a coherent approach to design, which has not precluded me from taking on different sorts of projects and producing some pretty good variety over my career.  Do you think my work is less varied than that of Harry Colt or A. W. Tillinghast or Alister MacKenzie?  All of them were pretty good but they didn't resort to building anything like Jim Engh just to prove they could.

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


James Stirling a famous Modern British Architect evolved his designs a lot from the 1950s to the 1990s some people like the challenge to do something different over their career and others don't for example Robert Adam who has stuck to classical architecture because they were more comfortable with it. 


We are in an era where more things are possible to do with the technology that we have construction and design wise with use of computers and 3D technology. Colt Mackenzie and Tillinghast didn't and they were more limited to what they could do - one wonders what they could have done with the current equipment available. I do think you are 'old school' when it comes to golf course design and like to respect the elders (or influences) using a similar 'ethos' - (your word) however it seems that you are not a fan of modern technology - your comment of not wanting to see Harris Kalinka's fly through of Cabot Highlands course does show your view - how you approach things is your choice


However you are not choosing to use the technology which is available which others are using which could be the next popular design style or ethos. The danger is if that becomes popular and your ethos becomes less popular what would you do? stick to your ideals or evolve.


In the real world most designers have to evolve to enable them to generate income and a living. You are a rarity in the GCA world and very well known and will be ok. It is different for others. I am not a fan of traditional buildings however if a client wants it I do it because it's meeting their brief and brings me income. You are in a fortunate position not to have that and have more freedom towards designs than many others have.


I was testing the waters to see whether you will come up with something radically different and the conclusion is that it is very unlikely to happen however I do wish you every success for the future. We may agree or disagree on certain things plus we are different people I am more of a modernist and you are more of a traditionalist.


Jim Engh's work is interesting and you try and see where he is coming from - he is different - Variety is the spice of life. Mike Strantz is different which is shown in Robin Hiseman's work which I like more having played JCB with Robin it does punish the poor shot and has different variety some holes do make you uncomfortable having not played it before - it is a different style or 'ethos' that's is not seen in the UK before. I can imagine if JCB was designed by you it would have wide fairways and a more 'traditional' look.


Not many people have the guts to criticise a world renown designer however you may see it as gutless others may see it differently.


 

[Ally Mcintosh]

B[/size]en, I think you’re heading down the wrong path there. You’re also using “style” and “ethos” as one and the same whereas they are very different.
[/size]
[/size]In my opinion, Tom has a strong design ethos that means he has some consistencies in his approach to design, some of which make their way into aesthetics.
[/size]That is very different to having an unwavering style. More so than the other two members of your modern Triumverate, the Doak / Renaissance stable has tried a lot of different things, both conceptually and in the detail.Part of their design ethos (playable width, hiding transitions, fairway lines following the land, use of micro-undulations) does provide a consistent aesthetic but it does not mean the style is the same.


I think your highlighting of technology is unfair. They have just been very forward thinking with their recreation of Lido. Choosing not to use fancy rendering for marketing purposes (for that is all it is) is not foregoing technology. And choosing not to build on a natural site directly from a 3D model is only common-sense to me.

Additionally - returning to style - one of the first tropes of becoming a true GCA nerd is to be able to notice the different design characteristics of the beloved designers. That is the same with MacKenzie or Tillinghast or Thomas… why pick on the moderns.Tom has only built 50 courses. If all of the other moderns had never been built, we’d still be celebrating his courses as something completely different. The fact that there are so few new courses being built and that most of them are not drastically breaking away from what has been a logical and successful movement in design adds to the feeling that there is nothing new being done.

[Simon Barrington]

Hi Ben
Hope you don't mind, but I am afraid that "There is a narrow line between bravery & ...."

As someone who really gets your genuine enthusiasm (one resonant of a young man writing a Golf Course Guide that was for friends only...), I would suggest a pause here...

Your OP question, which is essentially "What's next?" is absolutely valid.

Especially, as those that mimic the perceived style and presentation of the 3 GCA's you cited, with far less talent and success are diluting their ethos. Such are notable periods in design challenged over time, ubiquity and pastiche brings these periods to a close, but that is not the fault of the leaders of such movements.

It also is the great challenge they face. 
Tom and the others grasp that better than anyone, hence their constant innovation/evolution/variety.

The problem is you picked on the wrong guy (and perhaps in enthusiasm too stridently, one of my traits hence my empathy here in reaching out) as Tom has shown himself to be the opposite of what you describe.

Tom's body of work stands for itself as varied and thought-leading, very few can do the range of design he has done so successfully.His mentor Pete Dye liked to turn the other way to surprise, and Tom has done the same.

I am no expert on all his work but it strikes me that Apache Stronghold is very different from The Loop and especially Sedge Valley.
Others more au fait with his work can no doubt give numerous other better examples of his "range".

From what I hear in recent podcasts Tom is about to share some pretty special work in the next few projects...
I have no doubt they will all be different in some way.
Why?
Because he works with the land, and pushes boundaries (but not just for the sake of it)

But the one thrust you are really wrong on is use of technology, have you not studied his Lido project?

This is potentially the most challenging and impressive use of the very things you throw the other way, in error I am afraid.
Yes it's CBM's original design, but few could lead such a project so well to bring out the talents of his team and CBM's genius so many years on and in a different location entirely.
Someone "stuck in the past" could not have succeeded. (Note: Lido "reduxes" have been done before far less successfully)

So I'd suggest focus on the key question "What's Next?", leverage your undoubted (Building) Architectural knowledge, and show us what you can do to push the art forward.

I'm very interested to see what it might be...

Cheers!