Ben
The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.
Ciao
If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.
I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box
My guess is you don’t really know what is the opposite of what is being built now. The building architecture references don’t help me understand where you are going with this thread.
I believe we have a wider variety of architecture now than has probably ever existed. All sorts of stuff from true minimalism to complete build from scratch to geometric to naturalism to flat to mountain to desert to reversible to short yardage to long yardage etc etc is happening. I guess you are difficult to satisfy.
To be honest, there is so much happening right now that I can’t even keep up let alone try to play most of these courses.
If you are talking about a trend to take over, again, I don’t think I want a new trend. What is happening now is awesome and extremely varied. I have no desire to see the current trend end because I don’t know what will come next and what we have is outstanding. I played a reversible 9 hole course which can also be played in multiple ways in terms of jumping around. Short grass everywhere. Seriously small property. Built from nothing. I am not too worried about bunker styles. 😎.
Ciao
Hi Sean,
Tried to use a different reference which I am more used to as I work as an Architect and have a keen interest in all sort of Architecture. There is much more design evolution in buildings as there is a lot more of them around and they have been around a lot longer than golf courses.
There is much more variety in terms of golf course layout more than ever before - reversible 9s, 18s and 4 no 6 hole loops, more disabled golf facilities, short game areas, Top Golf etc and so on.
However it is more the look/aesthetics that still looks similar like a housebuilder's home in the UK more like Toyland in Noddy which I am querying about - why does it all look so similar where there are other different shapes and looks that are possible.
Zaha Hadid used to say - 'there are 359 other degrees why only use one?' buildings tend to be square and common. Golf course design tends to be 'too common' lots copying each other.
There is a square green and square water hazard on one hole in Noria GC in Morocco - I thought hey that's different not the norm some may not like it and others will why isn't there more of this.
There is not that many geometric courses - are they disliked, harder to maintain or puts off golfers playing it because it looks awkward - one example is Bob Cupps Course at Palmetto Hall.
Also there is not many copying the style of Pete Dye is this out of respect or cost/not a safe option to attract golfers as Dye courses reputation is that they are hard for most golfers.
There is something in architecture called Parametric Architecture I guess that has not transpired across to golf course design yet. Zaha Hadid and Peter Eisenman who I have been interested in have moved Architecture forward in that respect and it has created a new design style.
Also there is flood resilient architecture where flood prevation/floating/amphibious houses are created which I have been working on - is there an amphibious golf green where the green moves upwards when flood waters come into the golf course has that type been constructed yet? Climate change is a factor and new ways will be needed to prevent golf courses being closed. Maybe one day we will see an amphibious golf green
.
Cheers
Ben