[Shane Gurnett]

Are there any legitimate ones?

[Andrew Summerell]

Are there any legitimate ones?

Yes, I'm only in it for the money.

I think a few archies could use that excuse, but not publicly of course.

[Matthew Mollica]

Interesting question Shane.

I once heard an archie justifying the routing of a particular course, by saying that it couldn't go into the more desirable patches of land on the property, for environmental reasons. Be it flora and/or fauna, this may be a legitimate excuse for missing out on what could have been.

Didn't the layout at Doonbeg suffer from something like this?

Very keen to see what others come up with.

Matthew

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shane,

YES,  

D.E.P.  and

L.O.F.T.

[Matthew Delahunty]

insanity?

[A_Clay_Man]

In a 'big world" tent, there is no bad architecture.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Shane,

I don't suppose you have any specific courses in mind?

[Joel_Stewart]

Lack of money?

Developers getting in the way.

Cart paths.

Architecture that is more intersted in aesthetics than golf.

[Michael Dugger]

The architect was forced to consult with a PGA tour player.

[tonyt]

The need to sell x number of lots to even start funding a golf course. I look at the undesirable animal of housing estate courses on a case by case basis. Without the housing, there can sometimes be fewer legitimate excuses.

[Lou_Duran]

Does anyone believe that an archie sets out to design a sh---- golf course?  Money is nearly always the constraint.  With enough of it, most problems can be overcomed, and the remaining ones ameliorated.

Is a course that can only be built through the subsidies of lot sales not better than no course at all?      

[tonyt]

Lou,

Yes I've always agreed that if given the choice of housing course or no course, I'd choose the golf facility in whatever form. Goes with my other statement that poor golf is better than a day at work.

I was only addressing the poor architecture excuses question.

[SPDB]

Shane - What do you mean by poor architecture? structural problems?

[Shane Gurnett]

Shane - What do you mean by poor architecture? structural problems?

SPDB

I dont really know what it means, hence asking the question. I guess I'm really angling at a situation where the end result is less satisfactory than the anticapted result. ie where the resultant course does not do justice to the site, and why.

[SPDB]

if you don't know what poor architecture is, how can you determine if excuses are needed, or, assuming they are, if they are legitimate?

Less satisfactory to whom?

[Richard Chamberlain]

Shane

How about when a client is demanding a 7000 yard, par 72 layout because it won't be deemed a "championship" layout without it.
Even when the site has a couple of fantastic natural 120 yard par 3's and 280 yard par 4's.

Is this a legitimate excuse for the architect, or has he/she failed for not convincing the client to build a shorter track ?

[Shane Gurnett]

SPDB

Poor architecture will always be in the eye of the beholder. Obviosuly, opinions will vary enormously depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

Isn't the architect paid to overcome as many obstacles as possible, thereby leaving fewer excuses for poor work?

Dr Kildare

I agree that where the architect does not have a free run, there may always be some legitimate excuses, such as those you mention. But doesn't the good architect seperate himself from the less gifted ones by being able to overcome all or most of these excuses or obstacles?

[SPDB]

Shane -

A hypothetical, and not a statement about your post.

What if I said this was a poor thread. What would your response be?

[Shane Gurnett]

What if I said this was a poor thread. What would your response be?

I would do what some architects do. Simply ignore you and tell everyone I know that you know nothing about what makes a great thread.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()