Nicklaus Design takes aim at... Nicklaus Design

[Scott Warren]

On Darius Oliver's Planet Golf website is a very interesting article concerning the possible redesign of The Australian GC in Sydney.

It can be read here: http://www.planetgolf.com.au/index.php?id=1495 and largely concerns ND senior associate Chris Cochran's damnation of the course his firm built.

Some excerpts:

Cochran begins by congratulating the club on doing a ‘great job preserving Jack’s Signature design so well for over 30 years.’ He then admits that many areas of the golf course were poor, including the fairways, the bunkers, the greens, the ponds, the landscaping and the symmetrical mounding. That’s quite a list when you think about it. He also suggests the routing could be improved.

"…if the Australian Golf Club was a brand new golf course that I was showing to Jack for the first time, he would make me re-shape the entire course before he would put his name on it."

After identifying areas of concern Nicklaus Design goes on to provide the club with five distinct options for improvement, from a simple resurfacing of the putting greens through to a full scale redesign of the entire layout costing close to $7 million.

...there is also a suggestion that the club consider removing most of the trees and returning the course to a links layout. For those unfamiliar with the Australian GC history, it was a wild and sandy quasi-links in the 1970s when Nicklaus transformed it into an American parkland. Now Nicklaus and his team are offering, for a fee, to return the layout to its sandy roots.

The Australian are presumably well resourced, but if they are serious about improving their course they would be best advised to broaden their architectural search and consider all of golf’s Quality Endorsed designers. A financially sound club in an appealing city like Sydney could attract almost any architect it wanted.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I was there 15 years ago, the general changes JN (actually mostly Jay Morrish, and the super had a pic of a very young Jay) in his office were not favorably viewed in Aus.  Everyone knew it was an American style layout.  It obviously didn't compare to the classics around the country.

My only question is whether following the trends of the 2010's will get them any better results than following the trends of the 1980's?

[Andrew Summerell]

The course ranks well in Australia because of its maintenance & exclusivity, but it’s an awful boring course. The Australian GC would be fools to hire Nicklaus again.

My only question is whether following the trends of the 2010's will get them any better results than following the trends of the 1980's?

What if they forget about the trends & just get a quality architect to do quality work?

[jeffwarne]

Man it is tough out there

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Do you have any reason to believe JN isn't and wouldn't?

Its actually a nice sign that they hired back the original (well original to the big overhaul entire new course) gca figuring they would be both the most sympathetic to the best elements of their own work, and most likely to take an enthusiastice mulligan.

[JMEvensky]

"he would make ME  re-shape the entire course before he would put HIS name on it".

I bet this line caused some problems back at the office.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff B. If you consider the trends of the 80's a result of an innovative mindset and the current trend towards a renascience of principles. The current trend isn't a trend. Its a retracement. Jack is recognizing the wrong road taken and I for one think that's more than prudent. Its commendable. But what do I know?

 

[Neil_Crafter]

This is what the Kensington course of the Australian GC looked like in 1908. Need some tree clearing to get back to this look!

[Andrew Summerell]

Do you have any reason to believe JN isn't and wouldn't?

I never said Nicklaus design isn't & wouldn't, but your question was about following trends. Why would you hire someone who is merely going to follow a trend? Surely a committee (for any course or club looking to have work done) needs to find the right person for their course, no matter what the trends are at the moment.

[David_Elvins]

I will take the cynical view.

That the club has asked Nicklaus Design to assess the course and recommend a scope of work.  And Nicklaus Design has taken the wise commercial option of leading the club to do as much work as possible. 

[Niall C]

Do you have any reason to believe JN isn't and wouldn't?

I never said Nicklaus design isn't & wouldn't, but your question was about following trends. Why would you hire someone who is merely going to follow a trend? Surely a committee (for any course or club looking to have work done) needs to find the right person for their course, no matter what the trends are at the moment.

Andrew

What trend exactly are they following ? Might it more be a case of change of styles coupled with a reworking to take into account improvements in technology ie. the length that players can hit the golf ball now as compared to then ?

David

Yes, they seemed to have offered a fairly comprehensive review but they have also offered a range of measures from resurfacing greens only upwards. That seems a fairly sensible approach to me.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

"After identifying areas of concern Nicklaus Design goes on to provide the club with five distinct options for improvement, from a simple resurfacing of the putting greens through to a full scale redesign of the entire layout costing close to $7 million."

David,

I agree with Niall. It sounds like JN has offered them a menu of options, and probably describing the cost benefit of each.  They may have made a recommendation A, B, C, or D, but the article makes it sound like the club, as you would expect, is in full control of approving recommendations.

Moreover, simply resurfacing greens, I am sure with newer bent grasses than were available then, is a pretty low cost option.

I agree totally with you - yours is a cynical view!

[jeffwarne]

Jeff B. If you consider the trends of the 80's a result of an innovative mindset and the current trend towards a renascience of principles. The current trend isn't a trend. Its a retracement. Jack is recognizing the wrong road taken and I for one think that's more than prudent. Its commendable. But what do I know?

 

It's great that he's improving/"recognizing the wrong road taken";
 Commendable? -perhaps, prudent?--more likely.
however, in this ultacompetitive world with many, many talented exceptional architects hungry for projects, I would see no reason to use the same architect who admittedly dropped the ball the first time (even if he didn't know he was dropping it at the time)
The value of a brand name can be important for developers (or at least they think so), but  not when it's already on a product the original architect's firm admittedly deems inferior.
Why pay for a change and carry the legacy of an inferior product?

[BCrosby]

"...I would see no reason to use the same architect who admittedly dropped the ball the first time (even if he didn't know he was dropping it at the time)
The value of a brand name can be important for developers (or at least they think so), but  not when it's already on a product the original architect's firm admittedly deems inferior.
Why pay for a change and carry the legacy of an inferior product?"

Exactly so.

When our club retained a big name architect to do revisions to our course, one that he had remodeled ten or so years earlier, the most pointed questions I got from members were why use the same architect if they didn't do it right the first time. I had no hand in the rehiring and I know it's more complicated than most members appreciate. Courses change, tastes change, architects change, heck even USGA Green Section recs have changed over the last decade, and so on.

But it would have probably made sense to hire another architect for the follow-on redo. Sounds like that's what AGC should have done.

Bob    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I have broached the subject before, but I always wonder what it is that makes us think that current trends are "the answer" rather than just another current trend.  I also wonder what other field tells itself that no signifigant developments have occurred since 1930, and accepts that nothing better can be done.

I suspect that the best courses of this era will emerge, but most will look like beehive hairdos, even among the favored minimalist gca's here.  And those will be the courses on the best sites, not by the top gca's.  Just a guess, based on the USA trend of always updating and freshening pop culture.

As to Australian, when I was there I spent a lot of time with then (maybe still there?) super Robt. Ashes and then more time when he visited the USA. They certainly had choices of styles and architects back then.  They had a mid level example of the Australian style.  Did they try to upgrade it to Royal Melbourne status, or try to be different by being an American style, signature course?

Sometimes, this board really gets full of itself in thinking that they didn't "know better", and that we do know what's best for all, don't you think?  I mean, how many of you have even seen the course (or the JN report) before offering opinions that it was botched, etc.?  That remodel is now 20-25 years old and it sounds like they have a decent course with typical problems of needing/wanting better putting surfaces, tree overgrowth, etc.

Even though I made a few comments myself, its not a certainty that they are doing anything other than evaluating where the course is now.  Even in a total redo, they may want to be sympathetic to what they have.  If they didn't, I suspect they would have looked to other gca's rather than go back to Jack.  But, its a guess since I haven't been there lately either.  I am just giving them credit for being the intelligent men and women that they are.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Jeff:

That is the best post you have ever made, IMO

[jeffwarne]

Adam,

I have broached the subject before, but I always wonder what it is that makes us think that current trends are "the answer" rather than just another current trend.  I also wonder what other field tells itself that no signifigant developments have occurred since 1930, and accepts that nothing better can be done.

I suspect that the best courses of this era will emerge, but most will look like beehive hairdos, even among the favored minimalist gca's here.  And those will be the courses on the best sites, not by the top gca's.  Just a guess, based on the USA trend of always updating and freshening pop culture.

As to Australian, when I was there I spent a lot of time with then (maybe still there?) super Robt. Ashes and then more time when he visited the USA. They certainly had choices of styles and architects back then.  They had a mid level example of the Australian style.  Did they try to upgrade it to Royal Melbourne status, or try to be different by being an American style, signature course?

Sometimes, this board really gets full of itself in thinking that they didn't "know better", and that we do know what's best for all, don't you think?  I mean, how many of you have even seen the course (or the JN report) before offering opinions that it was botched, etc.?  That remodel is now 20-25 years old and it sounds like they have a decent course with typical problems of needing/wanting better putting surfaces, tree overgrowth, etc.

Even though I made a few comments myself, its not a certainty that they are doing anything other than evaluating where the course is now.  Even in a total redo, they may want to be sympathetic to what they have.  If they didn't, I suspect they would have looked to other gca's rather than go back to Jack.  But, its a guess since I haven't been there lately either.  I am just giving them credit for being the intelligent men and women that they are.

Jeff you are right this board does get full of itself at times.
and I'm 100% with you on trends and how we are just in another current trend, and occasionally we get carried away with groupthink.
But the harshest criticisms of the course (which as you point out few of us have seen) were put forth by the firm in question, and WENT ON TO COMPLIMENT THE CLUB ON HOW WELL THEY HAD PRESERVED THE WORK (that they admit needs "complete reshaping" among other harsh adjectives they use.)
I watched Nicklaus' firm butcher Augusta CC when I was 17, and at the time(and probably now) I knew nothing about architecture. What I did recognise was that the goofy fads of the 80's were being imposed a classic course and it killed me to watch it. Shocker of shockers, it was redesigned a few years later and is now a wonderful golf course again.
Thank God they didn't rehire the same firm (Seriously, who would do that? and not catch a ration of shi$#%)

[Adam Russell]

Regardless of how you feel about trends or what the golf course should and shouldn't look like, what other profession besides golf course design could you admit flaws your original work, get a second chance to re-work elements of it a decade ago (the bunkers), then write a letter to your client saying it's still wrong and offer yet a third round "range" of suggestions, FOR A FEE...

Doesn't that seem the least bit irresponsible?

[Scott Warren]

Jeff B,

I mean, how many of you have even seen the course (or the JN report) before offering opinions that it was botched, etc.?

The only person who has criticised the course in this thread is Andrew Summerell and he knows the course from first-hand experience, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I certainly didn't criticise it or say I agree with Darius - I have only walked most if it once at an Australian Open, so I wouldn't venture an opinion.

The Australian is out of character with the area it is in, that's undeniable. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of personal preference.

As to trends, trends in design are like bias - they're inescapable. If a course is great, I suspect few people will care too much whether it is of a particular trend.

Neil C,

That's a great pic of the site way back when. We have a similar one of our land just down the road - pre-golf course - in the locker room at Bonnie Doon - the dunescape is amazing.

Given R. Syd was redesigned in 2003, The Lakes was done last year, NSW is undergoing changes and Bonnie Doon is about to get a significant facelift, I'm not surprised the powers that be at The Aus have decided the time is right for change.

My question is this: many of you have written as though Nicklaus definitely has the job to carry out that change. Where has that been stated? I don't get that from Darius' article and it's not what I've heard around the traps in Sydney the past few weeks.

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew

What trend exactly are they following ? Might it more be a case of change of styles coupled with a reworking to take into account improvements in technology ie. the length that players can hit the golf ball now as compared to then ?

Niall,

Jeff Brauer used the word trend originally. I was just answering the question & wondering myself why he believed the club would want to follow some trend.

[Andrew Summerell]

I have broached the subject before, but I always wonder what it is that makes us think that current trends are "the answer" rather than just another current trend.  I also wonder what other field tells itself that no signifigant developments have occurred since 1930, and accepts that nothing better can be done.

Jeff,

I'm interested in your concern about 'trends'. Like I said in a previous post, why can't committees just find the best architect for the site that will design a course sympathetic to the site? I know that is probably naïve & simplistic, but I couldn’t care less about whether a course is minimalist or has bunkers of a particular style.

What has been your experience with committees & developers? Are they generally looking for a particular style when they initially talk to an architect? Are many developers completely open to the vision the architect sees in the land?

I don’t believe there is a way around people following popularised trends; it’s just human nature, but how much of the responsibility of trend following falls on the architects?

If an architect honestly wants to allow the site to tell him/her what to design, how much good land is out there? From what I’ve seen of sites pre construction & during construction, a majority of land that is used for golf courses these days could have any style imposed on it. As an architect, how often do you get offered a site that encourages you to change your style, however broad it may be?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Have Nicklaus's opinions, I wonder, changed ever so slightly since working beside Tom Doak?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Working bottom to top,

Mark,

JN has been quoted about TD teaching him about internal green contours, and I think it has shown up in his work. I also recall a few other quotes implying that JN's own experience as a top golfer was also very important and, um, better.  Tom could answer that one better, as I am going from memory.

Scott,

That is a good question as to whether JN has the job, or if that was just a proposal. I answered as if they had contracted him for at least a review or Master Plan.  And if so, it looked like a very similar reprt to what I might do - assess low to high options and describe the potential benefits.

It is quite possible that this report is a sales job.  When they heard their old client was considering a redo, they sent one of their associates working in Asia over to put a pitch in.  In that case, and speculating that they had heard the AC wanted to return to its roots, their report might have been tailored to show that they were flexible and not all that tied to their previous work, i.e., letting them know they DON'T have to go to another gca to get a different look. 

You may agree or not, but that is sales.

Scott,

The whole idea of trends might be a different topic worth exploring.  I can see a reason for everything that has happened in gca.  While its easy to say "carts are bad" I can see why it happenend and why gca's respond.  My question has always been whether its what I call "sincere" for Pete Dye and CC to mimic other styles rather than to design to current situations, technology, etc.  It sure has proved popular, so I think the question of success has been answered.  I just happen to think that more often or not, looking forward in design would be the next big thing, rather than looking back.  At least, the next time there is a paradigm shift!

My comments were based more on Darius' take - and we need to keep in mind that he is trying to be a Geoff Shack type of journalist here.  He even used the word outrage for effect, which is fine, but I just can't see anyone being outraged at a gca going back to work on his course after 20 years.  Things change, and outside this website, JN certainly has the cred to get a call back.

[Andrew Summerell]

Is The Australian a good example of a course that is not that good architecturally, but shouldn’t be touched? I have played The Australian quite a few times & as is pretty obvious, the design is not my ‘cup of tea’. In saying that, it is always well maintained & has an exclusivity about it & that is as much as many golfers are looking for.

As much as I would love to see it restored to its early design & style, I believe it would be too difficult (for many reasons) & is never going to happen. Are some courses better to leave things as they are & let those who love the course continue to love it & those who hate it, hate it?

[Dustin Knight]

Scott,


I think Thursday will be an interesting afternoon full of discussion, with all the talk surrounding this it will be an absolute treat to take some pics and post further on this thread. I intend on arriving around midday and will be on the putting green, just buzz me on the mobile when you arrive and I will come and get you.

Cheers
Dustin