[Ben Voelker]

I just starting reading through Hurdzan's book on golf course architecture (second edition, 2005) and he presents a list in Chapter 2 of the basic criteria for golf course architecture.  The entire list is ranked from most to least important criterion and how he thinks that has changed since the first edition of his book in 1996.  I find the whole list quite interesting.

2005 Rank    Criterion                                            1996 Rank
1                 Safety                                               1
2                 Aesthetics                                         10
3                 Tournament qualities                          11
4                 Flexibility                                            2
5                 Fairness                                             4
6                 Shot value                                         3
7                 Progression                                        5
8                 Balance                                             7
9                 Flow (traffic)                                      6
10               Maintenance cost                                8
11               Construction planning                          9

I thought this might lead to some good discussion, especially considering the jump for numbers 2 and 3 in the 2005 order.  I would think this is amazingly subjective based on the clientèle the owner is going after.  The text states that this list is not what he personally thinks should be the importance, but the practical importance considering owner and golfer preferences.

I would love to hear some thoughts on the ordering.

Is this list accurate, generally speaking of course? why/why not?

What does it say for the future of development, if anything?

Since it is 5 years old now and the economics have changed dramatically since 2005, what would this order be today and do you think its changing?

Ben

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I would never try to do a list like that myself, as priorities vary significantly from one client to the next, and sometimes from one site to the next.  Even safety is not always #1, depending on the expected volume of play.

However, I find it hard to believe that maintenance cost would be 10th out of 11 in anyone's priority list.  Perhaps some owners would posture and say it's not a factor, but few are really that crazy.

[Garland Bayley]

If safety were really number one, then one would think the USGA would waste no time limiting the distance the ball travels.

[Ben Voelker]

Ben:

I would never try to do a list like that myself, as priorities vary significantly from one client to the next, and sometimes from one site to the next.  Even safety is not always #1, depending on the expected volume of play.

However, I find it hard to believe that maintenance cost would be 10th out of 11 in anyone's priority list.  Perhaps some owners would posture and say it's not a factor, but few are really that crazy.

Tom,

Could this be the result of the list having been completed in 2005?  I don't know about the golf industry, but this was basically the peak of the economic boom of the previous 10 years.  Perhaps Hurdzan had been working for mostly high end daily fee type clients and they were less worried about maintenance budgets than "attracting" the big tournaments.  The list does make me think of highly manufactured places like Whistling Straits or the like as opposed to somewhere like Wild Horse.

As you said, you would never do such a list, but how highly are maintenance costs considered compared to the other 10 items?

Ben

p.s. I think I just tried to backhand a list out of you!

[Garland Bayley]

Does he give any justification for changing the ordering? Or is he just a blow with the prevailing winds sort of guy?

Whatever happened to 18 distinct problems to be solved? Is the players mind not a factor in his GCA?

[Ben Voelker]

Does he give any justification for changing the ordering? Or is he just a blow with the prevailing winds sort of guy?

Whatever happened to 18 distinct problems to be solved? Is the players mind not a factor in his GCA?

His general justification for the changes to the list are relatively limited, but he does go on to talk about each criterion in detail later in the chapter.  I am not about to put words into his mouth but again, I don't think these are his personal preferences, but rather his interpretation as to what is important to clients and golfers in general during this time period (1996-2005).

Specifically, the discussion on aesthetics and and tournament qualities are very interesting as he is looking at what has been successful in recent years.  My interpretation of his point is that the new courses that are rated highly and are successful economically tend to be visually stunning and difficult "championship" golf courses based on client needs AND what the golfing public pays to play (eg American Club, Torrey Pines redesign, Bethpage redesign, etc).  This even entered into the discussion started by Matt Ward regarding WS and why it is rated so highly.  If 98% of golfers are not GCA junkies and they are attracted to "championship golf" and high aesthetics, why aren't these most important?

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45470.0/

The reason I posted this is that I find the entire conflict fascinating.  If great architecture is not appreciated by the vast majority of the golfing public and aesthetics and championship golf are most important to clients (or perceived to be by architects), how is this balanced by an architect who wants to build truly great golf courses?  Its akin to a serious actor taking a role in Generic Romantic Comedy to pay the bills as I see it...

[Mike Nuzzo]

both 10 & 11 are really 1 & 2
a great team can nail the rest with good maint and const

what a silly priority
probably a good reason why there is so much average work out there

cheers

[JC Urbina]

Ben,

Mackenzie also published a set of criteria for which he envisioned every designer should follow. He ended up breaking every rule he established.

So much for criteria.

[Garland Bayley]

... If great architecture is not appreciated by the vast majority of the golfing public and aesthetics and championship golf are most important to clients (or perceived to be by architects), how is this balanced by an architect who wants to build truly great golf courses?  Its akin to a serious actor taking a role in Generic Romantic Comedy to pay the bills as I see it...

How can great architecture be appreciated by the public if they never get to see it? If all that is important is to build boring pretty course after boring pretty course, the public will never get to see great architecture. Let the public have their chances to have their epiphanies by giving them a chance to play great courses. The members of my club are getting that chance by seeing Bandon, Chambers Bay, and Wine Valley. A significant number of them have adopted Wine Valley as their go to course away from home. Great architecture is appreciated by the golfing public if they get a chance to see it!

If the public is so ignorant, why did you have to sleep in your car to play Bethpage Black long before the USGA had it in their sights?

[Randy Thompson]

I think a lot depends on the site, I have had some sites where the construction planning must be the prioroity, sites with high percentage of sloping terrain and big rains are the norm for the area. If it is not the first prioroity and done well your not gonna get a chance to develop any further steps.

[Ben Voelker]

... If great architecture is not appreciated by the vast majority of the golfing public and aesthetics and championship golf are most important to clients (or perceived to be by architects), how is this balanced by an architect who wants to build truly great golf courses?  Its akin to a serious actor taking a role in Generic Romantic Comedy to pay the bills as I see it...

How can great architecture be appreciated by the public if they never get to see it? If all that is important is to build boring pretty course after boring pretty course, the public will never get to see great architecture. Let the public have their chances to have their epiphanies by giving them a chance to play great courses. The members of my club are getting that chance by seeing Bandon, Chambers Bay, and Wine Valley. A significant number of them have adopted Wine Valley as their go to course away from home. Great architecture is appreciated by the golfing public if they get a chance to see it!

If the public is so ignorant, why did you have to sleep in your car to play Bethpage Black long before the USGA had it in their sights?

Garland,

I don't disagree.  I think most of the public would appreciate good/great design if they were exposed to it, but isn't that the problem?  Many are not and therefore look for something different (aesthetics, marketing, "championship golf").  When that's what golfers want, ignorant or otherwise, owners are going to want to build it and you get the priorities on the list.

I'm not agreeing with the ordering myself, but I do think it was an attempt to reflect upon current market conditions as seen by the author.  Obviously this would change drastically from job to job, and maybe isn't even generally accurate, but the above priority hierarchy would make for a difficult project for the designer from an artistic standpoint.  The question is whether this is a commonly requested hierarchy by owners?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if Mike would change the order again in 2010?  For one thing, they changed the name of their firm to add "environmental design" to the name, so I figure that would be a new category, and rising with a bullet.

I also hate the idea that tournament golf is such a high criteria, even in the top 10 anywhere. How many tournaments have been played on Hurdzan-Fry courses?  Yes, I know Erin Hills will host the Am and Open.  For most other courses, we may as well be designing for an alien invasion happening there, because in reality, the chances of that happening are just as good as hosting a tourney with big enough draw to need a tougher course and gallery space, etc.

[Ben Sims]

both 10 & 11 are really 1 & 2
a great team can nail the rest with good maint and const

However, I find it hard to believe that maintenance cost would be 10th out of 11 in anyone's priority list.  Perhaps some owners would posture and say it's not a factor, but few are really that crazy.

Dang!  I was hoping I was the first one to thrash the positioning of maintenance cost. 

Yes, I believe this to be about as subjective as it gets Ben.  I have zero knowledge of this stuff compared to Dr. Hurdzan, and I think I could've come up with a list as defendable as his.  If anyone in their right mind thinks that aesthetics were that unimportant in 1996 and just this decade it became important to build pretty golf holes, they're nuts. 

[Garland Bayley]

...The question is whether this is a commonly requested hierarchy by owners?

Don't you think owners are going to begin to take note of the Bandons and Prairie Clubs? Is not the development Tom Doak and C&C are doing in Florida a direct response to an owner having taken note of Bandon, etc.?

It seems the order of the list and perhaps even the contents will change if Hurdzan does yet another update.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

I think it would change with the nature of the projects HF manage to get before the next writing.  When Jack Kidwell ran the firm, they focused on the low priced public model.  Somewhere they morphed, enough for some one to ask Mike to write a book.  The 2005 list is probably a result of their continued morphing and having gotten the Erin Hills contract, which in his personal experience elevated the % of owners who demand tournament type courses.

In the market, there is only so much room for upper end, distant resort or getaway golf experiences.  It is not even certain that the Prairie Club is going to be a financial success this early.  The owners will only build what works for a market segment, and that is only a small part of it.  For CC, Doak, etc. they may very well still be having owners asking them to give them minimalist resort courses.  My requests might still be the same for fun publics.  HF has a broader portfolio type than most gca's, which should be considered in assessing their list in addition to timing of the list.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

In the interest of briefness, I mentioned the resorts.

There is also the municipal and low end public model in Chambers Bay and Common Ground.

And Rustic Canyon.

And for private clubs, there is Sand Hills and Ballyneal.

Don't you think developers are going to get interested in doing similar, that is if and when developers get interested in doing anything again?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()