Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Frank Kim on July 03, 2015, 09:23:05 AM
-
Is the setting, surroundings, or location of a golf course part of the architecture of the course or just "eye candy"?
-
Maybe not per se, but how the design makes use of those surroundings to either emphasize them or minimize them is a big part of architecture. Surroundings are also a huge part of the overall experience.
-
No. If it was, people would endlessly praise the architecture of Old Head. Architects can incorporate the surroundings into their design using concepts like genius loci.
-
Clearly, the setting is becoming a huge part of the design because the retail golfer is heavily influenced by it. Much more so than the actual minutia in the ground within the confines. i.e. whether or not a feature is shaped with the respect to the grade, or a green is receptive to 360 degree recoveries etc.
-
If the setting isn't part of the architecture, then it should be. For the course, regardless of its design qualities, has to seem to fit "naturally" into its surrounding lest it appear to be "placed." Whereas everyone has Cypress Point in mind in this context, it is non the less true that a great deal of the beauty and charm at CP comes from MacKenzie's masterful achievement of "marrying" natural landscape with golf design. The result is that each is enhanced by the presence of the other.
-
Frank,
I realize you just played Banff and probably Jasper too. Those are both great examples of the architect framing his holes with the views in the distance. In fact Thompson actually returned to Jasper and did things like build the mounds behind the 11th green which mimick the outline of the mountains in the background. How can any sane golfer not acknowledge that this adds to the overall experience?
-
We could be talking past each other. My understanding of the question is do surroundings count as architecture not how do architects incorporate things outside their design into the design.
Nobody would say a restaurant's food is great because it has great views.
-
Sorry but you used Latin so perhaps you are talking through me! Granted in the sense that the view can't affect a golf shot it's not a part of the architecture but to dismiss the effort to frame the hole with a distant view would be demeaning to the architects efforts. Kinda like plumb bobbing, Crenshaw does it so it's good enough for me! Tom Doak has admitted to incorporating distant vistas into the routing so I don't think it can be summarily dismissed.
-
This topic is probably why Riverfront (early TD-Renaissance housing development course) does not get the recognition, I think, it should get. Plus the fact that it has not been stretched out to 7,000 yards from the back tees.
-
As someone once said, there is a tendency in golf architecture to confuse the painting and the canvas.
That's probably inevitable, though they are strictly speaking separate things. But both count in terms of how we experience a golf course. They are impossible to separate.
Bob
-
Maybe not per se, but how the design makes use of those surroundings to either emphasize them or minimize them is a big part of architecture. Surroundings are also a huge part of the overall experience.
Absolutely. It's not just eye candy, as you can see from the work of MacKenzie and Stanley Thompson and for that matter, James Braid.
Surely some sites start with a distinct advantage over others on this basis, but golf course architecture is all about making use of what you're given, and on a beautiful site, views and trees and prevailing winds all add a great deal to the golfer's enjoyment of a course ... if you use them well.
P.S. to Carl: Lots of my other courses are not 7,000 yards, either. Riverfront gets no recognition because it is part of a housing development, and in this era there's a five-point deduction for having houses around the golf course. That's silly, really, but that's just the way it is.
-
Forgetting team allegiance, which stadium would your rather visit: 1) U. S. Cellular Field in Wrigleyville; or 2) Wrigley Field in Armour Square?
Wrigley Field in Wrigleyville or Wrigley Field in Armour Square?
Bogey
-
Some people say "No", by which they mean "I am experienced and thoughtful enough to separate the broad surrounds from the actual field of play, and recognize only the latter as being in any way architecturally significant".
Some people say "Yes", by which they mean "I think in terms of a golfing 'experience', and not only can't I separate the architecture from the scenery, I wouldn't want to even if I could -- and I don't think anyone else can or really wants to either".
I'd say: if the backdrop for the short 7th at Pebble was a farmer's fallow field instead of the rolling Pacific Ocean, would it even exist (let alone be talked about)?
Architects say: Give me the best and most beautiful site possible, every single time. I'll figure out the architecture later.
Peter
-
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/enhancing-architecture-appreciation-through-spatial-perceptions-cultural-studies-essay.php
-
Ref the redacted Pacific Ocean of the splendid 'Mucci-Huckaby Divergence' thread...
F.
-
Ref the redacted Pacific Ocean of the splendid 'Mucci-Huckaby Divergence' thread...
F.
Exactly.
Mucci takes the "No" side, Huckaby the "Yes". I've ping-ponged between the two ever since, but the Huckaby's "Yes" was very persuasive (and I now lean towards it despite my essentially purist/theoretical nature).
Unfortunately, Mr Huckaby no longer seems to post here. Sadly, Mr Mucci does.... :)
-
PP, agreed!
I took a lot out of that thread. As, essentially, a 'landscape' guy, I find it impossible intellectually, spiritually and philosophically to ignore the surroundings in which the golf course is situated. A viewpoint which isn't shared universally, apparently.
Luckily, it's a big world.
F
-
No. If it was Whistling Straights, Bandon Dunes, Torrey Pines, The Alotian and Arcadia Bluffs would all be very highly rated courses. Oh, wait a minute....
-
Perhaps I am biased as I was lucky enough to play Baxter Spann's Black Mesa course today. The course organically is part and parcel with the amazing landforms of the Southwest. The desert mountains, canyons and arroyos are intrinsic to the design and can in no way be considered just "eye candy". Consider also the "replica" courses that replicate various famous holes but in my estimation almost always fall flat. A great golf hole removed from its natural setting is like a gourmet meal served in the setting of a fast food restaurant. All the ingredients are there but the ambiance is sorely lacking ruining the experience.
-
Definitely
-
Of course it is if you design by "finding" the course. If you design by placing the course it is also but it might not be utilized and appreciated as much.
-
It doesn't much matter if the setting is part of architecture or not. Most golfers are greatly effected by the setting of a course. Architects understand this and take steps to enhance or mitigate the setting. If folks don't want to call that architecture thats fine by me (though I disagree), regardless, the setting is important simply because most golfers appreciate beautiful surroundings.
Dialing down a bit, many courses don't have the benefit of a great setting, but the site itself may be attractive. Is it architecture when an archie takes out trees etc to open up lovely interior views? I gotta believe the answer is yes.
Ciao
-
Pete,
Stanley Thompson actually used the setting in his architecture for his courses at Banff and Jasper. Tom pointed out to me that it was no accident that Stanley Thompson put green sites where the mountains formed a "V" in the gap. Adam noticed this also.
Frank
-
It is important, I think, to note that the highest rated modern course and the highest rated classic course are both inland courses and have a commonality (besides their great architecture) of being built on sand over great topography.
Will the Sand Valley courses settle into the top tier moderns with the courses at Bandon Dunes? I'd guess that they probably will if the land is as good as it appears to be in the photos I've seen.
Sand+Land+Great GCA is the magic recipe!
-
Reply to B. Crosby
"As someone once said, there is a tendency in golf architecture to confuse the painting and the canvas."
I'm sure you're aware that a painting is created on a canvas ... or some linen, or some plywood, or some Masonite, or some other support of the artist's selection (or, in the case of an artist accepting a commission, the client's choice). And the canvas, or any other of those supports, may be entirely covered by the paint or pastel or colored pencil, etc.; or parts of the support might be left untouched by the painting medium. Moreover, those supports might be larger or smaller, rectangles or squares or circles or ovals. To the painter, the canvas, or support, is as much a part of the painting as, for the golf course architect, the environment is to the architecture. To either artist, I would suggest, the separation of the two -- background and artistic creation -- is impossible as they are inextricably linked.
-
"To either artist, I would suggest, the separation of the two -- background and artistic creation -- is impossible as they are inextricably linked."
That is almost verbatim the conclusion I reached in my post above.
Spectacular views, however, have a way of compensating for less than spectacular architecture. But teasing out where one ends and the other begins is pretty much impossible for most of us.
Bob
-
Tom D mentioned some of the old dead guys use of surrounding views in their designs, citing MacKenzie as an example. MacKenzie may well have made the most of the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape as Tom suggests, however he also advised against the development of what is now Royal Tarlair, with it's panoramic views of the coastline, in favour of developing the nearby inland and flattish Duff House Royal course. He did so because of the respective ground conditions. I wonder if modern architects/developers would make the same choice if given the option today ?
It just seems to me that views are a much more important criteria now than perhaps they were in the past which possibly explains the increased popularity of skyline greens in design.
Niall
-
Castle Stuart is certainly a good (and quite successful ;) ) example of using surrounding views in the routing/design of a modern golf course. Hanse/Parsinen made a conscious decision to use the landmarks along the Moray Firth as scenic backdrops on many of the holes there.
From the CS website:
"The centrepiece for this Scottish destination golf resort is Castle Stuart Golf Links, a championship links course overlooking the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks that are synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle - Kessock Bridge and Chanonry Lighthouse perhaps the most notable."
-
Ah, the classic Huckaby/Mucci divergence. Good memories !
-
I've started various responses from both a golf course and a building perspective, but essentially... context is everything!
A good piece of golf course architecture can be in a good or bad setting, but it has still had to respond to it and as its a good piece of architecture it will have no doubt responded well. In exactly the same way a bad piece of golf course architecture can be in a good setting and yet still respond to it badly.
Cheers,
James
-
Castle Stuart is certainly a good (and quite successful ;) ) example of using surrounding views in the routing/design of a modern golf course. Hanse/Parsinen made a conscious decision to use the landmarks along the Moray Firth as scenic backdrops on many of the holes there.
From the CS website:
"The centrepiece for this Scottish destination golf resort is Castle Stuart Golf Links, a championship links course overlooking the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks that are synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle - Kessock Bridge and Chanonry Lighthouse perhaps the most notable."
David
I think it was more than them using what they had, I understand that MP chose the site largely because of the views. Rumour had it he saw and passed on the Balmedie site because it largely offered internal views only even though in terms of the raw material ie. sand, it was much better.
I'm just not sure that the promoter of a golf site back in the golden age would have good views that high up his/her list of priorities.
Niall
-
Of course it is. Without the ocean, 18 at Pebble is just another par five.
WW
-
do you mean the ocean as a setting or as a hazard ?
-
I really never liked this question and frankly think that common sense should make the answer obvious. That said, there are clearly mixed responses so that shows there is still confusion on what is part of the design and “architecture” and what is not. The fundamental problem is that the definition of “architecture” is by no means black and white. Is the Pacific Ocean next to the 8th hole at Pebble Beach “part of the architecture”? I am sure some here would say NO. Are the trees on the inside of the elbow hole (#12 at Pine Valley) “part of the architecture”? There are some here who would say NO. Is Mangrove Lake on the famous cape hole at Mid Ocean (#5) part of the architecture? There are some here who would say NO. Is the road on the 17th hole at The Old Course part of the architecture? There are some here who would say NO. Each of these features plays an integral part of each golf hole yet none of them were “built" by the architect.
The aspect of golf course design that makes the answer to me obvious is that golf is a game played mostly “in the air”. As much as I like “the ground game” the ball is in the air most of the time from tee to green. It also flies in the air over areas that might not even be within the property lines of the golf course (such as the carry over the Pacific Ocean on #8 at Pebble or at #5 at Mid Ocean. Since the ball travels in the air, this also forces the golfer to look up and look around at his/her surroundings. As such, the design of the golf course is much much more than simply what is on the ground and “on the property” and "in control" of the architect.
So to answer the question, a golf course design and its “architecture” includes the surrounding space, views, light, shadows, and ambience in its totally and as presented to the golfer in the design of his/her holes by the architect!
-
I'd argue yes, and offer Fishers Island as Exhibit A.
-
IMO, yes. When you play a course, you should feel as though you are in the place in the world where you are located, and it should give you a greater appreciation for that place.
This is why I like the Blackwolf Run courses more than the Straits courses at the American Club Resort. Playing the BWR courses, you know you are in Wisconsin, and a beautiful part of Wisconsin at that, whereas the Irish and Straits courses may as well be on the moon. Don't get me wrong, Irish and Straits are great courses in their own right, but they don't feel like Wisconsin. They feel like Pete Dye.
-
Another pairing that illustrates Joe H's point is True Blue and Caledonia down in Pawley's Island. I have a lot of respect for True Blue because shot for shot, hole for hole it is very, very good golf. The setting feels like generic "Myrtle Beach" though. It's arguably one of the better courses in the Grand Strand but looks much like any of a couple dozen mediocre ones in terms of the surroundings and the visuals.
But then you play a round at Caledonia where a few of the holes are less than ideal (that little shoehorned in Par 3 for instance). I'd say that hole for hole the shots and options on offer at Caledonia are definitely a notch below True Blue. But it wends it way through Live Oaks and intermittently open ground combined with cool, quiet Lowcountry South Carolina shade and water features. The setting is very relaxing and feels more like Charleston, Beaufort or Savannah than it does the touristy Grand Strand.
Which is why at least 9 out of 10 golfers who've played both express a preference, usually a strong one, for Caledonia over True Blue.
-
Joe,
That's a very astute observation that I hadn't thought of specifically. I agree completely, except for the part about the Irish being a great course 8)
-
Definitely debatable on the Irish course Jud! Of the four, it is definitely my least favorite. History be danged, I don't care for a golf course that includes a blind par three.
-
Tastes differ, I guess. Last year I played at Aberdovey which had two blind Par 3's and also at Royal St. Davids the 14th hole blind and that sucker is 209 yards from the visitors tees and 220+ from the tournament tees. I liked the ones at Aberdovey (probably because I birdied one of them!) but 209 yards of blindness with mounds covered in brambles between the tee and green is pushing it...