[Jed Peters]

PFerlicca:

Aren't you at Tumble Creek now?  Last I heard, they were doing fine up there after deciding not to go with Fazio or Nicklaus. 

Tom,

Not to be a jerk, but Cle Elum is a far cry from those clubs.

Nowhere in the same stratosphere, even.

And they aren't fine. There are deeds of empty lots and Suncadia is HURTING.

[Norbert P]

   As Kye asserts, the ultimate irony about Madison Club.    Ten &^*ing million dollars on trees.   !!!      

  The elitist remark by the dinner mate reminds me of an old press conference with George Bush, Sr. when he was asked a certain question he did not want to answer, he turned the question around and said something like "How dare you ask such a question when the country ... you should be ashamed to ...  a discredit to the press corps. . ., etc."      Basically, accuse before one is accused.



&&&
 
   "If you are going to build a residential private club you have to go with market names Fazio, Nicklaus."   P. Ferlicca 
(Emphasis mine)

   I cannot disagree with you more, if only to combat rote practices by developer mentalities with their "return on dollar spread sheets" and "name recognition surveys", and "demographics" hogwash, et al.


  There have been some exceptional golf courses built in the past decade with some big steps toward public education on what golf course design can offer.  I'm hoping that these $10M tree budget courses merely become cautionary tales and not standards of the industry. 

   


 

[Garland Bayley]

Simple. In essence, Fazio's book Golf Course Designs says most people want pretty so I give them pretty.
In essence, Doak's book Anatomy of a Golf Course says golfers want interesting golf so I give them interesting golf.

Is it elitist to take golf to something else, i.e., landscape architecture? Or is it elitist to take landscape and give you golf?

For the record of course, Doak has done a totally flat site too. Was the "senior designer" even aware of that?

[Jud_T]

I don't know the Palm Desert area that well, but it seems to me that the problems that Stone Eagle faced had very little to do with the golf course, and everything to do with pricing and timing.  I considered membership and the pricetag made me skittish, even during the boom days.  That combined with the timing of the development coming online just prior to the property bubble bursting was a death knell IMHO.  Maybe everyone out there is 80 years old and wants to drive their golf cart directly out of their garage onto the course and pay up for a green golf course view, but for those who care primarily about the golf, it still seems like one of the best options in the valley....  

[JESII]

The term "Minimalism" has really confused me because I've read Tom D describe it as creating a course in which it is very difficult to tell what is natural and what is not...isn't that just really good finish work? It doesn't sound like the designer Jim spoke to would define it the way Tom seems to.

Also...I doubt this designer was discussing elitism in terms of material wealth of the membership...although the irony is certainly eye-popping.

The argument for The Madison Club is b.s.  There is a bunch of good land for golf around Palm Springs; what they are really saying is that the un-minimalist approach is essential if you want to buy boring land and sell expensive real estate on it, which really has nothing much to do with the golf at all.

I think this statement is probably dead on accurate...but...to anyone...

How many golf courses have been built that did not have return on investment in the top 3 priorities as key decisions were being made?   Ever...

[Michael Dugger]

Ugh, the original question posed here turns my stomach.  WTF

Sounds like sour grapes.

The gap between "Mega-Signature Designer" and "Work with the Land Architect" is closing, and this guy is noticing.

And he doesn't like it, so he's trying to spin doctor.

The main problem here, logically speaking, is the same argument can be applied to any instance of differing positions.

You disagree with what I think, thus I call you "elitist."

The truth of the matter is golfers are speaking.  Demand for natural courses is going up.  

That's not elitism....that's called a trend in the market.
  



 

[Adam Clayman]

The remark in question is accurate, if Elitist means sophisticated and aware enough to be sensitive to an overabundance of eye jarring machine worked features and views.
 

[Michael Dugger]

The remark in question is accurate, if Elitist means sophisticated and aware enough to be sensitive to an overabundance of eye jarring machine worked features and views.
 

Well put, Adam, but something tells me most folks do not equate sophisticated tastes with elitist.

[JESII]

Only an elitist does...

there's supposed to be a haha in there, but only a partial one...



One guy says you're an Elitist if you think Minimalism would have been a better solution at The Madison Club and the other guy says OK, I'm an Elitist as long as that means Minimalism is better architecture...and I'll tell you what Minimalism is...

I can't really tell where this conversation is going...should Tom Doak have moved less earth at Texas Tech? I haven't played it but the consensus is that he did alot with not much...but he says he moved too much earth to be considered elit...err, I mean minimalist...

[Jud_T]

from RGD website:

"For the most part, minimalism is just good common sense, a refusal to let arbitrary design ideas outweigh the realities of the site.  Instead of reshaping a severe slope, we try to figure out how to use it to make a golf hole interesting.  If it is just too severe, we’ll try a sequence of holes that avoids it entirely. The bulldozer is our third and last option."

For better or worse,  I'm guessing the dozer is not Fazio's last option....

[Kirk Gill]

"Elitist" is more of a buzzword these days than it has been before, especially when it comes to intellectual elitism, as opposed to financial or status-based elitism. I think that's mainly what we're talking about here - the elitism of ideas. I'd agree with Jeff Brauer that I'm not sure that elitism has anything to do with architectural style at all - but in the context of the original question, the argument isn't that minimalism is elitist, it's that people who criticize that Madison course, presumably because of the amount of earth moved and it's non-minimalist construction, would be elitist. What's funny there is the (possibly elitist?) assumption that minimalist architects wouldn't either move dirt OR be able to build a course as good as the one that was constructed.

Ultimately, though, is it elitist to like what you like, and to state your opinion? "I know what I like, and I like what I know" and all that. Aren't we all guilty of that at one point or another? So when does having an opinion (and liking the opinion that you have) become elitist? Is it the nature of the opinion being offered that makes the difference? Is it more elitist to say that "no playwright in the English language is superior to Shakespeare" than to say that "Smashburger kicks In-N-Out's ASS?" I posted that definition of elitism earlier for two reasons - one to poke fun at Ben, who answered my poke with characteristic grace, and second because I had to look it up myself to get an idea of what it really means, apart from its value as a buzzword to criticize those whose ideas don't match your own. What I'm feeling more and more is that it seems like a person IS an intellectual elitist.........when they start criticizing others for THEIR elitism.

Thus, Ben, I am also guilty as charged !

[Matthew Petersen]

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to be artificial with a lot of dirt moved to be worthwhile.

Mr. Doak made an excellent point about selling real estate and what the course looks like from those lots. That's on point. From a golfing perspective, a flat, boring track and a multi-million dollar exclusive haven are both capable of having lots of GCA interest, or having none at all. But not many people would want to buy a house on Talking Stick North.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In many ways, the attitude of elitism is demonstrated on this site every day in that aura that only the best of the best on this 1500 members site REALLY understands GCA.  If we maintain the definition to strictly gca qualities, then minimalism in the sense of doing nothing when the site and program demand it, because that is the dogma is just as elitist as the opinon that there MUST be a million yards of earthmoving to justify an expensive course.

Please note that Tom Doak expressed his views that earthmoving is sometimes necessary and when it is, he does it. I get the (possbily mistaken) impression that many on this site would move no dirt in their first real life design project, perhaps not knowing that it would be a terrible mistake.

Thus, the gca in question was really justifying his method on most if not all sites, and the gca.com poster who favors minimalism is trying to justify theirs.  Neither seems to have a real bearing on the truth in this hypoethetical case.

[V. Kmetz]

I think the terms "minimalism" and "elitist" are way too general and ambiguous to even begin from a common starting point and elicit a well-formed valid principle.

There's too many features that can be described as "minimal" that wouldn't satisfy a particular aspect of the word or contain a paradox, such as a green pad sited on an undisturbed slope that when cut to 9.0 Stimp would be unconscionable and goofy, but cut at 5.0 make for a simple and minimal presentation.

As to elitist, is that a "country club Greens Committee;" a "frequent voluminous poster on GCA site(s);" "a small group of working designers;" or architectural critics like Ron Whitten?

The only synthesis I can make out of the original consensus is that minimalism, reflected by elite working designers who have experience of construction and the needs of their often-elite clientèle is the following:

1.  Restore or create playing width so that character of the hole is not arbitrary and presents similar challenge to various types of shots.
2   Locate, avail and enhance the existing features to serve practical issues of drainage, maintenance and the entire property plan.
3.  Maintain the visual aesthetics of a tee, a green, a hole, a course as close as to when the property was first surveyed or first erected.
4.  On an individual hole, one defined specific feature is better than two, and two are better than three.

and if I had to truly generalize, I would say minimalism is just trying to get at the essence of golf as a skill game.  Using your wits to assess what shot is needed and controlling your golf ball to best suit that assessment.  Plantings, dug ponds, re-routed streams, cement, wood pilings and waterfalls are just a few of the items that can appear on a property to serve the imagination and are valid, practical solutions for a particular parcel, but are not really a part of that essence.

cheers

vk

[Carl Rogers]

Maybe the definition of elitism is how study and expensive the front entry gate is!

Or getting pinged on for changing your shoes in the parking lot ...

For me the real elitism of the game is an appreciation of its aesthetic visual experience progression and the overlay of the game.

[Michael Blake]

Jim Hoak,

Perhaps he perceives the minimalist way of thinking is that there is only one way to design a course (by not moving much dirt) and he believes there are differerent ways.  Maybe he used the word 'elitist' to reflect his perception of that way of thinking--the implication that there is only one/best/right way to do it.

[Tim Nugent]

It seems ashame that a word coined to emphasize a certain philosophy, created to differentiate from the staus quo, has taken on such an over-reaching, all-encompassing definition.  Minimalism is the opposite of Maximizism (if there is such a word).  It doesn't means "No or Little Earthwork".  It alludes to "as little as possible or necessary".  In some instances this may mean alot.  
In a real world example, I once had to raise a par 5 fairway 4' to get it out of a floodplain.  Since 3.5' would have allowed it to flood, 4' was about the minimum.  granted, this not only took about 25,000 cy but the topsoil had to be stripped and replaced and that 25k had to come from someplace nearby.  When finished, it wasn't evident that any work had been done (since the outside of the hole was a hillside that we were able to tie into to).  
This is where I think terms and definitions get skewed.  With  25k cy, I could have done all sorts of things -gradewise, but all we did was replicate the existing topo 4' higher. This, while by definition, was minimalist, it was actually Naturalistic, or something that emulates the existing natural setting.  I feel that many confuse the terms or interchange them.  To attempt to quantify a style based upon an amount of dirt moved is folly.  It should be the resultant of the earthwork that should determine what school it fits in.

To put it another way, if I were to raise a 140 ac course by just 1', I would expend about a quarter of  a million cubic yards of material, but the end result would be no visable difference in the site.  How would you classify this? Minimalist? Naturalsitic? What if there was rock or a high water table and it was raised 3' (750,000 cy)?  What if I only took 125,000 cy, didn't touch the fairways or greensites but built containment mounding along each fairway and around all the greens?

[Gary Slatter]

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to be artificial with a lot of dirt moved to be worthwhile.

Mr. Doak made an excellent point about selling real estate and what the course looks like from those lots. That's on point. From a golfing perspective, a flat, boring track and a multi-million dollar exclusive haven are both capable of having lots of GCA interest, or having none at all. But not many people would want to buy a house on Talking Stick North.

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to have a minimal amount of dirt moved to be considered worthwhile.   Sometimes you have to move a lot of dirt to make it look like none was moved - I heard someone say this at Sagebrush two years ago.

[Garland Bayley]

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to be artificial with a lot of dirt moved to be worthwhile.

Mr. Doak made an excellent point about selling real estate and what the course looks like from those lots. That's on point. From a golfing perspective, a flat, boring track and a multi-million dollar exclusive haven are both capable of having lots of GCA interest, or having none at all. But not many people would want to buy a house on Talking Stick North.

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to have a minimal amount of dirt moved to be considered worthwhile.   Sometimes you have to move a lot of dirt to make it look like none was moved - I heard someone say this at Sagebrush two years ago.

OK Gary,

Let's add a few names to your elitist hall of shame.

Herbert Fowler - "God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned."

Willie Park Jr. - "Nature can always beat the handiwork of man and to achieve the best and most satisfactory results in laying out a golf course, you must humor nature."

Perry Maxwell - "It is futile to attempt the transformation of wholly inadequate acres into an adequate course. Invariably the result is the inauguration of an earthquake. The site of a golf course should be there, not brought there."

Stanley Thompson - "Strive to retain as much of the natural ground formation as possible. The most beautiful courses are the ones that hew most closely to nature."

[Michael Blake]

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to be artificial with a lot of dirt moved to be worthwhile.

Mr. Doak made an excellent point about selling real estate and what the course looks like from those lots. That's on point. From a golfing perspective, a flat, boring track and a multi-million dollar exclusive haven are both capable of having lots of GCA interest, or having none at all. But not many people would want to buy a house on Talking Stick North.

What seems elitist to me is the attitude that a golf course has to have a minimal amount of dirt moved to be considered worthwhile.   Sometimes you have to move a lot of dirt to make it look like none was moved - I heard someone say this at Sagebrush two years ago.

OK Gary,

Let's add a few names to your elitist hall of shame.

Herbert Fowler - "God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned."

Willie Park Jr. - "Nature can always beat the handiwork of man and to achieve the best and most satisfactory results in laying out a golf course, you must humor nature."

Perry Maxwell - "It is futile to attempt the transformation of wholly inadequate acres into an adequate course. Invariably the result is the inauguration of an earthquake. The site of a golf course should be there, not brought there."

Stanley Thompson - "Strive to retain as much of the natural ground formation as possible. The most beautiful courses are the ones that hew most closely to nature."

Well, if some OGD's said it then that MUST be the only and best method to use on every piece of land when building a golf course.

[JESII]

It also goes miles away from the original comments about the design style best suited for the place in Palm Desert, CA with 200+ homes to sell...

[Garland Bayley]

It also goes miles away from the original comments about the design style best suited for the place in Palm Desert, CA with 200+ homes to sell...

But comes closer to Tom's comment implying maybe they shouldn't be forcing a golf course there.

...
The argument for The Madison Club is b.s.  There is a bunch of good land for golf around Palm Springs; what they are really saying is that the un-minimalist approach is essential if you want to buy boring land and sell expensive real estate on it, which really has nothing much to do with the golf at all.
...

[Jim Hoak]

Michael Blake--I don't want to try to state his argument, because I don't agree with it.  But I think he was trying to say that it is elitist to argue that all good courses need to be "minimal" or "natural," because in some cases the land doesn't lend itself to that approach.  He was saying (I believe) that building a course like the Madison Club on a plain, flat piece of land required an approach that the "mininalist" architects couldn't do, and to criticize or deny that "enhanced" style of architecture would result in an inferior product being built.  I think he was saying that courses like at Bandon are good, but in building closer to populated areas would probably require building on less quality land.  I'm sure that he had heard people like me voicing a preference for natural architecture many times before and he was fed up enough to use a strong word, like "elitist."
But, of course, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that Madison Club-style of design should be banned, just that it isn't our taste.  But it is an interesting concept that people who want a courser close to home may have to setle for inferior land.  I guess the real question is whether a minimalist architect could build as good a course on inferior land as could a non-minimalist.  He would argue no, and I would disagree.  But that's what makes for an interesting debate.
I do think it is ironic that the Madison Club would be used by him as the example, since I'm sure that anyone who can afford to belong there could afford a private plane to Bandon.

[JESII]

How many golf courses have been built that did not have return on investment in the top 3 priorities as key decisions were being made?   Ever...

Garland,

Maybe, but how about this unanswered question from earlier in this thread...

[Garland Bayley]

How many golf courses have been built that did not have return on investment in the top 3 priorities as key decisions were being made?   Ever...

Garland,

Maybe, but how about this unanswered question from earlier in this thread...

I'm guessing that in your half of the country, least, but in my half of the country most.
Remember the states with the highest golf holes per capita have names like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah. Every reasonably sized town (1500 people) has a course that was built for recreation, with no thought of return on investment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()