[Sean_A]

Tom,

I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?

Those are nothing like modern housing courses, I don't think you're talking apples to apples in this case.

But the end aesthetic is the same none-the-less, and I think that's always been the primary beef. 

Did the ODGs talk about that much in thier writings?  I suspect its more a modern day concern than it was back then.

Nope. Mimicking nature was an aesthetic movement. The ODGs didn't try their best to mimic nature because it was easy and cheap to do.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how  great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National.  Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.

If there’s an architect who would have passed on working with the property for Augusta National, they’ve got no imagination.  On top of which, the client was Bobby Jones!


I’ve done at least ten projects on more difficult soils.  It’s certainly not as easy to build a course that attracts attention, and they are more difficult as construction projects, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth doing.  It just depends what else is on offer at the time.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?

Or for that matter if you passed on Wine Valley (as originally it was to include a housing development, thou still not yet thankfully)

Kalen:


I have built a few courses with housing attached:  Quail Crossing, Riverfront, Tumble Creek, Rock Creek.  I was signed up to do several more in 2008 when bank financing fell apart.  The main reason I didn’t do more of them was that my name wasn’t worth anything for marketing housing sales until that market dried up.


The one thing I will say no to is where it’s clear that the land planner dictates where the golf course is built.  (You would be surprised how often this is compromised, even by big name designers - in fact it’s more likely for signature designers who after all are selling their brand.) For me the routing is the fundamental part of the design and if the client won’t let me route holes where I see them, I’ll just pass. 


Our new course at Te Arai Links also has some very expensive ocean-facing lots and they did force some compromises in the design, but I knew the golf was equally important to the client and trusted he would give me enough leeway to build something outstanding.  That is 500x more important to me than whether the soils allow for frilly edged bunkers.

[Ira Fishman]

And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how  great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National.  Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
[/


If there’s an architect who would have passed on working with the property for Augusta National, they’ve got no imagination.  On top of which, the client was Bobby Jones!


I’ve done at least ten projects on more difficult soils.  It’s certainly not as easy to build a course that attracts attention, and they are more difficult as construction projects, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth doing.  It just depends what else is on offer at the time.

This is quite an important point. Us amateurs who post, let alone the lurkers, tend to forget that the professional architects and shapers need to earn a living.


Ira

[Brett Hochstein]

A few points in response to Forrest's original post, which asks some very fair questions.


1. I wasn't old enough in the 1980s (or alive earlier) to fairly comment on golf architecture media then, but I remember it well in the 90s and 2000s.  I still have tons of promotional brochures and magazines from that time period in a box in my office.  When I look at those, it doesn't feel totally fair to me to imply that it's brand new trend for the current media to be pushing just "one style or else" when all those pamphlets contain the same interchangeable buzzwords with each other, and the courses largely look the same as each other in the pictures.  It felt like rinse-and-repeat promotion, even more than today (which has some preferences but preferences that run counter to previous decades preferences.  Should they just be continuing on praising that same type of work as before? That provides even less diversity of opinion when viewed in a decades-long context).


2. The "feeling" of what media currently promotes (regardless of what that means to you) and the newer courses they highlight is still highly disproportionate to the reality of golf architecture as a whole.  Even if two hundred wide-fairwayed, frilly-edge bunkered, browned-out courses were to open in the next year, there would still be 10,000 other courses out there that are badly designed, boring, wasteful, or missed opportunities.  A part of the reason some of recent media may feel repetitive in what they promote is that it is still on the whole rare for most golfers to have ready access to that type of golf.

3. These implied media outlets promote everything from the most scruffy munis to highly polished new work or renovation work. They cover new designs, ancient links courses, the Golden Age (which is the most diverse period of golf design itself), and even the more creative stuff from the so-called Dark Ages.  It's not entirely fair to pigeon-hole their coverage into one sub-niche.  On top of that, more golfers than ever before have some semblance of what golf architecture even is.  Isn't that a good thing?

4. As one of the "young designers," I don't naturally aim to copy others styles or ideals.  I like what I like, and I also want to be as original as I can be.  I don't want to ever get creatively "bored" or stuck to routines or patterns, instead trying to think of ways to make some new feature unique (if you are being honest with yourself, this is very hard to achieve at this stage of golf design).  I also can't let that creative desire get me in trouble and try to impose something that doesn't feel right to a particular site. The most important thing still for every site is to respond to its features, its physical context, and its regional typologies.  Sometimes that may visually or strategically overlap with more famous designers before me.  But making an effort to avoid that point isn't as important as adhering to the one preceding it.


5. The Victoria's Secret analogy may be a bit dated. Has anyone seen their mailing ads and such lately? I wonder too if the inference of "what the current design trend happens to be" is also a bit dated, especially with the newest stuff coming out and what is currently under construction. The cosmetics of design have been trending differently for a few years now, and I even wrote about that on my own site 4 years ago while indirectly stating a desire to do something creatively different.

[ward peyronnin]

CharlieNot trying a gotcha but he ODG incorporated housing: Hope Valley and Pinehurst Ross, Merion, Winged Foot  etc. so I don't see that as a litmus test. Housing styles are an inadequate comparisons fundamentally. The architect mostly relied on established engineering principles that he controlled and introduced a venner and orginaization adhering to those. The golf designer has to respond to and adapt to the many less consistent elements like drainage, soils, topography, etc of a golf design into an overall stylistic solution. Much more complex.

Forrest's questions is about selling the "product" and to whom. To reviewers so they can tout the product; to owners who expect revenue, or ultimately to the golf consumer? I postulate 99% of the public doesn't care and hasn't heard of any of the names which apply to this discussion Reputation buillding is hard work as Tom reveals. Tastes differ but I think most of us agree that golf design is overwhelmingly organic and that philsophy emerged as the leading train of thought. Not because it is sexy but "right" for the discipline fundamentally. Forms a basis from whcih to depart such as Sven's Jim Engh kink.
Owners decide who designs based on many many criteria that usually apply to their unique requirements so a designer must have many arrows in their quivers to address those. I really never rated a brassier I saw on Victoria's Secret based on the number of snaps incorporated until I actually encounterd that problem.
I ramble ultimately to arrive at the feeling that fundamental principles eventually appear ina design disciplne and departing from those is a risk but one that sometimes pays off. Otherwise, knowlegdeable people seek those who best articulate and execute based on the best information available in the public domain.
Pax
Wardo

[Mike_Young]

Talking of housing courses....remember there is a huge difference in a "core" golf course with housing around the perimeter and a course where houses lined each hole on both sides...
As for Victoria's Secret and frilly bunkers...I'm not sure that has ever been the issue...I honestly think there was a dark ages of golf architecture from the mid 1940's until around 1990 ( I consider Stanley Thompson the last of the ODG's) and I'm not sure there was much there to emulate.  I got in the golf business around 1980 and called on the offices of a lot of architects.  It was a different vibe than these young guys have today.  I feel confident it will evolve in a good way.   

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, it has been fun to read through the comments. Let me expound a bit. When Victoria's Secret "got big" it created a wave of sorts. Media — fashion writers, etc. — began a common drum beat. I'm not saying that Victoria's Secret was THE only style and look, but it spawned a movement where fashion seemed to "take off" from that platform, and girls and young women (analogy: golf consumers) began subscribing to the notion of being thin, tall, sexy...whatever...was essential. But, it wasn't "for everyone", and it cast doubt among some consumers (girls and young women) whether they "were cool"..."were in-style"..."were in touch"..."were good enough"...etc.

When the media, Hollywood, fashion critics and the like began pushing a narrative...people listen. Some art shines through, but the mainstream tags along. Not everyone, but many. I'd even say the majority.

What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?

[Charlie Goerges]

That’s fine Forrest, but the song you referenced by way of analogy mentioned the “old guy in Ohio” i.e. not a user of the product. For the analogy to hold, some behind-the-scenes non-golfer would need to be manipulating us into liking something. I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. There may be groupthink going on, but it’s all on us, pretty organic.

[Mike_Young]

What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?

FR,I see what you are saying but it really doesn't matter.  Often your best restaurants are local and don't get any recognition outside of a small radius.  That's fine. They do well.  Think about it this way.  there is the game of golf and there is the business of golf.  In the game of golf there is no doubting who the best players or swings are because they win.  They have to be written about.  Golf writers, media and golf architects only require a business card.  Some put product out and others practice self anointing.  But one can only self anoint for so long before they become exposed.  Only a few set themselves for the top properties and clients.  I can be happy having that local restaurant...  Would you not agree that most media are fed what they are supposed to like?   And the same goes for much of this site(  I DIDN'T SAY ALL)..and I'm not saying they are told to like bad stuff...but this site doesn't search for what else is out there...they don't care...for example, I have a new 18 hole muni under construction right now..it got about 10 hits on here a month or so ago..but that didn't change one thing about the project..but if you are savvy you can take the new media and hype a potential future project and it's logoed merchandise much more than some actual projects...but it doesn't really matter..only value the opinions you that matter to you...JMO

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — Golf architects need much more than a business card. You must be watching Rockford File reruns

Charlie — What makes you believe the “main stream golf media” is a user of the game? Do you suppose these people could be just like that old dude in Ohio?

[Mike Bodo]

What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?

Forest, legacy or traditional media, regardless of industry these days, is paying much closer attention to what's happening in social media and are trying to capitalize on it in order to stay relevant. They're keenly aware of the trends taking shape and what the hot topics of the day are and are producing content accordingly to avoid appearing outdated. Part of this entails promoting the celeb architects featured on many social media channels, as well as this forum and the courses they've designed/built. While Tom Doak may not be as physically appealing to the eye as say Stephanie Seymour when she was prominently featured in Victoria's Secret catalog (no offense, TD. LOL!), he's entertaining to listen to and watch all the same. It takes personalities such as his and others to bring the golf architecure world closer to the everyman golfer who feels intimidated by this side of the business due to their lack of knowlege and understanding. In short, it makes golf architects appear more accessible and "normal", for lack of a better word, and dispells a lot of precconceived notioins regarding those behind the courses we enjoy and play.


I encourage all architects here to take up the mantle and promote yourselves by whatever ethical means possible to get your name out there and expand your oportunities, as you are the product. While the work you've done speaks volumes to your abilities and talent, your potential customers and fans want to feel connected to you and feel as though they have a shared investment in your success even if they're not benefiting from it financially.


I would never in my wildest dreasm imagine a golf course architect would have 5,000 followers on Instagram, let alone 27,000, but to TD's credit he's done a phenomenal job promoting and selling himself to attract that size of an audience. If his work didn't equal the hype it would all be for naught, but his track record speaks otherwise. Just keep him off the catwalk in lingerie and angels wings and we'll be good. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie — What makes you believe the “main stream golf media” is a user of the game? Do you suppose these people could be just like that old dude in Ohio?

I don’t think so. I mean, Golf Magazine is the most mainstream of golf media, and it’s architectural content has been overseen by Ran. I don’t think there’s any question that he’s a golfer. Maybe we’ve drunk the kool aid, but it’s definitely golfers who have given it to us.

[Mike_Young]

Mike — Golf architects need much more than a business card. You must be watching Rockford File reruns

Forrest,Think about it now.  They really don't even need a business card.  Anyone can call themselves a golf writer or a golf architect.  I'm not saying they are any good or that they have even done anything but they can call themselves such where they cannot call themselves an orthopedic surgeon.  Happens all the time...

[Forrest Richardson]

Charlie — I’ve always had respect for Ran, and he’s always been accessible and available when I’ve reached out to him. But, he answers to others — or, so I guess. In his new position I’ve never received a proactive call or note inquiring about new sites or assignments. Now, that may be a style or it could be just a mater of having only so many hours in a day. It begs the question — where and how does GM find out what’s happening? Social media? OK, that’s fair, that’s one source. But with just 300 active ‘artists’ in the world of golf design, it seems to me there is room for better investigation and reporting. Again, Ran has done so much to bring awareness to golf architecture, so my question here isn’t aimed in his direction as much as it is a broader question on whether there remains “room to improve” when it comes to appreciating design in golf. Maybe there truly is an old dude in Ohio calling the shots? 

[Charlie Goerges]

That’s fair enough Forrest, there is certainly room for improvement in that sense.

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie — I’ve always had respect for Ran, and he’s always been accessible and available when I’ve reached out to him. But, he answers to others — or, so I guess. In his new position I’ve never received a proactive call or note inquiring about new sites or assignments. Now, that may be a style or it could be just a mater of having only so many hours in a day. It begs the question — where and how does GM find out what’s happening? Social media? OK, that’s fair, that’s one source. But with just 300 active ‘artists’ in the world of golf design, it seems to me there is room for better investigation and reporting.

Forrest:


Don't be silly.  You are assuming that the magazines would actually SPEND MONEY to cover architecture.  They seldom have.  Their only interest in rating courses is to MAKE MONEY.


GOLF DIGEST did pay Ron Whitten's salary and travel budget for a bunch of years, but they still didn't cover the field very well.  When my first course at Stonewall opened in 1993, I was hoping that a GOLF DIGEST ranking would boost my career, but the course didn't make their "Best New" list because, Ron confided, not a single panelist of theirs had gone to play it!  That was one impetus for them starting to "assign" panelists to cover new courses, which lasted for a few years anyway.


Traditional media has fallen apart.  They've stopped paying golf writers; back in the day every newspaper had a golf writer, now 98% of them just use the AP wire story about the weekly PGA Tour event, and all of the local coverage is lost.  They are only going to cover what is easy to cover.  And even non-traditional media is going to spend most of its time covering the people that everyone already knows about, because they want to boost viewership and search metrics, and having on a [relatively] "famous" guest boosts those things.  If you think it's bad now, just wait ten years . . . I have a feeling it will be all Sweetens Cove level hype, all the time.

[Connor Lewis]

Golf like art changes with the times. What is in style now, as much as I believe we reside in perhaps the best era of golf design and restoration will fade. Look no further than the last 30 years of top 100 lists.


Golf IMHO is at its best when we embrace diversity. One of the many reasons I love King-Collins and Mike Strantz work is that it may not be for everyone. The naturalist/minimalist  movement that is popular opens up opportunities for maximalist work that has awe inspiring features.


Some courses should be lined with trees, others should not. Some need tree management because that is what was intended by the architect and others not.


I say it too often: golf courses for me, are living, breathing, works of art. Some are Picassos, some are Rembrandts and others were painted by 2nd graders (too harsh). And yet all of them can create joy for the golfers who play them.

[Mike Hendren]

I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.

This is the most surprising comment I’ve read on this site in fifteen years.

[Tom_Doak]

I would never in my wildest dreasm imagine a golf course architect would have 5,000 followers on Instagram, let alone 27,000, but to TD's credit he's done a phenomenal job promoting and selling himself to attract that size of an audience.

You and me both.  I don't really do anything to promote myself on Instagram -- I don't follow others, I don't really promote my own projects apart from showing where I'm working, and I rarely comment on anything apart from questions based on my posts.  Plus, I've found that half of my travels are things I can't post about, because the project(s) haven't been announced yet!


So I guess there are more than 27,000 people who have an interest in golf courses or golf course design, and Instagram is a good vehicle for bringing them together.

[Anthony Butler]

Someone earlier in this thread bought up the cost of land for 36-hole LACC right in Beverley Hills, CA. Factoring in the location and the size of the parcel, 350 acres could take roughly 350 1/2 acre properties with roads, service areas etc. Selling those 350 lots at a modest $2m on average would mean the land under LACC is worth at a minimum $700 million.

While this might be an extreme example of land value, it's hard to see how a significant golf course could be built within the accepted boundaries of any major Western city going forward... Boston Golf Club in Hingham is as close as anyone has built a championship-level course here in New England in the last 40 years and even that would be uneconomical for anyone expecting a return on their investment these days.


Only reclaimed land unsuitable for housing or commercial development would be a possibility.. e.g. Bayonne Golf Club, Trump Ferry Point...

[Ira Fishman]

Deleted.

[Mike Bodo]

Traditional media has fallen apart.  They've stopped paying golf writers; back in the day every newspaper had a golf writer, now 98% of them just use the AP wire story about the weekly PGA Tour event, and all of the local coverage is lost.  They are only going to cover what is easy to cover.  And even non-traditional media is going to spend most of its time covering the people that everyone already knows about, because they want to boost viewership and search metrics, and having on a [relatively] "famous" guest boosts those things.  If you think it's bad now, just wait ten years . . . I have a feeling it will be all Sweetens Cove level hype, all the time.

Touche, Tom! To your point regarding major market newspapers having staff writers that covered golf, I fondly recall Jack Berry's writings for the Detroit News up until he retired in 1993 and Vartan Kupelian's after him. By the time Vartan retired in 2009 the digital age age had taken over and both the Detroit News and Free Press had merged. They no longer had the financial resources to pay a dedicated golf beat writer and used A.P. wire stories to fill the void left behind. We were blessed in the metro Detroit market to have two stalwarts covering the sport when I was growing up. That's forever lost.

[Tom_Doak]

Touche, Tom! To your point regarding major market newspapers having staff writers that covered golf, I fondly recall Jack Berry's writings for the Detroit News up until he retired in 1993 and Vartan Kupelian's after him. By the time Vartan retired in 2009 the digital age age had taken over and both the Detroit News and Free Press had merged. They no longer had the financial resources to pay a dedicated golf beat writer and used A.P. wire stories to fill the void left behind. We were blessed in the metro Detroit market to have two stalwarts covering the sport when I was growing up. That's forever lost.

Exactly.  Those guys generated a ton of free publicity to the golf courses up north, so the developers could spend their marketing money in other ways.  And there were lots of others who did the same in other markets -- George Sweda in Cleveland, Gary D'Amato in Milwaukee, Phil Richards in Indy, etc.

[Forrest Richardson]

I recall the day that I heard our local golf writer for the Arizona Republic had been let go. I found out later that he left Estancia off the Top 10 in AZ List — the publisher promptly firing him, and from there relying mostly on Gannett national writers. BTW, he left it off because he could never get access!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()