Golf Course Innovations

[pusher]

I read an article recently in Golf Digest where the author was lamenting the lack of innovation when it comes to new golf course design.  What is considered innovative these days?

[uttexas]

Not sure what the author was getting at (haven't read the article), but I would disagree.

Is the author saying that many golf course architects are so heavily influenced by previous architects that the designs are lack originality?

More environmentally and walk friendly course designs are recent trends in my area.

Varied bunker lip/edging designs are trendy.  Recent courses are emphasizing strategy over length, with punishing tall grasses and waste areas off the fairway.

If the author is referring to courses built in the 90s and early '00s, I see his/her point.  In those years, there were many overly long courses constructed with ridiculous distances between green and next tee box.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by uttexas

Is the author saying that many golf course architects are so heavily influenced by previous architects that the designs are lack originality?

If I'm remembering the same article, yes.  I'm not exactly sure what the writer expects from architects, but a start - in his opinion - would be to do away with classic hole designs.  Thanks, but I'd much prefer to play redan style par threes, rather than some abomination made to look like a star-fish.

[stealthduffer]

I would hate to see a return to some of the design "innovations" of the '80s where incredibly long, terribly punitive holes were being built.  Fortunately a lot of architects got away from that fad since they were beyond the ability of most golfers and resulted in overly long playing times (and reduced revenues) at a lot of resorts.  I also don't like "tricked up" courses where hazards such as rail ties and walls are introduced in contrast to the natural lay of the land (the exception being where they are needed for erosion control or moderation of extreme terrain).  I also enjoy seeing courses that "fit" the locale - pine forests in the south east, desert courses in the southwest, links style courses near the ocean/lakes.

I'm willing to guess that just about everything (reasonable) has been tried on some course at some point in time.  And I think that a lot of innovation these days is more oriented toward course managability and maintenance - good selection of turf for the local environment (weather, water availability/quality), generous greens and tees to reduce wear and tear on them, etc.  An architect who can consider those variables successfully is doing his client a great service (imho).

[JordanJCaron]

Who says architecture needs to be more innovative?  Lets see more guys like Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak, David McKay Kidd, Gil Hanse and Jeff Mingay build new courses instead of the "yes sir" architects who build what the client wants.

[WUTiger]

Quote:

Who says architecture needs to be more innovative?  Lets see more guys like Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak, David McKay Kidd, Gil Hanse and Jeff Mingay build new courses instead of the "yes sir" architects who build what the client wants.

Need to take a look at what you're saying. These are factors which can cramp even the most creative designer:

• The contract. What the client wants is specified by the contract between the money people and the design/build team.
• Big-time changes once the course building has started can mess up the architect. Jack Nicklaus, in his book Nicklaus By Design, tells of a ritzy golf course in which two clever holes had to be torn up because the $$ crowd decided to move the clubhouse location 200 yards north.
• Government regulation and citizen activists. You have to do environmental impact statements before different layers of government give you the permits to build. Also, some cities have idiotic rules on cutting down trees, which can mess up plans.
• The land you have to work with. More and more, golf courses in densely populated areas get built on "marginal land." For example, if it goes through a flood plain, chances are you need a lot of elevated tees and greens so the course doesn't get washed out. Course could look pretty boring.
• Blurring of roles between $$ backers and design team. Pete Dye built one of his early courses in the St. Louis area. But, area golfing elders say Dye doesn't claim the course because the $$ backers interfered so much in the hole designs.

These days, being an artiste is not enough in itself to produce creative golf course design. You also have to worry about factors like the bullet points listed above.

And, people like Coore and Crenshaw have the financial clout and golf track recrod to have more say-so on what they do. Look at the movies. Film director Francis Ford Coppola gets a lot more artistic control on films he makes, as compared to some 24-year-old directing a formula police drama for New Line Cinema.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by WUTiger

Quote:

Need to take a look at what you're saying. These are factors which can cramp even the most creative designer:

The contract. What the client wants is specified by the contract between the money people and the design/build team.

Big-time changes once the course building has started can mess up the architect. Jack Nicklaus, in his book Nicklaus By Design, tells of a ritzy golf course in which two clever holes had to be torn up because the $$ crowd decided to move the clubhouse location 200 yards north.

Government regulation and citizen activists. You have to do environmental impact statements before different layers of government give you the permits to build. Also, some cities have idiotic rules on cutting down trees, which can mess up plans.

The land you have to work with. More and more, golf courses in densely populated areas get built on "marginal land." For example, if it goes through a flood plain, chances are you need a lot of elevated tees and greens so the course doesn't get washed out. Course could look pretty boring.

Blurring of roles between $$ backers and design team. Pete Dye built one of his early courses in the St. Louis area. But, area golfing elders say Dye doesn't claim the course because the $$ backers interfered so much in the hole designs.

These days, being an artiste is not enough in itself to produce creative golf course design. You also have to worry about factors like the bullet points listed above.

And, people like Coore and Crenshaw have the financial clout and golf track recrod to have more say-so on what they do. Look at the movies. Film director Francis Ford Coppola gets a lot more artistic control on films he makes, as compared to some 24-year-old directing a formula police drama for New Line Cinema.

The constraints and interference by the $$$ people isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the 90s the thought of a top level "green" course that moved as little dirt as possible was blasphemy. What Pete Dye can do to a prime location is seen as artistry by some and an abomination by others. I tend to side with the latter group, and don't think his courses are particularly interesting or playable. i.e. neither classic nor timeless.

[ghalfaire]

I believe Architects have had to become more creative around this area and you can see the differences between the newer courses and the older traditional ones.  Much of the change is driven by need for water conservation, cost of real estate and environmental concerns.  But you saw the results of golf course design at the World Match Play.  You won't see any 25-30 year old courses around here that look like that.  I also think a lot of changes you can't see in the types of grass, irrigation system design, drainage systems, etc.