Neo-Luddist Golf Course Architecture

Neo-Luddist golf course architecture

From: Golf Course Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective, volume seven

Armen Suny

 

At the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, the Luddite movement was started by artisans in the textile industry who were being replaced by new technology (machines.) The luddites feared that automation and technology would lead to mass unemployment. Today’s luddites, the neo-luddites, are not against all technology—only the technology that hasn’t improved the quality of life. Golf course architecture has, in the last two decades, been in the throes of a neo-luddite movement that has changed golf course design forever. 

 

Two vastly divergent methods of golf course architecture are in play today. The ‘conventional’ approach is to design the golf course in the office using a Computer Assisted Design (CAD) program. These designs often lack a connection to the land and have little, if any, real site-influenced flavour or personality. 

 

The less conventional method, as practised by the neo-luddites, is to design the golf course in the field during construction; based on a set of design concepts characterised by an absence of, and perhaps even a virulent disdain of, formal plans. Almost invariably, neo-luddite designs capture the essence of the land upon which they are built.

 

Pete Dye spearheaded this neo-luddite movement. In an era when all of the designers were drawing extensive plans, utilising topographical maps, Pete walked around the property and waved his hands and made little models of the features that he wanted out of soil. This occurred, while standing next to the bulldozer and the shaper. While not a fan of Pete’s design philosophies, I count myself as a huge fan of his process. This process became even more of a rarity in response to computer-based golf course design becoming the norm.

 

The ‘hot’ designers of today are almost all neo-luddites. This group includes Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak and Jim Urbina, Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner, Rod Whitman, and a large group of the lesser-known designers. Even Donald Trump is drinking the Kool-Aid and embracing the neo-luddite designers. No doubt it tastes good, for the golf courses that materialised will stand the test of time. One need only look at the most recent golf course rankings to see the impact of the neo-luddites; and to realise that they are creating today’s classics. Thanks to them, we entered another Golden Age of golf course design.

 

What makes these neo-luddites different is their process, and so let’s look at the greatest: Coore & Crenshaw. Bill and Ben spend more time on routing the golf course than anyone—period, end of story. Consider their discovery process at Sand Hills, where they identified one hundred and thirty holes of golf that were then strung together in many permutations until they felt that they had the best eighteen holes of golf. Clearly, there is no better way to route a golf course than to spend an inordinate time on site. However, this process is not devoid of technology; after all, in order to work efficiently you would need a pencil, a scaled topographical map and a good pair of boots. 

 

To contrast the process of most of the conventional golf course architects to the neo-luddites, let me recap a conversation that I had with an award-winning conventional designer. He explained to me that after a one-day site visit, his staff—even in the advent of their absence from the site—could develop a computerised golf course design plan that is both considered and extremely thorough. So thorough, in fact, not a single change would need to be made during the entire golf course construction. He went on to say something that gave me pause: my plans are so good there has never been a change during construction on any golf course I have built. The audacity of the infallible aside, this suggests that there is a certain degree of rigidity in the design process and that he does not have the creative flexibility to understand, let alone react to, on-site opportunities and/or problems. The typical conventional designer will visit the site for one or two days every ‘other’ week, to ensure that the plan is built according to specifications. During the construction of every golf course, situations are revealed that can be more fully exploited to create an even better golf course; but one must be looking for ways to improve the course in order to capitalise on them.

 

The other side of this equation is the organic process utilised by the neo-luddites, who often work with only a finished routing plan that simply has a centerline of the golf holes. Based on this plan, the golf course is built ‘in-place’ with a designer on site throughout the entire shaping effort. The designers will feel their way around the golf course, and the features will be created—often without preconceived notions. Of course, this is not to imply an absence of thought, especially since an overarching concept for the golf holes guides the design; but the ebb and flow of the golf experience will be defined as much by the land and routing as by the designer’s intent. Embracing the site’s natural features creates a harmony that is lacking in much of conventional design.

 

The neo-luddites form an interesting group. The work culture that many of them have created in the design and construction process is often markedly democratic, where, typically, they not only allow for, but strongly encourage, input from those with their hands in the dirt. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a neo to empower shapers to work out general concepts from the seat of the bulldozer. Those design concepts often include the following suite: green-shape, size, contours and surrounds; extending to bunkers. Therefore, it wouldn’t shock if a neo told the shaper that the green should be in a specific location, followed by imparting general thoughts about how the hole will play and what might work; and then return later in the day to observe what the shaper had created. This only works well, when the shapers and designers are working with a common philosophy of design and golf. This type of design process, whether on purpose or as a by-product of their methodology, allows for the possibility of producing original golf courses.

 

Not all conventional golf course architects are desk-bound, rigid-design autocrats; and not all neo-luddite architects are as open with their creative processes. Many architects successfully utilise the ‘all-of-the-above’ approach. Nonetheless, the neo-luddites continue to lead the way and garner the attention in the current marketplace. Their golf courses may well stand the test of time.