Los Angeles, CA<\/em>. It’s been 75 years since the last U.S. Open took place in the greater Los Angeles area and this week’s host site is both well-respected, ultra-private and a late arrival to the grand stage for the national championship of American golf.<\/p>\n

Founded in 1897 and with several moves before finding its home at the present location in 1911, the current Los Angeles Country Club is the handiwork of noted architect George Thomas who updated the layout in 1927. Interestingly, Thomas created the trio of top tier LA courses with the likes of LACC, Riviera and Bel-Air respectively.<\/p>\n

Located off Wilshire Boulevard, the 36-hole LACC is located on 312 acres on some of the priciest real estate in all of the United States.<\/p>\n

The par-70 layout will play just under 7,500 yards and feature the unusual combination of three par-5 holes and five par-3 holes. Generally, the North is a par-71 layout but the 7th will play as a long par-3 for the championship.<\/p>\n

In 2009-2010 architect Gil Hanse in concert with associate Jim Wagner completed work that updated the North Course. Assisting them was Geoff Schackelford, a golf architecture historian and George Thomas biographer.<\/p>\n

The collective efforts enhanced the original design and bolstered the course by expanding playing options and reintroducing the specific “look” and “play” characteristics that were the hallmark of what Thomas envisioned.<\/p>\n

The North Course has been a mainstay in the top 25 ranking of courses in the United States for many years. LACC has also been on the radar screen for quite some time by the USGA to host the U.S. Open but the club had politely declined doing so until recently.<\/p>\n

The most fascinating question will be how well the North Course fares when going against the best players in the game? Five leading architects address a range of subjects on what they expect to see with this week’s fascinating U.S. Open Championship.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

How much of golf design is “art” and how much is “science?”<\/h4>\n

JEFF DANNER<\/span><\/strong><\/a>: The ratio of one to the other varies significantly from project to project, but all projects require both to some degree. The right blend is highly dependent on the existing characteristics of the site, the constraints and opportunities it presents, the client’s program or wish list, and of course, the golf course architect’s abilities for creative problem-solving and envisioning what is possible.<\/p>\n

For example, a sandy site with the right amount of undulation and opportunity for a “wow” factor is much easier to take an artistic touch with than a site with heavy soils, challenging topography, and constraints that limit what we can do. Even with a less-than-ideal site, we must be creative to let the constraints become opportunities.<\/p>\n

Often, challenging parts of a project become what makes them truly unique. Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to this question, but that is what makes the talents of a golf course architect so unique. We can judge how much of each to apply in any given situation.<\/p>\n

JOHN FOUGHT<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: Golf design, in my opinion, is both. The fundaments such a solid routing and very strong strategic elements must come first in any design.<\/p>\n

But the art or aesthetic element is what many golfers love when they play the course.<\/p>\n

BRUCE CHARLTON<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: There is much more science than meets the eye. Most golfers don\u2019t realize how much science is involved in the creation of great golf course. Much of our technical efforts, and corresponding money spent, is getting water off the site and making sure the accurate amount of water is distributed on the site.<\/p>\n

Soil science and storm water management principles perform major roles. However, mother nature provides a wide array of tools in our design palette that we can artfully utilize in creating wonderful golf experiences. I would say it is 40% science and 60% art.<\/p>\n

MARK FINE<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: While there are distinct differences between science and art, both disciplines strive to identify or create something unique. The golf architect uses a wide variety of tools on his design palette to shape the canvas he is given. In doing so, he relies on both science and art to reimagine what will be a one of a kind finished product.<\/p>\n

The architect must recognize his work of art is a living breathing thing that will be constantly evolving either on its own or by the hand of man. He must consider how drainage, erosion, wind, rain, and Mother Nature will cause his piece of art to change. That is the science of design. At the end of the day, call it a 50\/50 split of both art and science, the true beauty of golf and its playing fields is that everyone created is different.<\/p>\n

BRIAN CURLEY<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: I would offer that the overwhelming majority is art. I do not consider the application of already accepted norms — such as standardized parameters for hole lengths, widths, line of sight concerns, bunker depths, maximum slopes, etc, etc. The list is long as being \u201cscience\u201d as these are incorporated in the same way as a road engineer applies design standards.<\/p>\n

In the big picture, most courses offer very similar solutions from number of holes on down the long list. The \u201cscience \u201c in my mind, would apply to pushing the limits of acceptance and most of this would apply to the art more than the engineering. Easy, natural sites become studies in art from the start. Difficult sites must first endure an engineered solution to solve various problems but these are typically done to accepted construction standards.<\/p>\n

From there, the art dictates the product. A faucet set from Home Depot does the job but a customized product does so with style. No different with golf design.<\/p>\n