Do you think that more golf courses could benefit from a contemporary architecture style?

Of course. And as a result you see more and more of them all the time. Why be stuck in some pompous, dark building trying to mimic an old castle or country manor when you could be in beautiful dining room, lounge, or locker room that allows you to watch the players outside?

Why do you think that developers are afraid to take such a leap forward, and take advantage of modern designs?

That’s the same question architects are always asked, no matter what type of building they are doing. There are two interrelated issues. The first is just the simple fact that the styles associated with wealth and power are, of course, the traditional ones. So the best marketing approach for developers is still to build those types of buildings that say to their prospective buyers and clients: this building proves that you are successful, that you are noble, that you have the taste of royalty.

The second problem is that the common perception of modern architecture until the last 20 years or so is that is cold, sterile, ugly, etc. Unfortunately, architects themselves were partially to blame for much of this perception since in the 60’s and 70’s they did in fact build a lot of cold, sterile, ugly buildings. It did not have to be this way: the great modern masters such as Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Wright, and Aalto did create beautiful buildings. But with lesser talents, and those who were more ideologically driven, the results were far less successful. And many of these came with disastrous urban renewal policies which involved clearing whole neighbourhoods and replacing them with brutal, lifeless architecture. However, in the past two decades, architects have re-learned to pursue a contemporary architecture that is imaginative, warm, materially sensuous, and filled with light and life.

And as architecture and design have become part of the general cultural discourse, the general population has learned to value, even crave, contemporary design and architecture. So the future looks bright, I would say. New building techniques allow the use vast expanses of glass to bring the outside world into the living space.

Are there any disadvantages to this approach?

There are two issues. First of all, glass is expensive, so when construction costs are high, as they are today, large expanses of glass can be prohibitive, though mostly what happens is that the systems of support and connections are downgraded. Secondly, without adequate solar protection (louvers, low-E coatings, etc.), heat gain can be high, which taxes the air conditioning systems and pushes up energy costs. With intelligence, these problems can be mitigated. Typically, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Do you have any plans to build more golf clubhouses in the future? Would you take a similar approach again?

Currently, we are not designing any new golf clubhouses, though we would be happy to do so. And yes, we would take a similar approach, though we would probably push our ideas even further. For example, based on other projects we have done, we would probably incorporate more sustainable strategies, such as the use of photovoltaic panels to generate electricity and the use of sod roofs to provide insulation, filter the rain water, and generate more Oxygen. There are a lot of new techniques and technologies that we are planning to work with in our future projects.