Why not consider cost when evaluating design?

[Lou_Duran]

To the extent that total project costs are reflected in the green fee, Golf Digest does publish a list on a regular basis of the best affordable courses (under $50).  It is difficult enough to evaluate and compare golf courses without taking costs into consideration.  There seems to be a tendency to do this subconciously, however, as the "hidden gems" we take so much delight in discovering are typically low-budget/affordable green fee courses.

Architects themselves get categorized by the size of their budgets, and earn reputations for building good courses at certain price points.  It will be interesting to see whether Tom Doak becomes more comfortable in the $10 - $20MM range, and foresake the "affordable" category (not to say that Pacific Dunes is affordable anymore even though its total cost was low to moderate).

Locally, Jeff Brauer has a good reputation for building a quality course with a moderate budget.  Tom Fazio has built two courses in the $20 - $30MM range (each) here, and while they are much better than anything Jeff has built, they are certainly not 4 to 6 times better.

The best course for the money?  Wild Horse, without a doubt.  Reported turn-key cost- $1.5MM (incl. clubhouse); green fees under $30?  Perhaps value considerations do go into the rankings after all.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou,

The best course for the money?  Wild Horse, without a doubt.  Reported turn-key cost- $1.5MM (incl. clubhouse);

Where is wild Horse located ?
What was the cost of the land, per acre, for the golf course ?
What would the land at Friar's Head cost per acre ?
How about the cost of the land, per acre, at Sebonack ?

How many square feet is the clubhouse ?

Can an adequate clubhouse for 200-300 members be constructed for under $ 200 per square foot ?

What was the cost of the irrigation system ?[/color]

green fees under $30?

What is the annual capital and operating maintainance budget ?

How many rounds per year are played ?

Can the golf course survive ?[/color]


THE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP[/COLOR]

Perhaps value considerations do go into the rankings after all.

How do you compare a private club to a public one.

Isn't value determined by the market place ?[/color]
 

[Thomas_Brown]

Patrick_Mucci - I thought the topic was total cost, not just construction costs.  Real estate costs, permitting, prop. taxes, ...  -NY is not pretty on those subjects.

Jim_Lewis stated my view - total product.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

They were paying the extra tariff for the LOGO.

The "prestige" factor.

Surely you can relate that to new golf clubs.

It's the "Green Badge of Courage"  

[A_Clay_Man]

I'll tell you why the cost should NOT be part of the design evaluation;

It's the same principle as when you have a putt for ____ (insert some value, like Eagle, birdie, par, to win match), in other words, the result of making that putt. If the golfer thinks about what that putt means, he/she is thinking about the wrong thing. They should be concentrating on that putt, not the result. i.e. A four footer with 2 balls of break, etc.

Now, if the analyst is golfing a course and he/she is focused on what it cost to builld, he/she is thinking about the wrong thing. Especially if they're trying to compare all the courses in country(world). In this case the principle is inverted, in that the evaluation is based on the result, not the means it took.

How many raters even ask what the project cost? Could that be perceived as crass at certain venues?

[DMoriarty]

Are not Yale and Lido precursors to Shadow Creek ?  

Jeez Patrick, dont I have enough people angry at me without you goading me into further comparing the Lido and the likes of Shadow Creek?   If I threw Yale in there as well Mr. Childs would probably become so angry that he'd vote Bush just to spite me.  Oh well . . .  

Lido is a precursor to Shadow Creek in that its formation has much more in common with Shadow Creek than with many of its contemporaries.  

As for Yale, I know nothing about it (as opposed to the Lido, which I played repeatedly in a past life.)  But if you are telling me that Yale was an extraordinarily expensive undertaking requiring a complete reworking of nature in order to create an environment suitable for a certain narrow conception of golf, then based on your representation I would say that Yale was most definitely a precursor to the likes of Shadow Creek as well.  

Lou said:

To the extent that total project costs are reflected in the green fee, Golf Digest does publish a list on a regular basis of the best affordable courses (under $50).  It is difficult enough to evaluate and compare golf courses without taking costs into consideration.  There seems to be a tendency to do this subconciously, however, as the "hidden gems" we take so much delight in discovering are typically low-budget/affordable green fee courses.

I am not sure I buy "difficulty" as an acceptable excuse for pretending that we haven't noticed something as important to golf as the cost of its courses.
 
I agree that there is a tendency to take costs into consideration but disagree as to just how those costs are taken into consideration.  In fact you have it 180 degrees bacward.   In my observation it is much more common for evaluators to assume that outrageously costly courses are better than less costly courses.  Why else would developers brag that their course cost however many tens of millions of dollars?  If anything they oftentimes should be embarassed and angry, not bragging.  

On the other side of the coin, why do we always fall back on discussing courses like Wildhorse as terrific values, or great for the price (or cost.)   Sort of like saying someone doesnt sweat much for a fat person, this "compliment" cuts both ways, doesnt it?   Especially when few are making such conditioned judgments on the other end of the scale.   For example, why dont we hear more analysis such as:

 XXX Club offers an adequate golfing experience, but at a cost of XX,000,000 million dollars, the developer should be ashamed and the designer should be looking for another career.  What a screwing the members are taking!

Don't believe me when I say that low cost courses are subconsciously dowgraded in the minds of many?  Check out your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence:

Lou said:

The best course for the money?  Wild Horse, without a doubt.  Reported turn-key cost- $1.5MM (incl. clubhouse); green fees under $30?  Perhaps value considerations do go into the rankings after all.

Now I know you really like Wildhorse, but what makes you think that Wildhorse's cost figured into its rankings, other than the value ratings?   (By the way, I was talking about evaluation and not rankings.)  Isnt this a little insulting with regard to Wildhorse?   Except for the affordable lists, cost is not supposed to be a factor, is it?  

(An aside, having come from a State which makes Nebraska seem prosperous and populated, $30 bucks doesnt seem all that cheap to me.)
__________________________

Adam, I dont follow your argument or your analogy.  Perhaps you could put it another way?  

As for your last sentence, again the conversation turns to raters.  I am talking about evaluators which includes raters I guess but is by no means limited to raters.   Nonetheless, I would think that raters and ratings would attempt to be more diligent than the casual evaluator when evaluating courses.  "Crass" or not, don't raters and ratings have a responsibility as part of the journalistic process to garner all of the pertinent facts before they make pronouncements which may have a profound influence on the future of golf in America?  

[A_Clay_Man]

David, The putting example is meant to illustrate a fundamental flaw most golfers have, and that is their focus on results, rather than the task at hand.

If on evaluating a golf course, the evaluator took the costs of construction, or other variables not germaine to the GOLF, into consideration, they are focused-in on the wrong things.

 Whether someone rates a course for a magazine or for their own personal "list". Why would the trials, tribulations and cost of construction, have anything to do with the finished products grade?

As a predominately public golfer, I look for value. Costs to golf, enter into that evaluation. But as far as comparing the quality of the golf versus the costs, it took to create that golf, it doesn't enter my mind.


Now, if I were a lender, and I had been under the mis-guided impression that the bigger the project, the bigger the likelyhood I would see a return of my priinciple. (as well as on it) Then some new up-start like Rc comes along and gets rated #106, out of all the modern courses in the country, and I only needed to lend them a fraction of what a "big Name designers" borrows, and I was paid back, within 30 months, I wonder if I would ever lend another 30M $ for a name course.

[Harmony]

Adam, and the gca at large:
This is getting a bit away from the original question, but it relates to the growth (or lack thereof) of the industry and why some really good projects never get built.

Would you lend $4M to build a Doak course 90 min. from the nation's #2 busiest airport, on a lake, that will have on site accomodations, and will get you your principal back in 36 mon.?
We considered cost of design and construction on our site, and fortunately got Tom interested.  Now, we are wondering where are the value seekers?  The freight for mbrshp. in Harmony is a pittance compared to some of the earlier examples.  But maybe as has been said, we should follow the Polo example and jack up our fee.  
Would we get more takers if we charged $160k vs. $60k?
We grind our teeth when hearing about what people are willing to pay...but must agree that until we're "hot" we can't be too pricy.
So meanwhile, we are leaving pearls of value (Nat'l mbrshps. for $20k) on the ground.  
If we build something neat w/ Doak's brilliance all over it, will anyone step up?  If you had the coins, would you commission DaVinci before ever seeing what he'd paint...?
Kent Hassell

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kent,

Timing can be everything.

[A_Clay_Man]

Kent- I did qualifiy my remarks to public golf. But, from what I gather, that mid level private club market is the most competitive. But I havent lived in a major market for 8 years. While I do know there are many individuals, wealthy enough to afford that price, I just don't think there are that many avid golfers amongst them. But your idea for nat'l memberships sure sounds like a good one. I assume, if there's a need for revenue and there's an understanding, with the existing membership, that things will never be the same, beats closing the doors, or g-d forbid ASSESMENTS.

Back to topic;

When Pinon Hills was given the fifth star, an astute friend recognized immediatley that the fifth was generously given due to the ridiculously low green fee.

So perhaps there is precedence for what David is trying to get at?

[Tom_Doak]

"It will be interesting to see if Tom Doak becomes more comfortable in the $10MM - $20MM range" ???

Lou:  I have yet to build a course with a $10 million construction budget.  Neither Sebonack nor Stone Eagle will cost that much, even though with land costs and posh clubhouses the total cost of each project will be well over $50 million.

Don't forget I just finished Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach with budgets below $2 million US, and they were as fun for me as anything we've done lately.

On the other hand, it's nice to have some clients who can support my posh lifestyle.

If you are going to hire a golf course architect I should think that the ability to work within a budget would be a BIG factor in your selection process.  But I still don't think it should apply to golf course ratings, particularly since practically none of the raters understand the cost/benefit analysis.

[DMoriarty]

David, The putting example is meant to illustrate a fundamental flaw most golfers have, and that is their focus on results, rather than the task at hand.

That's what I thought you meant, which unfortunately leaves me even more befuddled.   I thought this was my point.   Don't focus on the ends, focus on the means.  In a golf course context, design, construction, etc. are the means to an end.  So why would you ignore the process when considering the final product?   Isn't possible or even probable that an examination of the process will shed significant light on the final product?  

If on evaluating a golf course, the evaluator took the costs of construction, or other variables not germaine to the GOLF, into consideration, they are focused-in on the wrong things.

I guess I am one of those cultural dinosaurs who believe that when it comes to forming opinions and making decisions, one should consider all the available facts--  Especially when those facts are as potentially enlightening as taking a look at the process, and not just the product.  

Whether someone rates a course for a magazine or for their own personal "list". Why would the trials, tribulations and cost of construction, have anything to do with the finished products grade?

As a predominately public golfer, I look for value. Costs to golf, enter into that evaluation. But as far as comparing the quality of the golf versus the costs, it took to create that golf, it doesn't enter my mind.

I appreciate your efforts to expand your comments beyond just raters and ratings, but I am not sure we are quite there yet.   . . I cant speak for other non-rating evaluators but I can tell you that I lists or grades are not part of my process.


But Adam I think you and I share a common perspective regarding the importance of golf value.   Like my education, my golf has been primarily public.  In fact this is one reason I find your opinion so disconcerting.  You know that overpriced, overdone courses are  a threat to the great game.   I mean no offense, but I just cannot understand how one can form and express a positive opinion about an overpriced, overdone course when they know that the course is bad for the golfer and bad for golf?

Now, if I were a lender, and I had been under the mis-guided impression that the bigger the project, the bigger the likelyhood I would see a return of my priinciple. (as well as on it) Then some new up-start like Rc comes along and gets rated #106, out of all the modern courses in the country, and I only needed to lend them a fraction of what a "big Name designers" borrows, and I was paid back, within 30 months, I wonder if I would ever lend another 30M $ for a name course.

Just think how angry your hypothetical lender would be if RC had been ranked ahead of some of the lesser courses which litter the top 100.  [please place prper smiley face for facetiousness here.]
________

Last Adam, your Pinion example is a good one.  You seldom hear mention of Pinion without someone mentioning that it is overrated because of its low price--  pretty telling comment considering that "value for the money" is a primary rating criterion in that particular rating.  [As you know, you have a higher opinion of Pinion than I do, but I doubt my opinion is diminished by the low cost of the project.]

Our differences may come down to constraints.  Perhaps you and others keep bringing up ratings because the ratings rules dont allow you consider the production process in your analysis?   (The previous is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know exactly what raters are allowed to consider.)  

[Mike_Young]

Would most of you on this site feel that the better the site, the less the cost should be?

[A_Clay_Man]

So why would you ignore the process when considering the final product?   Isn't possible or even probable that an examination of the process will shed significant light on the final product?  
David, I view it as the same principle inverted. When evaluating a course,(as a paying customer) the means are not, and should not be part of the final analysis, other than perhaps to say something to the affect "Boy, they did a great job with no budget" or, "they really wasted a few dollars there". Both could end-up with the same overall rating and the efficeincy of the dollars to create it are not germaine.


I guess I am one of those cultural dinosaurs who believe that when it comes to forming opinions and making decisions, one should consider all the available facts--  Especially when those facts are as potentially enlightening as taking a look at the process, and not just the product.   Available facts? What course posts the cost of construction? Are you saying your opinion of the finished product changes when you find-out the costs? I believe that is "UNFAIR" to the final product. If the course is better to you, because of efficeincy in financing, it should be icing on the cake. If the course cost 100M and you think to yourself "Boy, they shoulda done better with that much money" and it adversely effects your opinion of the golf course, that too is unfair, or perhaps biased, and does not isolate the design of the golf course, from the project. Call me a moron all you want, but when I sit down wth a person who can answer the cost question, I don't ask it.

I appreciate your efforts to expand your comments beyond just raters and ratings, but I am not sure we are quite there yet.   . . I cant speak for other non-rating evaluators but I can tell you that I lists or grades are not part of my process.I'm sorry I don't follow, I thought we were talking about some evaluation.


  You know that overpriced, overdone courses are  a threat to the great game.   I mean no offense, but I just cannot understand how one can form and express a positive opinion about an overpriced, overdone course when they know that the course is bad for the golfer and bad for golf? It's not my position that overdone courses are bad for the game. I don't dictate what's good or bad. I just think these courses, over-built for bottomline justifications, misses a major lesson the sport teaches. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Plus, you must remember, I'm the guy who believes in letting market forces dictate what the future holds. Overpaying for an enterprise, that doesn't cover it's own nut, is likely bad for the first principle, but not the third. And is normative for "the game". That's market forces.

Our differences may come down to constraints.  Perhaps you and others keep bringing up ratings because the ratings rules dont allow you consider the production process in your analysis?   (The previous is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know exactly what raters are allowed to consider.)  

David, I believe your initial posts implies some rating or evaluation. I was evaluating courses and reacting with my wallet, long before I was a panelist, and I never knew what the courses cost to build. I only knew what the course cost for me to golf.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I haven't read through all the replies so this might have already been said but, a course is what it is...  Whether a course costs $100k to build or $50 million, it's the experience and the design aspects that matter, not the amount.  That's one of the reasons the "tradition" scores that Golf Digest uses irks so many.  Whether or not Hogan or Hagen played an event there has nothing to do the the design or how enjoyable it is to play.  A course should be rated on the design, not something that has happened in the past...

[JakaB]

Whether or not Hogan or Hagen played an event there has nothing to do the the design or how enjoyable it is to play.  A course should be rated on the design, not something that has happened in the past...

Oh, come on Mike....I really enjoyed the little ditties you dropped on me about the Ryder Cup when we played Kiawah.....The great tradition Kiawah has established in its short life was one of the many reasons I wanted to play there....a view from the seat of the common man..