Could the need for profitability destroy a great golf course ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If NGLA became a public, for profit, golf course in 2005, how long would it be before the architectural scalpel was wielded and the golf course disfigured  ?

With approximately 16 forced carries off the tee, deep bunkers, undulating greens, wind, three carries over roads, and water on 8 holes, what would be the fate of this golf course if it was open to the public and run as a for profit daily fee golf course ?

What does this tell us about the constraints that modern day architects face in designing a public access, for profit golf course ?

[TEPaul]

Jeeesus Christ Patrick Mucci, what's going on with you? You know as well as I do if an unidentified hoi polloi was spotted within two miles of NGLA he'd be either in the Southampton jail's solitary confinement cell for five years or shot dead! You better not mention words like public and profit around NGLA or Parker G might half choke on his soup and shoot your ass! Any man who could quite calmly respond to something at a committee meeting with--"What do you think we're trying to do around here run a f...ing democracy?" gets my vote for something cool!  

[ForkaB]

Pat

The short answer is NO!

Great courses is Scotland and Ireland--which some people think are even more "penal" than NGLA (see your own recent thread on the topic....... )--do quite nicely, thank you, from visitor revenue.  In fact the "problem" at all the top courses is having to limit visitor play rather than encourage it.  All this whilst mostly being purer than the pure in terms of preserving their architecture.

As a for profit venture, NGLA would be extremely proftitable on an operating basis (of course, one would have to pay so much for the property in the real world that capital charges might make it an iffy venture in the hypothetical world you live in....). I would argue that its optimum profitability under your hypothetical would involve--in fact demand!--absolutely no changes to the course, and relatively minimalist maintenance practices.  In fact, if the members want to sell, I'd be happy to put together a syndicate to test out my hypotheses......

Let me know when the property goes on the market.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
It happens everyday....even keeps some from ever being built.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Rich,

It appears your spead sheet software is not working in Scotland. Sebonack's land traded for 40 something million. Now next door you have a golf course, clubhouse and history. Thus, minimum value of $80 million. Now you have a public season from basically May 1 to October 31. No hotel, no permitting for hotels in Southampton, only inns. Please work those numbers for me ! The membership at National is stuck in a bad position !

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Do your economic model of NGLA as a public course but don't forget to discount the whole thing because of Long Island traffic which is mind-bending, in my opinion. Or alternatively factor in a few rupees for the public's helicopter access only. I think we could probably get Joe Sixpack on that course for the bargain basemant price of about $929.99 per round. That should be low enough whereby NGLA doesn't have much left over to mess with the course's architecture. That is unless Rees doesn't decide to waive his fee!  

[Phil_the_Author]

Gentleman,

I am so surprised that learned men such as yourselves are about to "discuss" whether NGLA would be profitable as a public venture to try and solve the question posed, when the answer to the question can be found just "down the road," so to speak.

Bethpage.

What was a fabulous course was NEARLY destroyed by the State of New York's NEED for profitability that could be SHARED among the rest of N.Y. parks.

It took a "GIFT" from the USGA to save it from deteriorating beyond repair and becoming like another course on Long Island - Timber Point.

[ForkaB]

Rich,

It appears your spead sheet software is not working in Scotland. Sebonack's land traded for 40 something million. Now next door you have a golf course, clubhouse and history. Thus, minimum value of $80 million. Now you have a public season from basically May 1 to October 31. No hotel, no permitting for hotels in Southampton, only inns. Please work those numbers for me ! The membership at National is stuck in a bad position !

Mike

You might have missed the phrase below in my post.  Spreadsheets work just fine over here in Caledonia, as long as the steam engines that power them are not on the fritz......

......(of course, one would have to pay so much for the property in the real world that capital charges might make it an iffy venture in the hypothetical world you live in....).....

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

For the third time -

If the National Golf Links of America became a public course, would the members still be able to call it their "home course"?

If not, why not?

[John Foley]

If NGLA went public at whatever green fee the tee sheet would be filled for years just to satisfy the people what want to play that course w/ no need to change it one bit.

If you refer to any course in general, there will come a point where the setup of the course will determine how many "repeat"customers you get. Take a look at Morgan Hill in Easton PA. The course is on an extreme site w/ some very "interesting" green sites, but it's built to sell homes and provide golf to the masses. The architecture is first rate and while I'm sure that changes to the course as it matures will happen, I'd be very shocked to see it dumbed -down architecturally just to sustain it's profitability.

Has the need to profitability destroyed Pinehurst #2, Pebble Beach, Whistling Straits or TPC Sawgrass? Even though the fees are incredibly high I assume that the level of play is very high on these courses and profitability would be acceptible.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I don't think that National would need to be changed at all to be a popular public course, because there is plenty of room to hit your ball, find it, and hit it again.  The economics of profit in Southampton are another thing altogether ... but plop down National virtually anywhere else and you'd make money.

[In fact, I think I am going to try something very much like that on a new project a couple of years down the road.]

As for what golf architects face everyday ... I think a lot of it is self-imposed.  Nearly all of the great golf courses I've seen tend to find an audience and be profitable.  But architects who constrain themselves too much with what they "should" do often fall short of greatness.  I'm not sure if this is the fault of the system or of the individual.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, There you go! A Par 73 about 6800 yards or a par 69 just under 6000. That would work fine! Put a bunch of "those" greens on it and then watch the people line-up to play it 365 days a year.

[A.G._Crockett]

Is it possible that without Greens Committee chairs and internal politics, that a public course would be LESS likely to change than a private course?

[Michael Moore]

Mr. A.G. -

Why would National Golf Links of America, as a public course, lack a greens committee chair?

[A.G._Crockett]

Mr. A.G. -

Why would National Golf Links of America, as a public course, lack a greens committee chair?

I know of no public courses (or even non-equity private clubs) with a Greens Committee, or at least one that can make changes to the course.  Perhaps I don't get out enough...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I took this thread more for its title, than the specific example of NGLA, and figured Pat was asking if this was the reason for "disfiguration" of many classic golf courses.

Of, course, it was.  Not only private clubs turning public (like Cedar Crest here in Dallas) but private clubs facing financial squeezes just to stay open, back when golf wasn't a very viable business.  In those circumstances, architecture always seemed to take a back seat to the pocket book, and depending on circumstance, deep bunkers were filled in, many bunkers and greens soften or eliminated, etc. etc. etc.

For many clubs, that question was asked, substituting "survibability" for "profitability."

[Jerry Kluger]

I understood Pat to be asking whether a commercially successful course can have certain features such as forced carries and other difficulties.  On some of the great courses such as NGLA or Pine Valley the average golfer might find some features so difficult that he would not want to play the course so to make money they would have to be eliminated or cut back dramatically.  I think that the Ocean Course at Kiawah has proven that a course with some very difficult playing characteristics can still be commercially successful and while the price may be high it is not exhorbitant like PB or WS.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

Good point, and it changes my answer.

I recall Pete Dye saying the the number one thing you have to do for a popular golf course is.....don't steal their golf balls.  That's why Pinehurst was always so popular - the pine needles always allowed you to find your ball, and their is only one water hazard to deal with.

Using that theory, NGLA - and most classic courses - would survive BETTER than many modern courses.

I think most players will shy away from truly difficult courses most of the time - but not always.  As seen on the Minnesota thread, I hear many prefer my Wilderness course to the Quarry, which I attribute to slightly less difficulty, and slightly wider play corridors, which fits both theories above.  Time always tells

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

If NGLA became a public, for profit, golf course in 2005, how long would it be before the architectural scalpel was wielded and the golf course disfigured  ?

With approximately 16 forced carries off the tee, deep bunkers, undulating greens, wind, three carries over roads, and water on 8 holes, what would be the fate of this golf course if it was open to the public and run as a for profit daily fee golf course ?

What does this tell us about the constraints that modern day architects face in designing a public access, for profit golf course ?

Sounds like The Ocean Course here on Kiawah and we're doing quite well, thank you very much...

[Brad Klein]

This thread is on par with those sports talk shows, where some decrepit nut with too much time on his hand speculates on a four-way trade involving Sosa, Piazza, and two blind German shepards for the rights to negotiate over Sparky Lyle's contract.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Don't underestimate blind Germand Shephards (the type that tend sheep, not police dogs).  They have plenty of time to hone their swing and they're not fooled by curve balls...   "Be the ball..."  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

It's obvious that you, along with many others, excluding Jerry and Jeff, don't understand the issues intended to be raised by the post.

To assist the uniformed, it's not about profitability, per se.
It's not about NGLA, per se.

Part of it is about getting golfers, whose only qualifications to play the course may be paying the green fee, around the golf course in a reasonable time frame.

It's about architectural features that thrive in one environment while perishing in another.

One only has to look at the difficulty in getting golfers off the first tee.  Golfers are often refrained from play until the previous foursome has cleared the 1st green, which can take 15 to 20 minutes, or more.

Having raised and trained German Shephard's as guide dogs for the blind, let's leave them out of this, unless, you're talking about TEPaul, and my efforts to guide him through the world of golf course architecture, one that he perceives as dark and daunting.

P.S.  Feel free to initiate your own threads.

Rich Goodale,

You're not going to compare the culture of golf, public and  private, in the UK to the public culture of golf in the U.S., are you ?

[TEPaul]

"unless, you're talking about TEPaul, and my efforts to guide him through the world of golf course architecture, one that he perceives as dark and daunting."

What a crock! I'm the one who looks at golf architecture, and most of the rest of the world as existing in the sun-lit uplands of life. You, on the other hand are the one who perceives things as dark and daunting. Any non-member of Merion who has the hutzpah to demand on the public Internet of the world that the Green Committee show you their mission statement for the bunker project is a dark and daunting suspicionary!

[A_Clay_Man]

Is going public a viable option for many of these clubs?

If this really is about altering the golf course, for the lowest common denominator, rather than encourage, and psychologically enforce, a strict pace of play policy, it is exactly what was wrong with too much GCA, before Ran came along and allowed others to see how it needed fixing. Mediocre.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That's an inaccurate discription of what I requested.

You may recall that there was a GREAT deal of speculation on what Merion wanted to do on their bunker project.

I suggested that rather then speculate with a million theories that perhaps someone from Merion could set the record straight and tell us the original intent.

Since when is that a difficult question or task ?

Mark Studer provided that info to us regarding Oakmont.
You did the same regarding Gulph Mills.
Dave Miller did the same at Charles River
Paul Richards did the same at Beverly.

Stating the intended goal would have cleared up many issues.
What was there to hide ?