Could the need for profitability destroy a great golf course ?

[Brad Klein]

Pat, I understand reasonably well your premise, but think it's simply absurd as a basis of speculation unless you make all sorts of arbitrary assumptions about the presumed owner. Under what conditions would someone overtake NGLA and make it publicly available and yet profit driven? To turn it into an 80,000+ rounds per year golf mall or to take advantage of its unique legacy and architecture?

You suggest all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about the motives and then presume there are lessons there. I think, following Doak's answer above, that the prospects for an owner are defined by their imagination, not by some inherent relationship of ownership and management. I know of very many private clubs that have ruined all hell out of their design, not in order to accommodate thousands more rounds but simply because they are stupid and ignorant with respect to their golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

It's not about, "under what conditions would someone overtake NGLA".  It's about the golf course's ability to survive, architecturally intact, if its use was changed from private to public.

Considerations such as the current 1st and 2nd hole, where groups must clear each green before the next group can tee off, and the bottleneck this creates under heavy play, thus leading to possible changes, or the need to start from
# 10.

It was about the blind nature of # 3 and it's ability to survive in a different climate, one where lawsuits might be more prevalent.

It was about the bunkering and the golfer's inability to get out of them, green speeds and the ability of golfers to manage them.
Would # 7 and # 12 fairway require buffer seperation in the form of trees ?
Would the heroic carries and tall, thick fescue survive in the context of the pace of play.
I could continue, but I think you catch the drift.

Tangentially, do these problems create a dilema for today's architect when designing for a public golf course ?

Now you were involved in that process, so I'd be curious to know if any architectural features would be different on your course had it been intended for private use ?

Are there inherent architectural differences based on the end user ?

With respect to Doak's comment.
If the owner is motivated by profit, what else do you need to know for this exercise ?

It's true, many, many private clubs have disfigured their golf courses for a variety of reasons.

Strangely enough, I'd imagine that each one thought that they were improving their golf course.

Sadly, the process of "improving" golf courses continues.

[ForkaB]

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 ?

No.  And the answer to your initial question is still no, too.

Keep at it, though, Pat.  You mihgt eventually make your point, whatever it is..........

[Brad Klein]

Rich, the simple answer is - of course you'd do things differently. Anyone who thinks you just design purely for the site has never worked on a golf course. You always design with use in mind, and there are some things you can get away with easier on a private course than on a public course. And some publiuc courses (Bandon, for one) can allow for greater latitude than if you're building a daily-fee in the middle of a city where you know it's likely to do 55,000 rounds. It's not like there's a simple formula that would simply devide public from private. But I just don't see what's the point of fashioning a hypothetical switch of management in NGLA to make this basic point.

[ForkaB]

Brad

I certainly never said anything like "you just design purely for the site", but that's probably becacse I actually did work for some golf course developments a long, long time ago, before iI grew up, not far away form the good old days of the stymie.........

I'll stick with what I have said and implied, i.e. if NGLA wished to optimise its income (whether private or public, and whether or not that "income" was, real or imputed, and regardless of the cost to "buy" the place, which is largely irrelevant) it would probably do just about exactly what it is doing now vis a vis the course.  Just "as is" you could probably get around $5G's/tee time from the wannabies of the world. The trick would be toning down their presence for the benefit of the other paying customers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

NGLA is a perfect example for the exercise because it presents architectural extremes.

[frank_D]

.....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 ?

brother Patrick_Mucci

a private course has the ability to maintain an architectural integrity at a whim without interference - something a public access course does not usually have the luxury of - profit motive or not

i've only played NGLA once but having played Siwanoy CC and Westchester Co NY municipal courses frequently and during the same time period i have observed the differences as notable by even the least architecturally aware participant (myself) at the time

who would join a golf club if this wasn't the case ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frank D,

Few, if any prospective members join a golf course for its specific and individual architctural features.

[frank_D]

Few, if any prospective members join a golf course for its specific and individual architctural features.

brother Patrick_Mucci

why would the donald build a seven million dollar waterfall ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frank D,

In all honesty, you'd have to ask him.

He did the same at his club in Florida, right behind the 17th green.

If Shakespeare is to be believed, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then perhaps he was trying to out-Wynn Steve Wynn and his 17th hole creation at Shadow Creek

Only a theory, but, it's mine, and I'm sticking to it.

[Michael Moore]

Pat Mucci -

I believe that the quip "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" is attributed to Charles Colton.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

You're correct, Charles  Caleb Colton is given credit for the quip, "Imitation is the sincerest of flattery."

Billy boy said,
"but when I tell him he hates flatterers,
He says he does, being then most flattered."

[Patrick_Mucci]

DAve Schmidt,

The answer is simple.

If they did what you suggest, NOONE would join and the club would perish.

Get with the program.

[jeffwarne]

Dave-
They do-they're called outings
member sponsored outside play-and they bring the revenue you suggest(except in NGLA's case you're off on the price by a large margin)
Who do you think's playing there on a Wednesday?

[BCrosby]

There is a simple solution to Pat's question.

At Wade Hampton the deal used to be that a non-member could play on certain weekday mornings no more than twice a year. Or something like that. Not sure they still have the policy, but I like the idea.

It was free money to Wade Hampton but protected the exclusivity thing.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

I can't speak to your area of the country, but in the metro NY area the norm is that clubs are closed on mondays.

Tuesday morning is lady's day.
Wednesday tends to be for professionals
Friday is a heavy couple and regular play date in the summer.
That leaves thursdays, and some club's hold their outings on mondays or thursday to maximize revenue with minimal member inconvenience.  Hence the window is almost non-existant, and more importantly, if you asked each club if they want outsiders, without any member connection, using their golf course and facilities, the answer would be no.  
The nominal increase in revenue isn't worth the hassle and potential liabilities.

Dave Schmidt,

40 years of being on admission committees and Board's of Governors provides an abundance of experience on this matter.

Most clubs that I'm familiar with limit guest play for the same reason.  And, this includes house guests and card guests.

If someone can use the facility at a fraction of the admission and annual costs, why join ?

If anyone can name me five clubs in the metro NY area that offer this arrangement, I'd like to know about it.

Remember to, that the courts in Massachussetts ruled that unaccompanied guests were a class of membership, thus catapulting the club beyond the private threshold, into the realm of "public" facilities, subject to different sets of laws.

If you open your golf course and facilities "to the public" the same thing happens.

This is a dumb idea.  

What experience in this area forms the basis of your opinion ?

[John Goodman]

What's so wrong with being a holier-than-thou, exclusivity seeking jagoff?    Strange argument coming from an uber-capitalist, Dave.    

[frank_D]

If Shakespeare is to be believed, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery....

brother Patrick_Mucci

since there is the question of who the bard really was i'd go with -
"all art is an imitation of nature" - seneca

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Schmidt,

In case you've forgotten, look outside, you're not in Scotland anymore, Dorothy.

You don't have the same legal system, the differentiation between public and private, the IRS and other factors.

Prairie Dunes enjoys a unique culture and location, and a greatly diminished demand, versus Metro area golf clubs.
But, they would be subject to the same problems with the State and IRS, so I don't think they'd embrace your idea.

Why don't you suggest your idea the next time you're at Medinah.  I"m sure they will welcome this fresh, new concept.
In fact, suggest that friends of yours will be the first to try it out.  I'm sure your popularity and requests for games will increase dramatically.

Let all of us at GCA.com know if it gets adopted so that we can adjust our summer schedules.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Schmidt,

As an attorney, you of all people should understand the significance of a private club declaring that it's a public access facility/organization.

It's got to be one of the dumbest ideas ever put forth.

How can you continually support your premise knowing the onerous legal ramifications ?

EGO .... it always gets in the way of prudent thought.  

[JakaB]

Shivas,

Why shouldn't people who pay way too much to join a private course be able to sit at work and know that if they want a little treat they can go out and play anytime they want...no plans, no tee times.   Your little deal would rob those who choose to go that route of that freedom.....Sometimes just knowing you can play is worth a dime and a cup of coffee...

[JakaB]

Cog Hill may cost $150 to play (damn that must have been hard on you guys at the raters cup with all those travel expenses to boot) but I bet you would pay $1000 a month to be one of 200 local members even if you only played 50 rounds a year there as your home course....Just pulling into an empty parking lot 9am on a Sunday morning is worth a few bucks a year.....(that's approx $240 per round if you don't have a calculator handy)  

note:..If you are a member of a private club or two or more...don't ever compare a greenfee to your actual cost per round....It doesn't work that way...My point is only to reinforce Pat's contention that in your new world nobody would join a private club...

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Schmidt,

You just don't get it.

Jaka B tried to educate you to the ways of membership perspectives and club use, but apparently, to no avail.

When I was responsible for obtaining sites in the Metro NY area for the USGA Mid-Am 18 hole qualifying round, after Labor Day, usually on mondays or tuesdays, but open to other days, you can't believe how many clubs wouldn't entertain letting a few dozen guys tee off in the morning, because their members didn't want to give up their golf course, irrespective of the limited amount of play at that time of year and on those days.

Your argument with respect to the benefit of additional revenue is a hollow one.

The revenue is minimal and an insignificant line item in the club's overall budget.

If the NET revenue was 50,000 per year, at a 400 member club that translates into a $ 125 reduction in costs per member.  Now go ask the members, do they want outsiders tying up tee times, playing their golf course and using their facilities and all that comes with that, for the benefit of reducing dues by $ 125 per year, per member.

Get with the program, you're out of touch with reality and just trying to win your argument in the court of GCA.com/public opinion.  
The jury has already rendered a verdict, and left the building.  You're the only one left, and ..they've turned out the lights.   Go Home  

[DMoriarty]

At the risk of changing the subject back to the subject . . .


 

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 [NGLA] if it was open to the public and run as a for profit daily fee golf course ?

I am always somewhat surprised when you and others (TEPaul for example) present NGLA as the paragon of penal golf, a course at which all but the most skilled would cower and cry foul.   Yes there are some severe features, but there are also routes around many of these.  And while recovery from them might be difficult, it is oftentimes possible for the golfer to continue golfing, as opposed to digging out another ball.  

Granted there are few if any public courses like NGLA, but it is not difficult that sets it apart--  there are plenty of public access courses which are more penal and more severe.   Rather it is that NGLA successfully balances challenge with playability, making it a true pleasure for a wide spectrum of golfers.  

So if NGLA went public it would do quite nicely, so long as those in charge realized what they had.   Sure some wouldn't like it, but so what?  Courses don't need to be loved by everyone,  but rather only by enough people to keep the tee sheets full.   NGLA could certainly manage to do that as is, no change required.  

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

What does it tell us about the constraints these designers face?  . . . . Well one thing it tells us is that these supposed constraints are mental, and stem from the designers inability to understand (and/or explain) the differences between the use of features to make a course interesting rather than difficult. . . .  Another thing it tells us is that many designers prefer to explain away their own shabby results as opposed to facing their short comings head on . . . I would have built a great course, but the constraints on modern architecture just wouldn't let me . . . .  Yeah right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Schmidt,

TWO HOURS OF TEE TIMES A DAY.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MARBLES ?

What two hours each day do you suggest preventing the members from playing ?  Can they use the practice range and putting green before and after play ?  Have breakfast and lunch ?  Mix in with the members ?

With 400 members, that's only $ 1,800 per year, not $ 2,880 as you calculate.  

With your absurd scenario, why would anyone bother to join GCGC when they could play there any day they want, for only $ 150, and not have to pay any initiation, dues or assessments.  It is an astonishingly dumb idea.

AND, GCGC would then be deemed a public access facility, and in New York, you know what that means.

THIS IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST SUGGESTIONS EVER PUT FORTH ON THIS SITE.[/color]

And, even though you're dead wrong on this issue, I'm sure you'll redouble your efforts to convice others that your idea has merit, where none exists.

Your premise is also flawed.  You choose as an example a club that you declare is in financial trouble, yet, they would fill every tee time every day for the 100 days the deal is open.

If it was in trouble, it must be because it doesn't offer a good product, so why would anybody, at any price want to play it.
If the product was like GCGC it wouldn't lack members or membership interest.

Your ego and desperation to win the argument have impaired your cognitive powers

It's over Dave, go home.

Dave Moriarty,

When and where did I or TEPaul ever cite NGLA as the paragon of penal golf ?

I would suggest that the average golfer would find holes 1-4 very difficult and that a huge bottleneck would occur, backing up the golf course for hours.  Add holes # 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 to the mix and play would be at a snails pace, reducing the amount of play drastically, which would reduce revenue, which would cause access fees to increase.

I would also think that firm, fast conditions wouldn't be entertained, and that the golf course would be kept wet, destroying some of the great uses of the architecture.