Is money the answer?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

It was pointed out to me recently that two of the best new courses, Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, cost relatively little in the current scale of things.  We know that Tom Morris laid out Royal County Down for 4 Guineas.  Which have been the best value golf courses through the years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think you have to eliminate acquisition costs from your exercise in order to make a fair comparison, but, that's up to you.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

The land at Pacific Dunes was relatively expensive [by Michigan standards, but certainly not by NY or California standards].  The land at Sand Hills was dirt cheap.  But both were pretty inexpensive construction budgets.

[RJ_Daley]

Is money the answer?

No, but it still has a nice ring to it.

As Pat suggests, these courses aren't nearly representative of normal real estate "realities" nor typical ground/soil features and natural design topo.  

Now, if you factored in local economic conditions such as equipment leasing cost differences, and fuel costs, etc., perhaps Doaks similar seaside dunes courses like Barnygoogles and Pac Dunes or St Andrews Beach might be useful to compare in costs.

But, how can you compare something like Friars Head to those given the nature of land costs in Long Island VS Tazmania or Melbourne or Nebraska.

How much did they pay their crew per month, or how much did it cost to move dirt per cubic yard and how much was moved might be some sort of more valid points to make, IMHO.

[tonyt]

I'd guess that Barnbougle Dunes' budget would be surprisingly low to the thinking of a US golf follower.

Some of these low cost gems are more due to their site affecting how much money has to be spent to get a good result rather than the money issue alone. If the money spent on Barnbougle Dunes was spent trying to build another Sawgrass, it would be crap.

[Jim Sweeney]

Mark:

It seems there was a thread similar to this one a few months ago. It's an interesting question but needs, I think, a few qualifications, such as:

1) Public, private, or both? As far as private goes, including initiation and dues or just guest fees?

2) Should resorts be a separate catagory? At resorts your fees maybe supporting more than just your golf.

3) Time frame- in all years, or at any point in time? Pebble Beach was a real value for $40.00, but may be not such a great value for $425.00.

4) Is value, in your question, a function of price vs. architectural value? How about price for golf vs. value of the land for other uses? This is a real question when developers plow under courses for alternative development. Regardless of what Pebble can charge, the land would probably be more valuable for development, which means that playing it is a bargain at $425.00. And besides, they fill up tee times all day every day.

I wouldn't want to argue the point, but even with nine or ten architecturally insignificant holes, Pebble may be the best golf value in the world.

I personally wouldn't pay their price to play it, since I've played it before. ANd I've not played over on your side, so I cannot comment on that. The place where I feel I've gotten the best bang for my buck, in terms of architectural significance, history, alternative use value, beauty, and pure fun, is Fisher's Island.

But my experience from a courses played viewpoint is woefully lacking compared to many who frequent these electronic environs.




 

[Jim Sweeney]

I take it all the stuff about Pebble back-almost. Certainly there can be no further development of that property- neither the Coastal Commission nor the residents adjoining the course would permit it. The ground there, then, has virtually no economic value. playing Pebble is the worst value in American golf.

So why can they get away with charging so much, yet continuously overflow with willing buyers? It must be the best value in American golf!

I still vote for Fisher's.