Lower Standards

[Tom_Doak]

This came up on a different thread but was getting off topic, so I've switched to here.  I made the statement that "Lower standards and more detail work would make for better golf."

What I meant was that there are a lot of things common to new golf projects that may be cost-justifiable under certain assumptions [that you're going to get $75 green fees from now til 2100], but that aren't really necessary to good golf and that do raise the bottom line.

Some of these things would be:

2,000- and 3,000-head sprinkler systems to "distribute the water more effectively."  I KNOW the justification for this, ease of grow-in and political correctness, but it's adding half a million dollars to the construction costs of a golf course (after adjusting for inflation) compared to what irrigation cost just ten years ago.

Wall to wall cart paths, which are only necessary if you're trying to get a $25 cart fee out of every visitor.  I KNOW there are some places where the soils and wet springs make it hard to get maintenance equipment onto the course, but every course in ther rest of the world was able to get by without them.

Perfect turf right down to the neatly manicured cart path edges.

Maintenance vehicles for everybody on the crew.  I remember when the budget included four or five Cushmans; I've seen new courses with twenty!  That may make it easier for the second assistant irrigation tech to get back to base for a part, but he spends a lot more time just driving around than he used to, and if he isn't on the cart paths he's wearing out the turf.

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom,

Where do you think "native areas" fit into the standards spectrum?  Do they actually save on maintenance costs because they don't have to be mowed or watered as frequently, or do you see them just becoming another strain of "turf" on the course that members push to have maintained in some sort of consistant manner...I know, then it becomes an oxymoron.  

Also, how often do you encourage your clients to consider not raking, or very infrequently raking, the bunkers?  Is that something that can ever be discussed these days?  And I'm not taking about natural seaside dunes.

[Michael Moore]

Tom Doak -

How's it going? There appears to be some controversy about some reportage in some magazine about some course of yours. But I digress . . .

What is the connection between wall-to-wall cart paths and cart revenue? Don't most people want to drive the damn thing wherever they please?

P.S. - When are you going to build a course anywhere near New England? How can I be an acolyte with this state of affairs?

[TEPaul]

Michael of Moore:

Are you sure you want to be an acolyte of Doak's? That sounds a bit too biblical or even cultish to me.  

[Bill_McBride]

Michael, I suspect the cart revenue has to take care of the cart path maintenance which can be expensive.  

Tom, what does $800,000 get in an irrigation system for a 6,700 yard course?  That's the budget number in our renovation budget and I hope it is correct!

p.s.  I went back to Painswick and it is still the most fun sub-6,000 yd course anywhere!  Sub-5,000 yards for that matter.......

Bill McBride

[peter_p]

New rules. The clubhouse cannot cost more than the golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:  I like your rule.  I built one project where the course cost $2.3 million and the clubhouse $4.6 million, and that one's not doing so great right now ... and I don't think it has anything to do with the cost of the course.

Bill McBride:  I don't know what part of the country you are in, but $800K for irrigation is pretty standard for a high-end double row system with all the bells and whistles.  (In contrast, some of these new courses we've been working on have irrigation budgets over $2 million.)  Still, I wonder how bad is the system you've got?  Are you able to play golf now?  What's your share of the 800K as a member, and do you think it will be worth it?  No one ever asks that question anymore, you've just got to upgrade because of higher standards.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I presume that what you are speaking about is building a quality public course without having to make it expensive to play.  You highlight the cartpaths as a factor which makes the course expensive to build, but they in return generate a lot of revenue as it is a fact that a high percentage of golfers use riding carts and if there are no paths there can be many days where carts cannot go out and that is lost revenue from greens fees and cart fees.  

What I see as the driving force is the cost of the land.  You need to build the course near a significant enough population to support the course, and that in turn requires a premium for the land.  In some cases the course is integral in a housing development or can be a buffer from some wetlands or an industrial area, but generally, the land costs seem to me to be the driving force.  

[Adam_F_Collins]

Things that seem to me to have become unnecessarily "standard" on golf courses

• Carts for anyone other than the elderly of physically disabled.
(and that takes care of the cart paths too)
• Perfect, pure white sand "like Augusta's"
• Five sets of tees (or more) I really don't think most courses need more than three.
• Camelot-like, million sq ft, romantic castle clubhouses "For your Wedding or Corporate Function".
• Youthful, bronzed, JCrew-catalog, smiling 'greeters' in the parking lot who offer to carry your bag across the airstrip to the pro shop - but when you ask something obvious, like "where's the registration for the qualifier for the National Amateur Championship which is being held here today?" They... have no... idea...
• Marshalls who drive around in carts and observe the slow play, then stop by each group to say something like "pretty slow out there today...Yeah...Yeah....Better'n workin' though."
• Clocks on each tee that say the time should be the same time as your tee time - but are always like, 8 hours off.
• No water, for fear of litigation from bacterial poisoning - but vending machines around the course to sell you bottled water for $2.00, or gatorade for $2.50.

[Adam_F_Collins]

• 7000 or more yards...

[SB]

Having seen the numbers for a variety of courses,

1)  Irrigation systems getting out of control:  Yes
2)  Perfect turf up to paths:  Problem
3)  Maintenance vehicles:  too many
4)  I disagree with the cart path issue for a normal daily fee course.  Bottom line is most golfers (60-90%) like carts.  If it rains with no paths, no carts.  No carts = no golfers = No $.  I like to walk, but most people don't.
5)  Clubhouses:  massive money losers.

Here's some more:
1)  Walk mowing greens/tees
2)  2 fairway cuts
3)  complicated bunkers (sorry, Tom)
4)  routings that run a long way from the maintenance facility

[Adam_F_Collins]

If you did "Lower your standards" and had a good design which was walkable - and were able to make green fees below average through those "lower" standards...

...Do most of you think that the course would really suffer without carts?

I've seen debates here over the actual profitability of carts - but does golf REQUIRE carts to survive now?

So many courses now include carts in their fees or require that you use them, that I think it would be difficult to really get an accurate definition of "demand" on the part of the golfer.

Bandon does alright...

I'll admit, I'm biased. I hate carts on the golf course. Hate 'em. I think their an eyesore on the landscape, I don't believe they speed up play and I think they undermine the very essence of the game, which is a walk. I believe they also serve to 'break up' a foursome into two twosomes - who chat as they ride. This tends to further alter the nature of the walking game. That's my opinion, and I do realize that many (or most) don't share it.

I like to drive a cart. They're a fun little toy, but I'll go to the go cart track to drive a little buggy around.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

Having grown in one of those high end daily fees in the past here is what I felt added to the expense of running it:

Management Company, cultural programs for the new bentgrasses, extra large acreage of fairways (40+), Fescue areas were extremely time consuming to get the correct look and playability (weeds), hand watering due to an inadequate irrigation system for the design, and naturalized bunker edges that where difficult to keep ragged and prevent from growing in.  

The obvious difference in cost from the old days is the amount of cubic yards used to create the perfect golf hole, no matter what the land may indicate.  Old charm and quirckiness could return if we only moved enough soil to make greens, tees, and bunkers.

I don't think you can skimp on the irrigation system - the more heads you have the more control you have to water what needs to be watered while not watering what is aleady wet.  Not only does this provide the firm and fast and somewhat green that we are looking for in a golf course, it saves labor.

As far as all the extra carts - the days of driving out on the golf course with the staff in the back of a pickup truck are over.  Safety dictates that the staff should be seated on whatever vehicle they are on, not hanging on for dear life.  Vehicles are the only way to keep staffs operating efficiently.

The other thing already mentioned I would like to second is the emphasis on service by these clubs.  It seems to be a hotel mentality to service the hell out of the customers with hot and cold towels, player's assistants, range attendants, and greeters.  This adds what is traditionally unecessary to the cost of running an operation.  You can have good service by being responsive to people's needs when it is time, but you don't have to staff at a high level for this.  I would say value is more important than service.

[paul cowley]

TomD ...I totally agree....I have been trying to lower standards ever since I got in this business.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If the golf course is interesting or a bit unique players will accept lower standards.
If the golf course is boring or has a sameness with others in the surrounding market they won't.

I won't try to prove this point, it's only derived from empirical evidence gathered from thousands of players who frequent our no cart path, tiny clubhouse, minimally irrigated, imperfectly conditioned course.  

[Marc Haring]

Jim

Just checked out your link.

Do you Guy's still make money out of $20.00 a round??

[Scott Witter]

Jerry,

It is a bit off the topic, but I think there are more than a few on this site who might disagree with your assessment regarding the location of the course to be near a populated area in order to be supported.  Sand Hills, Bandon, and others as well as the ongoing discussion about such destinations for great golf where no one lives...

But, having said that, you are right about the cost of land around a populated area and its impact on the development of the course.

Tom,

It appears we more or less agree about the same frilly add-ons that are not really needed, but the discussion can't stop here.  It must return to those details which are chosen to be finished (the ones which will have the biggest effect to make the course great instead of good) in just such a way and who is behind the decision making and finally the individuals executing the details.  I think it is clear... you are fortunate (I'm sure there was a lot of hard work required as well) to have assembled a group of individuals who are for the most part, quite capable of making those decisions and following up with the right execution.  So this is now what you live by and evaluate the work of others, where in fact your situation I believe, is a drift from the normal standard of development.  Most designers still need to rely on the selection of a good contractor and get it down this way.

I like your approach much better, I think it is the old fashion method and one that will produce consistently great results with the inherent control to not let it get away from you.

I believe there were other good points made about the interpretation of "Lower Standards", and by-in-large I think everyone in some manner would like to see it go more this way, but as you know, us architects and the superintendents out there aren't the ones steering the ship.

I agree with you in the statement... about designing and building golf courses isn't that complicated, but certainly operating them can be and there is much at stake for those behind the wheel.  Therefore, and perhaps most unfortunately, these are the people who react to the perceived pressures in the business and throw gas on the fire, even if they don't know they are, and cause much of the over-the-top items to be added.

So what is the answer...not sure, but I think it's a given that we need more discussions with our clients, and the golfers.  They need to be educated, whether or not it comes from folks like you, Bill Coore, etc, or the ASGCA, Paul Cowley or me, I don't really care.  In many ways this leads right into the whole "affordable golf" debate, but unfortunately I don't have time for that today.

By the way, thanks for starting this new thread after my prompting yesterday.

And Ian, thanks for "keeping it real"

[Pat K]

Instead of "lowering the standard" how about "changing the standard". The game will not be affected adversely if some of the peripheral areas are less then a perfect sward of turfgrass. If the presentation was done properly I think members could be convinced of a different standard.

[Scott Witter]

Pat,

I think if you read through the thread carefully, we are not "really" discussing lowering the standard in the literal sense, but rather doing without some of the extras, the unnecessaries, the over-the-top bells and whistles and say, applying some of this money to other components of construction (details) which are too many to explain here, in an effort to get more out the project and simply make it a better product.  Though having said this, and it has been discussed by others, a better product has many meanings depending on who you are talking with and what their expectations and goals are.  I guess some of ours are more straight forward and focused more on the actual product and less on the wrapping and the marketing.

In a way we ARE trying to "change" the standard, but it is a steep hill to climb and there are many engrained habits to massage along the way.

[Jerry Kluger]

Scott: I believe that Tom was aiming for lower standards and in return lower costs for building public courses.  There was another thread that addressed the cost of playing Bandon which has gone up dramatically which can only be as a result of the initial cost of the land or simply wanting a greater profit.  Bandon is a golf destination with 3 courses done by minimalists and no cart paths.  It also has overnight accommodations and restaurants which generate income.  Still, the fees are now around $175 per round.  

If one were to build a low fee public course you need to either create a golf destination, i.e. Bandon, which as noted above still gets pricey even when it is unused property in a remote location or in the alternative, build a public course with a sufficient population to generate the revenue necessary to justify the construction and operation of the course.  You don't need a fancy clubhouse or elaborate practice facility, and cartpaths can pay for themselves in greens fees and extra cart fees so the land and course construction costs are the only areas where you can cut back.  The land in most populated areas is expensive unless it can be a buffer or reclaimed land but the permitting process can be so tedious, time consuming and costly that such land could also become expensive.  Tom suggests that the watering system be cut back which seems like the only possible area money can be saved but can it be significant enough to justify the overall project - I don't know, but I doubt it.

[Scott Witter]

Jerry,

Well for one thing, I think societies standards have gone way out of proportion, but this we all know.  However, starting from this point so high and lofty is also what makes it so difficult and perhaps feeds the debate over "lowering" or just shifting/changing the standards.

Tom Paul's recent superintendent thread begins to address this issue of too high standards to a degree and I think his notion is a good one for all to consider with more than just a light handed scoff.

I did just build the exact description of a course/facility you so noted, but IMO it is still too expensive to play for many.  The site was flat for the most part, we moved around 185,000 yards of earth, plenty of drainage as needed, a double row irrigation system with 800 heads, bent fairways, tees, etc, 6000 SF greens, 27 acres of long fescue blend grasses...nothing really fancy, certainly no bells and whistles but very soild.   It opened late last year at $36 walking and $50 w/a cart.  This year they raised it to 42 and 56 and the tee sheets are full every single day.  They are running toward a solid 33 to 35,000 round season.  That is damn good for this area with a relatively short season.  They have a 6000 SF clubhouse, they use an old practice area, but they have wall to wall cart paths.  Land was moderately expensive around $4,500/acre.

Where would I cut back to achieve the same product, very difficult to say, but I'll tell you, there wasn't any slop to steal from.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:  I wasn't addressing the issue of how to build an affordable public or membership golf course per se ... I was addressing how not to lose your ass in building a golf course.  Many, many golf courses have failed (or are about to fail) because they built things that cost too much money thinking they had to, only to find they are unable to produce a return on it.

I have learned from the get-go in this job that you cannot set out to build an affordable golf course, because the price will ultimately be set at what the market will bear.  If you build the 13th best golf course in the world, even if it cost only two nickels to build it, demand will dictate that the price is set high and I have yet to meet the owner or developer who will just turn his back on that money.

And that's the up side of the ledger!  If you sink $10 million into a golf course and expect people to pay $100 to play it to make your nut, the cold truth is that the day it opens no one cares what it cost to build ... if they think there's another equally good course down the road which costs $55 to play, you'd better not charge $56.  A two million dollar irrigation system may allow your superintendent to keep the course in better shape, but if people aren't willing to pay more for that, it doesn't mean diddly.