Real architects vs. people who call themselves architects

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

Now, let's be fair (to me at least!). I haven't set the cost of ANYTHING.

I am the first to admit I know nothing about the golf course construction (or any construction) business. Hell, I am still trying to figure out why it cost over $30,000 and took 12 weeks to renovate a 6'x8' bathroom in our condo here in SF four years ago.

The point I am trying to make is that when I see people on this board throw out figures for what they think it really "should" cost to do this or that project, how come they are not out their bidding to do those projects at those prices? If it was that easy to make money and the profit margins were that large in the golf course construction business, wouldn't more people be doing it instead of writing about?  

DT

 
           

[Gib_Papazian]

David (M.)
Please. There is nothing absurd about the cost at Poplar Creek. Here is what they started with at Harding:

Sand based soil on the vast majority of the property.

No necessity to purchase/trade for any more land.

An extremely bright construction team.

I'd be willing to bet that millions of that money went into the hip pocket of one of the criminals who run the City.

At Poplar, a land trade had to be arranged with S.M. County, the soil was rock hard clay on dead flat land. Enormous amounts of earth had to be moved to direct the water into a series of drains and eventually towards the South-East corner of the property - into a catch basin adjacent to the Bay.

The clubhouse location had to be moved and the back nine re-routed. Every single aspect of the property had to be changed. The result is excellent - and was accomplished on-budget.

Harding was a sewer, but the bones were there. Poplar Creek (FKA: San Mateo Muni) was held together by an alchemist Superintendent named Dulbag Dubria, who managed to keep straight the 6 different types of greens (push up, USGA spec, sandy core, clay) and 25 different varieties of turf.

When it used to rain, the low spots would fill up with water and the view from the Peninsula Ave. overpass resembled an enormous chain of lakes.

Yes, I am not in favor of using public funds for a recreational facility. However, if it was going to be done, it at least was done right; the people involved were not slithering criminals. They gave shit how money was spent.

I find it particularly obnoxious that S.F. Residents can come down and play Poplar for a modest fee (the only people who get a break are San Mateo City residents), but San Francisco screws everybody to the tune of a C-note - while giving away $35 green fees to S.F. residents.

Provincial swine. All of them.    

I stick by my guns. Give Les Claytor 3 million and let him design it himself. It would be better than what they have now.

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

No problem here.

When these big numbers of thrown around, I thnk it is really important to separate what is actually being spent to physically change a golf course from the "total cost" of the project.

If a course that does 75,000 rounds a year at $40 per round is closed 18 months for renovation, that is a "cost" (loss of revenue) of $4,500,000. Throw in the lost revenue from cart rentals, pro shop sales, driving range balls, refreshment stand, etc., then the project has "cost" an easy $5,000,000 before one shovel of dirt has been turned.

In addition to possible assessments, most private clubs bill their members the full rate on monthly dues when their course or clubhouse is closed for renovation. Their income stream remains constant. Any day a public course cannot sell its tee times, that revenue is gone for ever.

Just make sure apples are being compared to apples.

DT

   

 

   

[Gib_Papazian]

David,

No insult taken. BTW, San Mateo and Harding are both on the same side of the Bay

That stated, I know how the funds were spent in San Mateo because I served on the Committee for three years. All through the public hearings, arguments, design of the golf course, design of the clubhouse and fee structure.

After we adjourned for the last time, the G.M. and Steve Halsey (our Architect of Record) kept making improvements and modifications all the way up and through construction. I do not agree with all of them, but they watched the budget closely and did a GREAT job.

Maybe not a silk purse from a sow's ear, but at least a well made handbag.

I promise you that if the same group (including me) were involved in the Harding project, it would have been brought in on budget and thought through far more carefully.

Again, Harding is fine for public consumption. Those media pukes have no concept of how much better that golf course could have been because they lack imagination and experience. You cannot imagine NGLA or PV unless you have seen it.  Your benchmarks are not high enough to make an accurate evaluation.

Nobody wants to be a killjoy up here. . . . especially those idiots who write golf for the local rags. They are only too happy to get free booze, a decent lunch and a free round of golf in exchange for writing glowing, hyperbole riddled bullshit.

San Francisco has such a hideous history of irresponsible fiduciary policy, that any glimpse of light is treated like a supernova of political brilliance.

I sat through a dozen PUC (Public Utilities Commission) meetings, watching a bunch of arrogant, incompetant fools, intoxicated with their own power, struggle to even ask relevant questions about golf - let alone be charged with making a decision.

Political correctness ruled the day and decisions - the default setting for the hubris infested dirtbags when faced with something they know nothing about - were made for nonsensical or specious reasons.

We don't go for that kind of sh*t down the Peninsula.

[Gib_Papazian]

David T.,

The "true cost" in San Mateo was a bit harder to calculate. At one point, the golf course was closed for the better part of two months because the accumulation of water made the golf course unplayable for several days after a hard rain.

Therefore, it was figured that over the long haul, the loss of revenue during the winter ended up costing more than construction. They do about 90-100 thousand rounds a year. Take away a month or two of revenue every year and it comes out to big jing.