Tom Doak,
Acquisition costs are a major factor in the equation.
Golf has pretty much followed the population centers over time, but acquiring land in areas readily accessable to the population has become excessively expensive, and, the resistance to land being converted to a golf course comes from a variety of groups and makes development more difficult and certainly more costly as well.
It's going to be interesting to see how Trump National, Hamilton Farms, Liberty National and Bayonne golf courses fare over the next few years.
Closer to home for you is how The Bridge, Friar's Head, Sebonack and East Hampton will fare, when NGLA, Westhampton, Maidstone, Shinnecock and Southampton have preceeded them.
Ask yourself the following.
How would the same eight clubs I just mentioned fare if the initiation fees were $ 40,000 with dues of $ 6,000 per year ?
My guess is that they'd all be sold out.
When you consider the acquisition costs, golf course construction costs, clubhouse costs and maintainance facilities costs, it's almost impossible to develop anything but a golf course for the very wealthy in any area close to population centers.
Do clubs like Sand Hills have enduring appeal to their memberships ?
Is there a membership shelf life for remotely located golf courses ?
Once the initial romance or glamour wears off, how long before the trek to get to the golf course begins to erode the desire to belong to the golf course ?
Could Sebonack have been built if it wasn't for Mike Pascucci's passion and deep pockets ?
Today, you need both, or a golf club in a densely populated area can't survive.
Time will tell if remotely located golf courses can endure.
Garland Bayley.
Rustic Canyon is not private.
Rustic Canyon had NO acquisition costs.