[Patrick_Mucci]

How different would golf course design be, IF money was an OBJECT ?

[Michael Moore]

Money has always been an object, and golf courses therefore participate in the matrix of commodity fetishism -

"A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than 'table-turning' ever was." Karl Marx - Kapital Volume I

[Peter Pallotta]

There's the old vaudeville line about never following an act that has dogs or little children; but how do I follow Michael's post?

Patrick, I've been thinking about this a lot. It's an important question, but one that allows more than a few possible answers. I'll pick one, a theory:

I think you might see a very interesting blending of different design philosophies, constructions techniques, and approaches to agronomy, and all this necessitated by the use of land never before thought of as suitable/desirable for a golf course.

Land acquisition costs would have to come down, dramatically; and unless you have a terrific but very remote piece of property, the land you’ll likely get is some hard-to-develop-for-housing scrub patch or former landfill that's close, but not too close, to anything.  

What a challenge that would be: you’d  have to shape it, but you can’t afford a ton of heavy machinery; you’d have to keep the grass alive, but you can’t afford an extensive irrigation system; you’d want to create an interesting and challenging design, but it might have to be a lot shorter than usual, etc.

I think the challenge might bring out the very best in designers, and maybe some new discoveries/thinking on the construction, agronomy, and maintenance end as well.

In short, necessity is the mother of invention. And from what I can tell, TOO MUCH money has built only a couple of great courses, and that’s not very many.  

Peter    

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

Don't you think there is a direct correlation between most of the successful designers and the circles of people they are able to associate with.

For what it's worth there is another side to this. Thompson and Tillinghast both went broke trying to maintain a lifetsyle and appearance beyond there means to attract wealthy clinents.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

Would less than desireable sites, sites that required extensive work, be abandoned or not purchased in the first place ?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Money has a pervasive effect on golf course architecture, in many aspects from site selection to paying for "designer labels" to the ultimate success of each course.

The two biggest influences --

2.  Most architects take on too much work in order to stay busy, and then can't devote as much of their time to each project as they would like, but that's a distant second to

1.  The majority of clients of golf course architects have priorities ahead of the creation of the best possible golf course -- most often, the profitability of the real estate around the course.

Ian:

You can add MacKenzie to the list of golf architects who lived beyond their means in the boom times.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

My apologies, I misunderstood the question.

I honestly can't answer your question either - sorry


Tom,

I didn't know that - there's an interesting topic here....

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
did I misunderstand your question? I took it to mean the very opposite of "If money was NO object". I took it to mean "What if you had to watch every penny".

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick
did I misunderstand your question? I took it to mean the very opposite of "If money was NO object". I took it to mean "What if you had to watch every penny".

Peter

Peter,

I meant the latter, what if money was a scarce resource ?

[SL_Solow]

Assuming that one could acquire land that was suitable, I suspect there would be a greater emphasis on obtaining land where less earth moving was needed so as to lessen the cost of construction.  This would likely lead to a more minimalist design philosophy.  Shorter courses would also fit this model as they require less land and thus smaller acquisition costs.  The need to provide challenging courses might limit the ability tobuild shorter courses especially in light of modern equipment.

[Peter Pallotta]

SL,
it had occurred to me that a minimalist philosophy would be the most likely answer/approach to take for the situation Patrick's asking about. But, as you and Patrick both seem to say, this leaves "unsuitable" land as a non-starter, i.e. scare resources wouldn't allow for all the earth-moving necessary on an unsuitable property.

But is that a given? Is earth-moving the only alternative on an "unsuitable" piece of land?

My first post assumed that the cheapest possible land would, almost by definition, be "unsuitable".  But I guess what I was getting at is that, if the lack of money really pushed one into a corner, we might find that this land was not all that bad after all. Maybe it was "unsuitable" only in terms of/comparison to some of the interesting pieces of land that some fine old courses were built on. Maybe we'd find that our only two choices AREN'T "move a lot of earth" or "find a good/great piece of land".

A sincere question: do you think there may be a "third way," one that would be discovered only if we had to really watch every penny? Or is the common wisdom in fact correct, i.e. there's only a good/great piece of land or earthmoving?

Thanks
Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

The land that Sand Hills sits on was deemed unsuitable for its original intended purpose, thus it was relatively cheap land.

It happens to be fabulous for golf.

However, as one approaches urban or suburban areas, land tends to take on a value not associated with its current or original use, hence, acquisition costs are high.

[Phil McDade]

Peter,

The land that Sand Hills sits on was deemed unsuitable for its original intended purpose, thus it was relatively cheap land.

It happens to be fabulous for golf.

However, as one approaches urban or suburban areas, land tends to take on a value not associated with its current or original use, hence, acquisition costs are high.

Patrick:

Actually, the land near Sand Hills that's not part of the course -- essentially the western two-thirds of Nebraska -- is still pretty suitable for its original purpose, which is livestock grazing. Used to be buffalo; now is cattle and other animals.

It's cheap because it's not near anything remotely resembling a sizable metropolis.

It's fabulous for golf because it used to be an ocean, and has a very good sand base.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

It was cheap because of its inability to support cows and their calfs.  It was unsuitable for ranching, the worst land for its intended purpose, that's why it was so cheap.

[Joe Hancock]

The hybrid hole, which crossed the Alps hole with the Cape hole and is known as the Ape hole, was the most significant influence of monkey on architecture......

Good morning,

Joe

[TEPaul]

"A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than 'table-turning' ever was." Karl Marx - Kapital Volume I"


Michael:

"A rose is a rose is a rose".
Gertrude Stein


Karl was a disaffected man trying to make a name for himself by complicating issues and his ideas and their rationale were eventually proven to be corrupt and muddle-headed. Gertrude and her ideas, on the other hand, are transcendent. To Gertrude it doesn't matter if one contemplates a rose or eats it, drinks it or smokes it---it is still a rose.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

It was cheap because of its inability to support cows and their calfs.  It was unsuitable for ranching, the worst land for its intended purpose, that's why it was so cheap.

http://www.sandhillscattle.com/

"The Sandhills are 19,300 square miles of rolling, grass-covered hills that stretch across Nebraska and South Dakota and sit atop the Ogallala aquifer, one of the largest underground water sources in the United States. This location, along with an abundance of water and over 700 species of grasses, makes the Sandhills a prime grazing area for cattle."

http://www.sandhillsranches.com/

"The Nebraska Sand Hills sit atop the largest freshwater aquifer in the world, the Ogallala aquifer which is over 1,000 feet thick in many areas of the sandhills. About 2.4 million acre-feet of spring-fed streamflow is discharged annually creating wet meadows, creeks, streams and rivers. If you're tired of fighting water issues, the Nebraska Sandhills will be a welcome relief. With tremendous grass, a great climate, and close proximity to major feed yards and packers, Nebraska cattle producers enjoy some of the highest priced cattle in the country. The Sand hills are home to over 535,000 head of cattle."

From wikipedia:

"Today, the Sand Hills is among the most productive cattle ranching areas of the world."

From the Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture:

"The beef industry is the largest single industry in Nebraska, and it is an aggressive, dynamic business. Productive range and cropland supports over 1,827,000 cows in Nebraska. The abundant supply of water and generous feed and grain supplies have supported the expansion of the state's feedlot industry. Nebraska is now the #1 marketer in fed cattle. Nebraska's prominence in our nation's cattle industry is due, in part, to the rich natural resources in the state and to the willingness of the producer to adapt to change...Beef is what Nebraska does best, produced by generation after generation of ranchers and cattle feeders. Nebraska accounts for more than 20% of the beef produced in the U.S. Nebraska has a unique mix of natural resources. Cattle turn grass from 25 million acres of rangeland and pasture, more than one half of Nebraska's land mass, into protein and many other products for humans. The land grazed by cattle allows more people to be fed than would otherwise be possible."

[JESII]

Any chance there was something specific to the site the golf course sits on that made it less ideal for grazing than the surrounding area...and therefore even less expensive?


p.s. I don't know the answer, just thinking out loud

[Phil_the_Author]

Ian observed, "For what it's worth there is another side to this. Thompson and Tillinghast both went broke trying to maintain a lifetsyle and appearance beyond there means to attract wealthy clinents..."

In Tilly's case we have a number of documents that shed much light on how he ran his business and how it impacted his lifestyle.

For example, if you visit the new Tillinghast website at www.tillinghast.net, you will find in the section "Authored by Tillinghast" the title "BCC Five Farms Letters." In this you will find copies of the correspondence between Tilly and the Club sent by each during the building project.

From proposal to design to building problems, these letters illuminate what it was like to create a course with an architect like Tilly in the 20's. Within a number of the letters, information concerning payments and when they would be made and why they haven't, etc... are mentioned. One sees a club holding money over the head of the architect in order to get him to perform as they want and when they want, while Tilly refuses to cooperate many times until monies are paid while at other times he is 'on his knees begging', so to speak, asking for what he feels he is owed.

Visit the site and read these letters. They are eye-opening on a number of levels.

[Adam Clayman]

How different would golf course design be, IF money was an OBJECT ?

As different as Shadow Creek is to Wild Horse.

[RJ_Daley]

This question has so many facets that I don't think just one post can cover the various aspects that could be discussed.  

One thought is that when money (or capital) was an object, was in the depression.  What did we see then?  Tillie for example was forced to dial way back on new architecture projects and try to stay alive by working for peanuts for the PGA, touring and consulting on existing courses, filing reports on their design, and recommendations for improvements.  

ONe thing that tells me is that "some" courses still sought out help or upgrade, or just consulting; thus had "some" money to spend.   Maybe the money was more scarce, but what they had turned to improvements.  Remodelling and improvement is a form of architecture.  Thus, a restorative, conservationist form of architecture is practiced when money is 'the object'.  

Another thought is to take elements from Mike Moores quote of Marx about commodities.  I'm way over my head in any economic discussion.  But, the words seem to suggest to me that golf can become a commodity, where it starts out as common place (played free on common links) for not too much expenditure for ball and equipment.  (Well, that may be relative, in that even featheries and a few clubs must have cost a lot to common folk - maybe they shared equipment)

Then, as the game got popular, it got more precious and particular on the grounds that it would be played on.  More money or capital would be needed to design-construct golf courses.  Thus a market in this commodity is born.  The cost had to be recovered, thus greens fees, and club dues.  The more folk that sought out this form of pleasurable exercise and recreation, the more precious and important it got.  They began to want very well designed fields of play, and the more well designed, the more cost, the more dues, the more fees.

Then the commodity gets into rarified air.  The wealthy take hold of the game, covet it, and boost the fees to astronomical heights.  Money becomes "the" object.  Enormous capital is spent to acquire, design-build, and maintain.  Now, the commodity becomes a rare commodity.   Wealthy folk who find that 'money' is "no" object, collect golf club memberships, and participate in design committees as a form of one-up society.  

This all produces expensive new ideas.  Some of those grandiose ideas are crap, some are great.  Wealth and money move the ball forward in GCA to some extent, while making it grotesque on other fronts.  Now, it gets down to taste and decorum.  

Yet, the other side of the "money" is an object, is like was noted above.  Necessity is the Mother of invention.  And, when there is scarcity, true artists and craftsmen, step-up.  Golf continues to be a commodity, because of its desirable effects and popularity with all cross sections of people.  They even build golf courses when money was scarce in the depression.   In Milwaukee, the long lasting Socialist local government leadership decided to apply an already visionary acquisition of recreational parks land begun many years before the depression, to the WPA work crew efforts and build a couple of fine golf courses for the people, even though no one had any money and was an object.  Golf was apparently viewed as a commodity to be used to the better good of pleasure and recreation to a down trodden and impoverished people, with hope and confidence that when things got better and people again had money, that golf would be even more popular and useful.  So, even in scarcity, Golf was viewed as necessary, and worth it to build and design it.  

It would be interesting to see if some of the great archies, had their best design ideas when money was scarce.

[Jim Nugent]

At what courses is money NOT an object?  I heard that might be true of Sand Hills.  Yes?  Any others?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

It was cheap because of its inability to support cows and their calfs.  It was unsuitable for ranching, the worst land for its intended purpose, that's why it was so cheap.

http://www.sandhillscattle.com/

"The Sandhills are 19,300 square miles of rolling, grass-covered hills that stretch across Nebraska and South Dakota and sit atop the Ogallala aquifer, one of the largest underground water sources in the United States. This location, along with an abundance of water and over 700 species of grasses, makes the Sandhills a prime grazing area for cattle."

http://www.sandhillsranches.com/

"The Nebraska Sand Hills sit atop the largest freshwater aquifer in the world, the Ogallala aquifer which is over 1,000 feet thick in many areas of the sandhills. About 2.4 million acre-feet of spring-fed streamflow is discharged annually creating wet meadows, creeks, streams and rivers. If you're tired of fighting water issues, the Nebraska Sandhills will be a welcome relief. With tremendous grass, a great climate, and close proximity to major feed yards and packers, Nebraska cattle producers enjoy some of the highest priced cattle in the country. The Sand hills are home to over 535,000 head of cattle."

From wikipedia:

"Today, the Sand Hills is among the most productive cattle ranching areas of the world."

From the Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture:

"The beef industry is the largest single industry in Nebraska, and it is an aggressive, dynamic business. Productive range and cropland supports over 1,827,000 cows in Nebraska. The abundant supply of water and generous feed and grain supplies have supported the expansion of the state's feedlot industry. Nebraska is now the #1 marketer in fed cattle. Nebraska's prominence in our nation's cattle industry is due, in part, to the rich natural resources in the state and to the willingness of the producer to adapt to change...Beef is what Nebraska does best, produced by generation after generation of ranchers and cattle feeders. Nebraska accounts for more than 20% of the beef produced in the U.S. Nebraska has a unique mix of natural resources. Cattle turn grass from 25 million acres of rangeland and pasture, more than one half of Nebraska's land mass, into protein and many other products for humans. The land grazed by cattle allows more people to be fed than would otherwise be possible."

Phil,

That's nice general information, but, it's totally irrelevant when it comes to the specifics of the acquisition of the land at Sand Hills.

What you don't understand about the quality of ranch/cattle land, in the context of value, is that it's value is determined by the amount of acreage it takes to support a cow and her calf.

If it takes 4 acres, that's good land.
If it takes 30 acres, that's not so good.
If it takes 50 acres, that's terrible.

The land that Sand Hills sits on was not good cattle land, that's why it was so cheap.

When Dick Youngscap was looking for land he told the realtor to look for ranchers/cattlemen who wanted to sell their worst or most unproductive land, the land least suitable for ranching/cattle.

That was land that couldn't easily/efficiently support a cow and her calf.

And, that's how he came to buy the parcel of land that Sand Hills sits on.

The previous owner considered it undesireable for his purpose, cattle ranching.  Dick Youngscap found it ideal for his purpose, golf.  He never dreamed he'd have to buy so much of it.

You can cite all of the Windipedia and internet sources you want.  My source is Dick Youngscap[/color] and the direct conversations we had over drinks, on this topic and others, while at Sand Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How different would golf course design be, IF money was an OBJECT ?

As different as Shadow Creek is to Wild Horse.

Adam,

Shadow Creek was a hostile site that $ made attractive, no doubt about it.

Wild Horse is a good example of a golf course with relatively low development costs.

But, that's part of the equation.

You can only do that if you can acquire "ground for golf" at a reasonable price.

Wild Horse is "ground for golf"

Shadow Creek wasn't.

A tangential question is:

When "ground for golf" is inherent in the site, doesn't the developer establish his costs in the choice of the architect ?

[RJ_Daley]

Geez, Youngscapp is taking on an aura of some sort of a sand hills swami, commanding red letters, no less!  

Beef is what Nebraska does best, produced by generation after generation of ranchers and cattle feeders.

I don't think DY is actually part of the generational cattlemen tradition, I could be wrong...


I'm not buying the notion that the several 1000 acre parcel of property that SHGC is within is any less productive or undesirable than any other grazing land around there.  It has the Dismal river asset through it.  It could support the same number of animal units as any other large parcel in that area. (I heard about 12-15 acres on average/per unit).  It really depends on the amount of rain in a season or through many seasons.  Besides, if the fuel thing keeps up, the switch grass value, or growing fiberous material to produce ethanol may surpass the beef industry someday.

Someone posted a "for sale" of a big property also on the Dismal River, just down from SHGC.  They weren't exactly giving it away!  If my memory serves, it was something like 1200 an acre.   They don't sell little ranchettes in those parts.  You buy a square mile section at minimum  (640 acres) and that is considered tiny.

As to the question you posed, Pat;  I think money was an object in an ironic way at Sand Hill GC.  It took a guy with quite a bit of it to buy the remote land, cheap or not.  Then, it took very little (compared with many golf course development costs) to build it.  Then, it takes a comparatively larger amount per hole or per day open to maintain it, if you throw in all the ancillary club, lodge operational costs.  It isn't exactly a typical situation.  So, money as an object to effect architecture is sort of a reverse or counterintuitive set fo considerations there.  Little money to build it = minimalist yet clever architecture;  but plenty to keep it going.  

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()