Will capitalism allow great architecture to remain cheap?

[John Kavanaugh]

The model currently being tested would have to be Wild Horse.  If Wild Horse is truly great, being that it is one of the best courses in the country.  How can anyone explain why people pay huge somes to play Ballyneal, Sand Hills and Dismal River if they could get the same quality experience at Wild Horse?  Shouldn't supply and demand drive up the price of Wild Horse to equitable levels?  Why does not a Scottish model of cheap for locals and expensive for visitors come into play.  Is the effects of capitalism the truth we should look for when it comes to judging architecture?

[JESII]

You are suggesting that there are more than the 1500 people on this board that actually care about architecture...how can that be?

[John Kavanaugh]

You are suggesting that there are more than the 1500 people on this board that actually care about architecture...how can that be?

I believe that great architecture is that which appeals to the greatest audience.  

[JESII]

You are suggesting that there are more than the 1500 people on this board that actually care about architecture...how can that be?

I believe that great architecture is that which appeals to the greatest audience.  

For their own sake, or because someone told them so?

[John Kavanaugh]

For their own sake.  The only people who play courses because they are told too are those on this site who rarely pay anyway.  They are out of the capitalistic loop.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sure, John, but you have to factor in inelasticity of demand when it comes to golf.

If capitalism drove all decisionmaking, with all the free fruit in the world available to her, Eve would not have bitten the fruit of the forbidden tree.  One of my partners (a salesman's salesman, if there ever was one) refers to God telling Adam and Eve that they can have everything in the world except for that fruit as "the world's first takeaway close".  I see it as the world's first inelastic demand curve.    

This would explain why the price of a private club is not a good indicator of great architecture.  I don't think a public club can maintain high prices in an attempt to create a brand without the course to back it up.  I also don't believe a public club can remain too cheap without becoming over run with play to the point it would benefit the existing players to raise prices and thin the herd.

[JESII]

Is there more to the golf experience than the architecture of the course you are playing?

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,

"Why does not a Scottish model of cheap for locals and expensive for visitors come into play".

Doesn't the town use WH to attract people to the area, somewhat different that a muni built near a larger base of players.

Hopefully they'll be able to resist the label of "Golf Destination".

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Kavanaugh - having not played any of the courses you mention, I can't comment on the comparative quality of the courses themselves, but when you say that each provides the same "quality of experience," you may miss the mark.

Isn't part of what you pay for at a private club the exclusivity of the experience? Mr. K - isnt the experience at Wild Horse lesser by definition than anything that could be provided at the private clubs simply because the great unwashed can play there if they so desire?

And isn't the economic model of the clubs in GB very different than much of what you find here in the States? Older clubs, land already paid for, no huge debt service to pay for the land itself.........that allows for a lot more leeway in terms of pricing for members. The exclusivity comes more from who you are and who you know rather than how much scratch you can put together at any particular time.

Wild Horse would likely cost a lot more if it was located in suburban Philadelphia, and if I lived in Gothenburg, Nebraska, I'd be ecstatic to have it close by. It may be Wild Horse's somewhat remote location that keeps it from being so over-run with play that demand would result in higher green fees, as you mentioned.

[SL_Solow]

John;  Your definition of greatness; that which appeals to the greatest number; appears to be synonymous with "popularity".  Is that true in all endeavors?  Does popular = great.  In music?  Film? Literature?  Politics?  Reasoned and informed criticism has no place except, perhaps, to try and move public opinion?  Why then participate in a discussion group?  Why analyze at all other than to try and figure out why something is popular?  I'd rather try to create my own standards for excellence and then try to live by them but perhaps that is a result of my own vanity.

[Phil Benedict]

If Wild Horse is profitable, conventional economic analysis would predict the emergence of more courses adopting this model - super high quality at an affordable price.  The key is the assumption that Wild Horse is profitable and its model can be copied elsewhere.

[Adam Clayman]

The variety is key, even if they were similar experiences. Which, I don't accept in the premise.

Also, There's ample evidence to support that some owners (or decision makers) don't appreciate what they have, don't know just how great a course lies under their years of fiddling. The other side of the coin is Pebble Beach, who knows what they have and have exploited it, pricewise, for 2 decades now.

[John Kavanaugh]

Reasoned and informed criticism has no place except, perhaps, to try and move public opinion?  

I have never been a fan of critics but in that light I do see a certain value.  When a film using subtitles is critically acclaimed and then becomes popular that is a very good thing.  I don't see the mass audience going to a subtitled film otherwise.  The same goes for golf in that the courses that people want to play most rest on top of the Golfweek and Digest lists that use the term Greatest to describe said lists.  What else is the noble role of a critc but to expose the masses to greatness?  The role of the critic is not to influence the artist as so many on this site wrongly think.

[Peter Pallotta]

...I'd rather try to create my own standards for excellence and then try to live by them but perhaps that is a result of my own vanity.

No, SL, that's the result of your own maturity, and good sense.

Adam - good point.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

I would like to see Wild Horse raise the fee for anyone living outside Colorado or Nebraska to $100 per round and leave the local fees alone.  If the course is truly great I can not see a single person that travels from outside that region taking a pass.  If the course is not truly great then we have another less fortunate outcome.  I think the increased play by Coloraskians that feel like they are getting a deal will more than outweigh the possible reduction in play.

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  without turning this into a philosophical discourse on the role of criticism, I think the process is a little bit more complicated than you posit.  Probably less utilitarian as well.  Certainly exposing the greater public to outstanding work is a role.  But the most important role is to try and understand what it is that makes something really good; whether its sculpture or music or golf course architecture; and try to separate it from that which is bad or simply mundane.  In the process of trying to understand the essence of the art form the critic trys to find universal attributes that go beyond that which is momentarily popular. For example, why are the great works of literature read year after year while runaway best sellers are forgotten in a matter of months?  If the criticism helps inform the artist, so be it but it is the search for understanding and the greater insight that comes from such a search that motivates the true student and/or critic.  People like it, therefore its good doesn't expand understanding or knowledge at all.  But it sure avoids any heavy lifting.

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney;  without turning this into a philosophical discourse on the role of criticism, I think the process is a little bit more complicated than you posit.  Probably less utilitarian as well.  Certainly exposing the greater public to outstanding work is a role.  But the most important role is to try and understand what it is that makes something really good; whether its sculpture or music or golf course architecture; and try to separate it from that which is bad or simply mundane.  In the process of trying to understand the essence of the art form the critic trys to find universal attributes that go beyond that which is momentarily popular. For example, why are the great works of literature read year after year while runaway best sellers are forgotten in a matter of months?  If the criticism helps inform the artist, so be it but it is the search for understanding and the greater insight that comes from such a search that motivates the true student and/or critic.  People like it, therefore its good doesn't expand understanding or knowledge at all.  But it sure avoids any heavy lifting.

I think that even in my simple definition of greatness I would discount the fad.  Surely a work that is read year after year is more popular than the most recent romance novel just because of new audiences being brought to the table.  I would love to hear of a work of literature that has undergone multiple printings over a span of decades that is not great just based on demand alone.

[JESII]

JK,

How did you first determine Wild Horse was worth visiting? This is assumng you've been there of course, but, if not there, how about any of those courses in your first post?

[John Kavanaugh]

I have not been to Wild Horse.  I went to Ballyneal because a friend who is a member invited me.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I would like to see Wild Horse raise the fee for anyone living outside Colorado or Nebraska to $100 per round and leave the local fees alone

I typed "Gothenburg" into the Mapquest search box and 'where the heck is that' came up. I would like to see WH give a free round to anyone who visits the town for more than a day.

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  good try to sidestep the point but try these for a start;  how many people read Shakespeare except when required in school?  How successful was Citizen Kane at the box office?  Who sells more records, Kenny G or Coltrane?  People are entitled to their own opinions and there is nothing wrong in appealing to the common denominator.  But popularity does not equate to excellence.  They are not mutually exclusive but they do not equate.

[John Kavanaugh]

To say that no one reads Shakespeare when out of school is like saying no one uses math.  He died just short of 400 years ago and remains the most quoted author by the illiterate who has ever lived.  He is more popular now then when he was alive.

Coltrane died in 1954 and is being listened to today by far more people then will listen to Kenny G. 50 years after his death.  Kenny G. is a fad.(sp)

Citizen Kane is a more interesting study.  I don't think you can discount the innovations that have become a foundation of modern film or the blacklisting of Wells by Hearst when discussing the films popularity on release.  I have little problem in saying that it is a hugely popular film.

[Tim Pitner]

As others have said, the assumption that price reflects the quality of architecture, at public courses as well as private ones, is fundamentally flawed.  Among other things, people are interested in prestige, conditioning, service, amenities and natural beauty.  Many golfers (probably the majority) wouldn't care that much for Wild Horse because of its lack of trees.  

BTW, I'm playing Wild Horse, for the first time, this weekend and I'm thankful the fee is under $50.  

[John Kavanaugh]

As others have said, the assumption that price reflects the quality of architecture, at public courses as well as private ones, is fundamentally flawed.  Among other things, people are interested in prestige, conditioning, service, amenities and natural beauty.  Many golfers (probably the majority) wouldn't care that much for Wild Horse because of its lack of trees.  

BTW, I'm playing Wild Horse, for the first time, this weekend and I'm thankful the fee is under $50.  

Tim,

How far are you traveling to play Wild Horse and are you playing any other courses as part of this travel package?

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  We've (I've) probably taken this too far but a last shot.  First, interesting take on your facts; Cotrane left us in 1967 at 41, he didn't join Miles until several years after 1954.  You're right about Kenny G being a fad (I hope) but I daresay more are listening to him than Trane.  Shakespeare may be quoted most but are  people actually reading him?  You are really making my point for me.  Certain works stand the test of time and there does not seem to be any correlation between their ability to so so and their popularity at any particular time.  The critic (or analyst if you prefer) struggles to understand what separates the ephemeral from the more permanent.  The answer "because people like it" is, I suppose, on one level correct but it doesn't lead to understanding.  My take on many of your posts along this line is that you view efforts to analyze why architecture is great as at best futile and at worst a waste of time.  Fair enough; if that is your view and you simply want to talk about courses that's your prerogative but there are those of us who think there is more.  I still want to play golf with you but if your answer as to what makes a course great is "people like it" I'm afraid we won't have much to talk about.  If you want to figure out why they like it, I'm ready to go.