Pete Dye as Good Investment

[JMorgan]

While reading an article on Mr. Dye's work in the Carolinas, I stumbled upon this link.  

http://www.golfcourserealty.com/features/dye-nicklaus-fazio-buying-golf-course-property-real-estate-5599.htm

"So what's behind the Dye edge?" Dan Briody asked in an article for BusinessWeek. "For starters, Dye is one of the premier course artists of all time, landing nine designs on Golf Digest's list of America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses. His name has been especially recognizable of late as he continues to create challenging tour-caliber venues."

[Mark_Fine]

In addition to his golf courses, one of the many things I like about Pete is that he is genuine.  What you see is what you get.  I've been fortunate to meet with him an several occasions and talk with him numerous times on the phone.  Forrest and I asked him to write the Foreward for our book which he happily accepted (especially since the topic was near and dear to his heart)!  If anyone likes hazards, it's Pete!  

As for Pete being a good investment - almost everyone has heard of Pete Dye.  Few other architects have the same level of recognition other than maybe those mentioned in the article.  Add that to the quality of his golf courses and it is hard to go wrong.  

[mike_beene]

I was impressed with the way the workers at Casa de Campo respect and admire him.Watching his interaction with them it appears to me the feeling is mutual.Tells me everything I need to know about him.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

Someone gave me a chance a couple of months ago to write about Mr. Dye and one of the things I mentioned was how he treated the lowliest kid on the crew with the same respect he treated Deane Beman or Jack Lupton or Jack Nicklaus.

I also believe that, contrary to reputation, if you had just a couple of million dollars and wanted to build something special, Pete Dye would be one of the best choices for the job, not one of the worst.  He was always innovative and knew how to get value for money, so from that perspective, he's a "good investment".

However, I'd disagree with Mark that Pete is anywhere near as well known as Jack Nicklaus or Arnold Palmer.  And I think the article cited is a bunch of hogwash, because there are too many external factors to make valid comparisons on the value of architects' names.  The fact that big-name courses have $2 million marketing budgets to sell their houses tends to drive up the price of homes.  This newer study was an interesting twist because it purported to show long-term value ... I still don't think it can ... but golf course developers don't really care about long-term value, they only care about how much money goes in their pockets at the first sale, and how fast the project sells out.

[BCrosby]

As Tom notes, there is a push/pull going on in golf course development.

The developer wants names that work NOW. He wants first sales as fast as possible. That pretty much means Nicklaus or Fazio. Then you go to the next tier. The only question is the size of his development budget.

The home buyer has a much more difficult choice. He wants an architect whose reputation in 20 years will be bigger than it is today. That's a lot harder to know.

A lot of people bought homes in Myrtle, the GA coast and other places in the 60's and 70's thinking a George Cobb course would always be a big draw. Didn't turn out that way.

Likewise for JN and TF today. I'm not at all sure that the perception of those two in 20 years will be anything near what it is today.

Take a real case. At Lake Oconee in GA, developers have on offer lots at courses designed by JN, Rees, Engh and C&C. The big home buyer money tends to go to the big names, the JN and the Rees courses. My guess, though, is that an investment at the C&C course will be a better long term investment because the reputation of the course will hold up better over the long haul. (That's assuming all others things being equal.)

The obvious irony is that the architect that is best for a developer's economics may not be the architect is best for a home buyer's economics.

Bob

 

[Tony Ristola]

That bit about Pete Dye treating everyone equally is no surprise. For a guy who spent a lot of time on-site I can't see any other way of having harmony and creating an atmosphere where guy enjoy their work; tough work, and on their off days (we all have 'em) still put in all they can. Who would want to work for a less than respectful leader all those hours? It just wouldn't fly, certainly not consistently, regardless of how brilliant someone might be.

BCrosby:
You nailed something I'd long thought about. Would Jimmy Demerat be valued today? Tony Lema? Julius Boros? All guys who have won majors? Names largely forgotten.

It's a travesty the guys who actually do the work have another name slapped over theirs, as they do when relabeling condiments in Europe. You see the original label peeking under the import label. One day I'm sure some people will be peeling back to see the original producer.

Might make for an interesting project. Lies, Deceit and Development; The Wholesale Sell-Out of Modern Golf Architecture.

[BCrosby]

Tony -

It is pretty shocking that people buying into these projects don't think of those issues.

The criteria a developer uses to make architectural choices do not align with the home buyer's. But almost zero home buyers have figured that out.

The same home buyer who spends days analyzing the stocks he invests in, will spend no time investigating the architect he is (in effect) investing in. He'll trust the developer and friends. The last people he should be consulting.

Bob

[JMorgan]

"So what's behind the Dye edge?" Dan Briody asked in an article for BusinessWeek. "For starters, Dye is one of the premier course artists of all time, landing nine designs on Golf Digest's list of America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses. His name has been especially recognizable of late as he continues to create challenging tour-caliber venues."

I found the logic of the boldfaced sentence interesting, esp. in the context of the study.  

Are we to believe that appearing often on the GD list of "premier course artists" means that one will sell more real estate and be a better bet in the long run?  

Does the fact that GD commissioned the study have any effect on the interpretation of the results?

[john_stiles]

There is a new ‘Rarity Communities’ development north of Knoxville TN.  It is called 'Rarity Mountain' near Jellico Tennessee at the TN / KY border.  

The developer selected Pete and P.B. Dye to design the course.  Work is on-going at the moment with an opening planned in fall 2008.

An article in the local newspaper quoted  a Golf Digest/Business week study about real estate & golf course development.  

There were a few interesting tidbits.  

Homes on Dye courses appreciated 248 percent in 5 years, better than golf/real estate developments with architects Nicklaus, Palmer, or Fazio.

Homes on Dye courses bettered non-golf homes in the same ZIP code by 60 percent over 5 years.   The kicker was that this gap was ‘significantly’ less over a 10 year period.

The developer basically stated that a ‘Dye’ course provided about a $100,000 premium per lot over that with a less famous architect.  Their Rarity Pointe has $300,000 lots, and Rarity Mountain $400,000.

There was one funny quote by Dye to the Knoxville News reporter Josh Flory.   I gather from the article that all these financial numbers were being tossed about and when he was asked about his design fee,  Dye's response was " We're cheaper than anybody."

[JMorgan]

There is a new ‘Rarity Communities’ development north of Knoxville TN.  It is called 'Rarity Mountain' near Jellico Tennessee at the TN / KY border.  

The developer selected Pete and P.B. Dye to design the course.  Work is on-going at the moment with an opening planned in fall 2008.

An article in the local newspaper quoted  a Golf Digest/Business week study about real estate & golf course development.  

There were a few interesting tidbits.  

Homes on Dye courses appreciated 248 percent in 5 years, better than golf/real estate developments with architects Nicklaus, Palmer, or Fazio.

Homes on Dye courses bettered non-golf homes in the same ZIP code by 60 percent over 5 years.   The kicker was that this gap was ‘significantly’ less over a 10 year period.

The developer basically stated that a ‘Dye’ course provided about a $100,000 premium per lot over that with a less famous architect.  Their Rarity Pointe has $300,000 lots, and Rarity Mountain $400,000.

There was one funny quote by Dye to the Knoxville News reporter Josh Flory.   I gather from the article that all these financial numbers were being tossed about and when he was asked about his design fee,  Dye's response was " We're cheaper than anybody."

John,

I wonder if the difference between the five-year and ten-year numbers has more to do with people selling within the five-year period to avoid capital gains than with the golf course designer.


Just as I am unlikely to become a member of a club that fits Pat Mucci's worst maintenance budget nightmares, I am not going to buy a house on a course that I don't want to play, even if I only have to spend two years living in it within the five-year period before I dump it.