Where would golf conditions be today if developers had not made golf an amenity?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I'm not begrudging anyone anything you mention above.  I'm sure high end golf would still exist and always will.  BUT my bet is there would be no $8000 walking greensmower, no bunker sand brought from Ohio to Ga for a few bunkers, no green colored divot replacement sand in divots, and much more  if golf had not been an amenity of development.  And high end golf would still be high end golf...

[Kevin_D]

Where can I get one of these scented towels everyone's talking about?

[Jeff Taylor]

Jeff,
I'm not begrudging anyone anything you mention above.  I'm sure high end golf would still exist and always will.  BUT my bet is there would be no $8000 walking greensmower, no bunker sand brought from Ohio to Ga for a few bunkers, no green colored divot replacement sand in divots, and much more  if golf had not been an amenity of development.  And high end golf would still be high end golf...

That may be true. However, it leaves me with a question. How do the things that you mention above drive up costs for clubs that don't follow those practices or make those purchases? Are there fewer of them and hence fewer low cost options for golfers? I don't know that answer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think the resort/residential golf complexes had an enormous impact on golf as more and more golfers visited warmer climates in the winter, played golf at these resort/residential courses and then tried to import to their home course, that which they observed and experienced at the resort/residential courses.

Fountains, waterfalls, artificial streams, gratuitous ponds, etc. etc..

More later

[Dave Doxey]

In the US, real estate developments built courses to increase house lot sale prices and give the development an “exclusive community” feel.   The courses generally had strung-out routings to maximize course frontage house lots.  They also had monster clubhouses (again to add to the development image), and were usually built in such a way to look fancy, but require high cost course and clubhouse maintenance.

As the courses were never sustainable as businesses, once the last lots were sold, developers then dumped the courses, sometimes at bargain prices.  The lost value was covered by the increased house lot revenue.

We are left with courses that require such high maintenance that many are still not able to run as a break-even business, even after being sold once or twice at greatly reduced values.

The current supply in many areas of the country far exceeds the demand for private club memberships, for high priced “country club for a day” courses, and in some areas even for mid-priced public golf.  Discounters, like GolfNow, made a business of marketing the excess tee time inventory. Few public golfers today pay rack rates for tee times.

It will take a long time for the supply of unsustainable development courses to decline.  In many cases zoning is such that the developers used the courses to meet open space requirements, and thus the courses have no redevelopment value.  The sad sight of an overgrown development course sitting in the middle of a housing development is common, as are lawsuits over upkeep between homeowners associations and finance companies stuck holding the land.

Unfortunately the glut of these cookie-cutter “McGolfCourses” will prevent creation of future well-designed courses for a long time.  The demand/supply imbalance and resulting discounting has seriously hurt the non-development course owners who have to compete with dropping greens fees and competitors who got it for greatly reduced capital investments.

If you do a little searching into “for sale” golf courses, you will be amazed by the number available and the low prices.  Try doing a business plan to buy and run one and you will be even more shocked.

I see no solution to the sad situation, other that time.  I’ll be long gone before we enter the next era of course development.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dave Doxey,
That's a heck of a post.
One thing not mentioned was how all these high dollar constructions propped up by RE $$$ were used to develop something we call "industry standards".

It literally became the industry standard to spend far more on construction and maintenance then could ever be returned in most cases, much less a positive return on investment.

[Mike_Young]

Dave Doxey,
That's a heck of a post.
One thing not mentioned was how all these high dollar constructions propped up by RE $$$ were used to develop something we call "industry standards".

It literally became the industry standard to spend far more on construction and maintenance then could ever be returned in most cases, much less a positive return on investment.

Dave Doxey,
That's a heck of a post.
One thing not mentioned was how all these high dollar constructions propped up by RE $$$ were used to develop something we call "industry standards".

It literally became the industry standard to spend far more on construction and maintenance then could ever be returned in most cases, much less a positive return on investment.

Don,
Even sadder is the fact that "industry standards" were used to educate and those educated to such standards know no other way and look down on most that would not adopt such standards.  And to add insult to injury , the equipment companies and fertilizer/chemical/ irrigation companies funded so many of the institutions that taught these standards.  Almost like one of those Wall St scenarios with the mortgage backed securities and derivatives.

[Dave Doxey]

Here’s is an example of development course investment that makes me wonder

http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2013/04/25/golf-course-gets-long-awaited-green-flag/

$7 million upgrade, including a $2.5 million clubhouse – on a course that gets 15,000 rounds at a peak rate of $50.

Can you make those numbers work?

This will get written off, once the final house lot is sold.  Probably justifiable by the developer, but adding to the glut of unsustainable courses.