Architecture & the Local Muni

[Andrew Summerell]

In Australia we call them Council courses, but they are the same thing. Cheap local government run courses built for the local community.

What I have noticed over the last decade or two is that many of these courses have been designed to look & play like many of the high-end resort & public courses.

One not far from where I live has had 9 holes completed & ready for play with the other 9 to be completed by early 2011. It has huge greens; many unnecessary man made undulations & half the bunkers will rarely see a golf ball. All these ingredients will keep the small maintenance staff (1 Superintendent & 2 part time council workers) far busier than they need to be. On top of this, there is next to no strategy in the design.

Is the ‘cheap’ end of the market being short changed?

What is the best low priced muni/council course built in the last 20 years?

[ed_getka]

Andrew,
   I don't know the answer to your question with regards to Australia. In the US Rustic Canyon in California and Wild Horse in Nebraska fit the bill. They are better than most courses and the green fee is quite reasonable at both. They are not  municipal courses, but they are good examples of courses that didn't cost a fortune to build and they are not expensive to play and provide those with the good fortune to play them regularly with a wonderful exposure to great architecture.

[Andrew Summerell]

Thanks Ed,

The question is not only regarding

I've played Rustic Canyon & it's excellent fun & great value for money. I think it's a great example of what a municipal course could aspire to, but does it happen that much? Most courses like Rustic Canyon have had someone with a real passion for architecture involved in the project.

Most modern examples I've seen tend to exhibit irresponsible architecture.

[Matt Day]

Andrew
I manage Wembley GC which is probably Australia's biggest council/municipal course with 36 holes and 175,000 rounds.

The Old Course was built in 1932 and still has the same routing as then except for a short par 4 being converted to a Par 3. A lot of holes are doglegged around the 200 metre mark.

The Tuart Course is a lot newer and tighter, so we really have two different courses to offer.

We have begun to work with Richard Chamberlain when at Ross Watson and now on his own when redesigning or relocating greens.

I think a lot of new council courses focus on the word "championship" as a buzz word for marketing purposes, and forget who their customer base is.

That said, the new course at Kalgoorlie which the City owns will be fantastic. I'm hoping to have some pictures in the next two days.

[Andrew Summerell]

I think a lot of new council courses focus on the word "championship" as a buzz word for marketing purposes, and forget who their customer base is.

I agree. Every course needs to be 7000y (6400m) these days. I would prefer to see more courses that are shorter, but more interesting.

Healesville by Mike Clayton is what we should see more of.

[Matt Day]

I think a lot of new council courses focus on the word "championship" as a buzz word for marketing purposes, and forget who their customer base is.

I agree. Every course needs to be 7000y (6400m) these days. I would prefer to see more courses that are shorter, but more interesting.

Healesville by Mike Clayton is what we should see more of.

Both of our courses play around 5700 metres and that's plenty for the majority of punters.

[Andrew Summerell]

Both of our courses play around 5700 metres and that's plenty for the majority of punters.

I assume you maintenance budget is not unlimited. Are your courses relatively easy to maintain?

I’m always concerned when I see massive greens & a whole heap of bunkers, & wonder how a small staff is going to maintain the playing surfaces to a reasonable standard.

[Matt Day]

Both of our courses play around 5700 metres and that's plenty for the majority of punters.

I assume you maintenance budget is not unlimited. Are your courses relatively easy to maintain?

I’m always concerned when I see massive greens & a whole heap of bunkers, & wonder how a small staff is going to maintain the playing surfaces to a reasonable standard.

Andrew
We operate on 11 ground staff plus mechanic over the 36 holes, so not a massive crew. What kills our budgets is the on costs associated with activity based costing. This means that a guy sitting on a mower for $25 per hour has a  percentage of that added as an on cost...and yes we are paying around $25 per hour for a qualified greenkeeper.

Fairways are Kikuyu cut at 10mm, greens are a mixture of pencross and G2 cut at 3.5mm. Use Primo regularly to keep the Kikuyu under control and we don't water roughs so that cuts down the mowing in summer. Total bunkers at the moment is 40 for 36 holes.

[Adam Clayman]

Andrew, Sadly, 20 years is probably not far enough to go back to find quality Government owed and built facilities. Save for maybe Pinon Hills in Farmington, New Mexico. They picked an eager architect who knew it was a huge opportunity for him to show off his skills and boost his career, (which it did) so he put a lot of time and energy into the site. BTW, A site that two other prominent architects said a course couldn't be built.

 It's probably a universal truth that once you get a bunch of politicians (and senior staff) to do anything, the costs are so prohibitive it boggles the mind for any individual who has considered a golf course project of their own. Look at Chambers Bay. I've not been there and the quality of the course is not germane to my argument, but, the money they have spent is egregious, irresponsible and wasteful.

 Most of the waste is likely tied to the rote political shenanigans pulled by those who have the power and information ahead of time, or, in the decision on who gets the jobs.

Back to the quality... Designing for the lowest common denominator is at the root of the reason most municipal designs are inferior. I suppose it's even sadder, when an individual makes the same mistake.

[Philippe Binette]

Golf needs more courses that have:

1) limited shaping but good drainage
2) 6300 yards
3) 25 bunkers

if an architect says he can't do an interesting course this way, HE LACKS TALENT !!!

[Scott Warren]

Andrew,

Do you know what sort of brass they gave the architect to produce what he has?

[Joe Hancock]

Golf needs more courses that have:

1) limited shaping but good drainage
2) 6300 yards
3) 25 bunkers

if an architect says he can't do an interesting course this way, HE LACKS TALENT !!!

Philippe

While I agree with you, I think you'll find that doesn't necessarily work out as a great business model in the end, because that kind of course will serve locals well, but won't draw in any destination golfers. If an area is course deficient, then your model is perfect. If an area has plenty of golf opportunities, it may not make back the investment fast enough for a shrewd business person.

Joe

[Alex Miller]

Personally, I would settle for a thousand Rustic Canyons scattered throughout the world.

Munis should be relatively simple, but I think the green contouring and general condition the course is kept in are what's lacking.

[Kirk Gill]

If you're in the area, I would recommend Murphy Creek, a municipal course belonging to the City of Aurora, CO. It opened in 2000, and is a Ken Kavanaugh design. Reasonably priced, nice bunkering, enjoyable to play. It does wind through a recent development, so I'm not sure exactly how it was financed, but it is a municipal course. Here's a pic from the Kavanaugh site. The bunkering looks perhaps a little rougher around the edges now, which I like.

[Peter Zarlengo]

Isn't Chamber's Bay owned by Piece County? That would seem to fit the bill of a high end golf course built by a government entity. And while its not my favorite track, I believe Fossil Trace is owned by the city of Golden and is along the same lines.

But I think most of the munis I've been on fit the bill with limited bunkers / shaping / length. But they also have a limited budget and time has certainly taken its toll on many of the creative and strategic elements at those places.

But the bottom line is that people usually come off of them smiling and the city sees value in the recreation / open space / economic component of operating the course. I think the biggest issue with the muni in the coming years might be convincing the 90% folks that don't golf there is value in their upkeep, because the business model works - lot of market, affordable product, low input. Whether that convincing people that their value is environmentally, economic ,or otherwise, I'm not too sure.

I think what was cool about Commonground (which is NOT a muni and owned by the CGA) though, was that the architecture wasn't dumbed down for the "muni player." And it does it all well (from what I can sense in the amount of rounds played there), with the muni business model. It works because of the built in market AND the high quality of design -- something all those 80's and 90's real estate courses were going for but ended up sinking a ton of cash into in the process.

Kirk- x2 on Murphy Creek. There are some really cool holes there.

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew,

Do you know what sort of brass they gave the architect to produce what he has?

No, I don't - but, I'm not sure money is the issue when we are talking basic strategy. When you have 3 of the 9 holes (with two of the holes being par 3's, so that's 3 out of 7) with a fairway bunker on the same side as the green is bunkered on, yet the green favours an approach from the other side of the fairway, thereby negating all bunkers, do you think the problem is money or common sense?

[Lou_Duran]

Andrew,

There have been a few threads on this very topic, one fairly recent (Archie Struthers and I had a few things to say).

In Texas back in the early to mid-1990s, a number of cities got into the CCFAD craze, building expensive, higher-end clubs that many of their own citizens couldn't afford and which competed with privately own daily fee and membership clubs.  It had a little to do with the "keeping up with the Joneses"- one city not be outdone by another.  Most used the idea that these courses would create a substantial surplus to fund other Parks & Recreation endeavors and maybe even kick-in a few bucks to the general operating fund for the cities.  At least a couple hired high cuisine chefs thinking that they could toe-in into the corporate meeting and convention markets.  For the most part, these failed to meet their objectives miserably, and have done little to spur golf participation in their own communities.

In CA, the city of Carlsbad spent close to $70 Million to develop a municipal course.  I was talking to a local resident who played there occasionally and he said that it made him sick that the schools were cutting back because of a lack of funds, yet the city had this beautiful, difficult, hyperexpensive club that was played more by outsiders than the locals.  The explanation that schools are funded by a different entity and source of taxes didn't persuade him.  I asked him why he played there and he said the subsidized green fee was cheaper than the higher-end courses available in the area.  One doesn't have to wonder how those course owners feel having an entity that receives their tax money in direct competition with them.  Not a pretty picture.   

[Sean_A]

In my experience, the designs of munis are not up to scratch with the best, but most have been good courses at a reasonable price, but architecture is not and should not be the focus of a muni. So long as there is a proven need for solid if not spectacular golf offered at a reasonable price I have no bones about a government of some sort building them.  Sure, these projects can and do compete against privately owned publics, but many times the muni has been around for a very long time and later businesses knew what sort of competition was in the market.  I don't think it is inherently unfair to have to compete against a muni unless that muni has come along later hoping to snatch business away from privately owned courses by directly competing against them with similar priced products.  If there is a need for more of this type of recreation the local govt should be encouraging local enterprise, but I would be dead against selling off public assets "to get out of the business" unless the municipality is financially forced to.  

At their best, munis can and should serve as a social and recreational hub of a city and should have an obligation to open doors big time for junior golf programs.  Its a different mind-set whos focus should not be on the bottom line, but rather on creating opportunities for its residents with an emphasis on the young.  I have a lot of time for well run munis and have to believe that in increasingly crunch times that munis will better understand the role(s) they should be playing in the community and that while paying for itself is commendable, it shouldn't have been nor currently be the main reason for their existence.  

Here is a link to one of the better munis I have seen and it is a great pleasure to see they have completely changed their focus.

http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/ParksandRecreation/Golf/Pages/golf.aspx

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andrew,

Great topic.  Whenever courses get discussed here, I think they get compared to the top 100 and tournament courses, and we already have enough of those.  Not every course needs to be designed for the1-2% of the players who achieve elite, low handicap status.

Rather than say the design is diminished, I say the design is targeted and GREAT for the average player.  If it doesn't make too many lists, that is okay.  If 30-35K golfers enjoy it regularly, that is ample testament to its design, no?

That said, I agree with Joe. Standards do go up and the low end course of today must be better architecturally than the low end course of 30 years ago, or it won't compete.  It does need some bunkers, etc.  But it needs less, and to keep construction costs down, it needs 6000 SF greens without a lot of contour rather than 8000 SF with a lot of contour.  It needs 40K SF of bunkers and not 80-140K SF of bunkers.  Those bunkers need to be tuned for machine mowing, flat enough to keep play moving and reduce washouts. 

The sad part is, those kinds of numbers are long established here in the US, and in some way, it sort of contributes to the "standard look" that many here despise, or at least are getting tired of.  But, I think it still works.

[Scott Warren]

Andrew,

Do you know what sort of brass they gave the architect to produce what he has?

No, I don't - but, I'm not sure money is the issue when we are talking basic strategy. When you have 3 of the 9 holes (with two of the holes being par 3's, so that's 3 out of 7) with a fairway bunker on the same side as the green is bunkered on, yet the green favours an approach from the other side of the fairway, thereby negating all bunkers, do you think the problem is money or common sense?

That's what I was getting at, maybe the tone didn't come across.

I was suggesting that it was not like they'd short-changed the locals by getting someone in the parks and recreating team to design it, they'd gone to the trouble of hiring a (not inexpensive, I would imagine) golf course architect, only to end up - from what you have said - with the sort of golf course a parks and gardens worker might have been able to come up with.

It's just a shame a professional was given that job and thought huge greens and ample bunkering were what was needed.

[Lou_Duran]

Actually, this last reply reminds me of a fun SoCal muni I was introduced to by the departed Thomas Naccaratto (it's been so-long that I've forgotten how to spell his name), Santa Anita GC.  Legend has it that it was designed by a city (P&R) employee who took some time to study gca and then designed and bulit this, his only course.  It is a short, super-fun layout with fantastic greens, all sorts of man-made movements in the fairways, and some very extraordinary bunkers for a muni.  The course is played to death with a green fee in the low to mid $20s during the week, and six hour rounds are too common, but it is still worthwhile.

[Andrew Summerell]

It does need some bunkers, etc.  But it needs less, and to keep construction costs down, it needs 6000 SF greens without a lot of contour rather than 8000 SF with a lot of contour.  It needs 40K SF of bunkers and not 80-140K SF of bunkers.  Those bunkers need to be tuned for machine mowing, flat enough to keep play moving and reduce washouts. 

Thanks Jeff, that's exactly what I was talking about. Courses can be interesting, functional, strategic & cheap to maintain, but it rarely seems to happen these days.

Are architects (sorry, I should have said designers) worried if they design a ‘plain’ looking course it will reflect poorly on them?

[Kirk Gill]

I know that several of the City of Denver Municipal courses were originally private clubs that were purchased by the city.

In the current economic climate, do municipalities have the money to purchase some of these clubs that are struggling? Ultimately, is this a cheaper/better option than building?

[archie_struthers]

 

Lou jumped in ( just a little) so as not to be repetitious of the prior thread I'll say it again....I am against the government buying or building any more  golf courses  here in the states...

as to architecture muni's historically small simple courses , built for the beginner and senior/ children to enjoy and learn the game thus the architecture didn't inspire greatness....run  up greens , smallish , shallow or non-existent bunkers were de-riguer as was appropriate for a course on a lean budget ... typically muni's were built on smallish parcels of land ..and often were nine holes or even an unusual number

here in Ocean City NJ  the 12 -hole municipal course requires one tee shot over 200 yards but it's still golf ....and fun