Architects vs. Production Houses

[Gary Slatter]

Perhaps you could argue it isnt the number of days on site that matters, but I would love for you to give me an example of a production house course built in the last 30 years where the architect spent much REAL time on the property and produced an inspired golf course.

Perhaps the argument is not the number of days on property, but the number of projects underway at one time.  While production houses can produce NICE courses I cannot sit hear and think of one I would like to play right now.  It is interesting to me that with Nicklaus and Fazio designing hundreds of courses over the last 30 years none of them inspire me to want to play golf.  However I have great desire to play a number of the hand full of courses that Coore or Doak etc. have built.   

It must be sad to have only a few courses to play, whereas I can play and do enjoy golf almost anywhere!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

Do the upper end gca's drive those specs, or the PGA Tour or CC golfers who want ever better and more consistent conditions?  Here is a list of "standard" high end specs off the top of my head:

USGA Tees (so they can be level rather than slope 1%)
Sand Cap FW (often accompanied by Zoysia sod)
Other Spec topsoil mixes for fw (PGA Tour has some real strict particle sizes requiring screening)
Sand Cap Approaches for firm and fast run ups
Herringbone Tile in approaches to dry them out
Sand Cap chipping areas for more reliable bump and run from chipping areas
Bunker Liners and White Sand (imported at nearly $100 per ton in many cases)
The pure quantity of bunkers (well over $100,000 SF for some designers vs 50K SF for others)
USGA fairways and herrigbone tiles (less common but out there) for drainage consistency
Learning Centers (vs driving ranges, even though 99% of golfers only bang balls to warm up)
Sib-Air Systems to Cool Greens (often to push bent grass further south than it ought to be planted for greens)
Fans to cool greens (often to push bent grass further south than it ought to be planted for greens)

In irrigation, we have:

Part to part green heads
Part to part fw/rough heads,
Part circle heads on the edge of turf to avoid spraying into natives,
Small heads on tees to keep native look around tees, etc., etc. etc.


The biggest cost offender is 3500 GPM pump stations and the trend to shorter water windows, so that watering ends early and maintenance crews can get out and be off the course before the first tee time.  In general, I see courses that need 200 acre feet of irrigation a year, or an average of about 400,000 Gallons a night, but somehow, they get systems designed to push out over a million gallons.  I know there are times when a system needs more than average capacity, but I wonder how much when water restrictions will never let them use that much.  It's all because irrigation designers and supers are afraid that there may be a few nights a year where they will have to extend watering past the normal cycle, or let the turf dry out a bit.

So, perhaps we are a bit OT here, but those specs, as Brian notes, are what has been driving the cost of golf up.  Now, there is nothing on that list that I wouldn't want to have, at least on certain sites, and especially the sand and draingage to keep certain areas dry (although a reduced irrigation system would also generally help there)  And, to some degree, spending the money up front reduces future capital and maintenance expenses and is a good investment.

I am not sure any designer is as responsible for that as is the generally rising tide of maintenance standards that golfers expect.

[Mike_Young]

Brian,

Do the upper end gca's drive those specs, or the PGA Tour or CC golfers who want ever better and more consistent conditions?  Here is a list of "standard" high end specs off the top of my head:

USGA Tees (so they can be level rather than slope 1%)
Sand Cap FW (often accompanied by Zoysia sod)
Other Spec topsoil mixes for fw (PGA Tour has some real strict particle sizes requiring screening)
Sand Cap Approaches for firm and fast run ups
Herringbone Tile in approaches to dry them out
Sand Cap chipping areas for more reliable bump and run from chipping areas
Bunker Liners and White Sand (imported at nearly $100 per ton in many cases)
The pure quantity of bunkers (well over $100,000 SF for some designers vs 50K SF for others)
USGA fairways and herrigbone tiles (less common but out there) for drainage consistency
Learning Centers (vs driving ranges, even though 99% of golfers only bang balls to warm up)
Sib-Air Systems to Cool Greens (often to push bent grass further south than it ought to be planted for greens)
Fans to cool greens (often to push bent grass further south than it ought to be planted for greens)

In irrigation, we have:

Part to part green heads
Part to part fw/rough heads,
Part circle heads on the edge of turf to avoid spraying into natives,
Small heads on tees to keep native look around tees, etc., etc. etc.


The biggest cost offender is 3500 GPM pump stations and the trend to shorter water windows, so that watering ends early and maintenance crews can get out and be off the course before the first tee time.  In general, I see courses that need 200 acre feet of irrigation a year, or an average of about 400,000 Gallons a night, but somehow, they get systems designed to push out over a million gallons.  I know there are times when a system needs more than average capacity, but I wonder how much when water restrictions will never let them use that much.  It's all because irrigation designers and supers are afraid that there may be a few nights a year where they will have to extend watering past the normal cycle, or let the turf dry out a bit.

So, perhaps we are a bit OT here, but those specs, as Brian notes, are what has been driving the cost of golf up.  Now, there is nothing on that list that I wouldn't want to have, at least on certain sites, and especially the sand and draingage to keep certain areas dry (although a reduced irrigation system would also generally help there)  And, to some degree, spending the money up front reduces future capital and maintenance expenses and is a good investment.

I am not sure any designer is as responsible for that as is the generally rising tide of maintenance standards that golfers expect.

JB,
You are usually much more politically correct than myself....but this may get some supts and irritation designers on yo case....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Supers are in the same position as gca's in wanting to meet the maintenance demands of golfers.  All the irrigation guys I know are already on my case!

It willl be interesting, even if it is topic creep, to see if standards expectations really go down, or if we trying to find ways to raise standards without raising cost. I doubt we will go back to unraked bunkers any more than we will go back to driving Edsels, but time will tell if this economy really sends us back to a level of more reasonable maintenance expectations.

Of course, I say that knowing that we are all still overly focused on those big budget, big name courses. Certainly, my home club and most of the courses I play don't spend more than 500-600K on maintenance, save Cowboys Club which caters to a higher level of clientele. 

Despite all the talk about big budget courses here and most places, frugality and reasonable expectations (for some, starting and ending with somewhat green grass and very cold beer) is still the norm for Golf In America.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I've been trying to extend frugality and reasonable expectations to all of my courses, not just the lower-budget ones.  To that end, of the 12 things you listed as "expensive standards" [before the dreaded irrigation issues, which I've had the hardest time controlling costs on] -- I have only ever built USGA tees and [once or twice] sand capped approaches and installed bunker liners.

We were sand capping the fairways on our project in Bend, Oregon -- the first time I'd ever agreed it was necessary -- but they went broke before we finished!  We did not do it at Rock Creek or even at Stone Eagle [though many fairways at Stone Eagle needed some reprocessed soil crushed on-site].  And I'm famous for avoiding sub-air, learning centers, etc.  Plus, I noticed you didn't even include such things as wall-to-wall concrete paths, or a half-million dollars of catch basins and pipe, which you think are necessary but I never seem to need.

So, I do not agree with you that there's nothing on that list I wouldn't want to have.  Maybe there ARE sites that need all of them, but maybe that's a sign that you are treading on thin ice building a course on that site.  Nevertheless, it's the fact that such things have become considered "top of the line" instead of "over the top" that drove construction costs to the breaking point in the past 5-10 years. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I was pretty careful to note that most sites could use some of that, but I have never used most of those features anywhere, nor would I demand them anywhere.  I might suggest them as an upgrade if circumstances warrant, save for USGA tees and fw's which cannot possibly be justified under 99.9% of the cases.

I was actually thinking of you on those sand capped chipping areas, because the first I had ever heard of the idea was you writing about it here.

I didn't mention paths because for most they are a given and I didn't mention drainage because its so site specific.  At some point, I will try to do the cost/benfit analysis of $500K of cart path vs. 10 days of no play to see if paths can be reduced. However, whenever I have left them out of a design, they usually get added within the first year, so I haven't wasted the time on that one yet.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I wonder if taking care of top soil during construction will again matter. For the last few years it seems like sand plating everything became the norm...and sand plating is a huge, HUGE, expense...and IMO not needed nearly as often as it was being done. 

You can grow great turf in clay/loam if the soil is taken care of properly during construction and the proper amendments are added during pre-plant and maintenance. Sand is nice, but a pure sand site is so rare and you can grow good grass in most soils with rock, pure clay and silt clays being about the only thing needing any capping, IMO. There other considerations like water quality and maintenance budget, but all this sand capping business drove the cost of construction to obscene levels.




Irrigation costs are also out of control, but I think we are starting to see that change. I still think it's humorous when we hear irrigation professionals profess how much less water they can use by installing 3000 heads. If you’re going to use less water then why does the reservoir, pump station and mainline have to be so huge?
Hopefully those in the business are learning that if there is going to be any golf development it needs to be done in a practical manner. This idea of breaking the bank to build a golf course was insane, those doing it knew it was insane, but everyone was on the gravy train.
There is a project proposed in Texas right now where 6.6M has been allotted for the entire golf development…course, buildings, infra structure…all of it. That’s enough money, but I'm hearing firms are lobbying the owner to up the ante. We’ll see if they are smart enough to hire someone who actually has a history of bringing in quality projects for that amount of $$$.
I’m worried as I’ve been reading quotes about how there is no work and this is a great opportunity to bring in a “signature” architect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I bet a guy like you could grow bermuda even in pure clay if you have to.  I agree that in some way we need to reduce irrigation costs. Since its 35-33% of the budget, we can't control costs unless we control irrigation costs. I have no real problem with more heads putting out less water. For me, its the pump and pipe capacity to put out so much of it.  Mainlines coming out of the pump station used to be 10-12" and now they are always more than that.  It also seems that with flow manageres, there is no more 3" pipe at the end of loops, its now 6" so the computer can put the water out there anytime there is a lull in the watering cycle.

I fight that all the time.  In the old days we didn't design the system for ten record breaking hot days in a row and the owner accepted some risk to save money.

BTW, when you see what all that $6.6M is supposed to cover, it may be a little teeny for that project.  With a silt clay soil, there is much talk about needing to cap the site there, too.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Fair enough.

By the way, I do blame Jack Nicklaus as being partly responsible for this "feature creep" of construction standards.  You say that we are victims of golfers' expectations, but I don't think most golfers expected Tour conditions until Jack told them they should.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Yes, you can grow on some pure clay, but it is a challenge. That's when you guys need to get all the details right (drainage) and the soil really needs to be protected during construction. Start working clay when it’s wet and you squeeze the life right out of it and it can take a lot of work to get it back. (personal experience)
When I talk about capping I'm mainly referring to importing materials. If you have sand or loam deposits on site and you use that material I wouldn't consider that the kind of capping that is grossly expensive. It's when someone starts specifying capping sand and then you have to go find it...that's when it gets stupid. If we weren't driven by all this standardization then we might spend more time trying to make what we have work.  Those who take that approach have my respect. Anyone can cover their ass and spec something out of a book. I'll take an agronomist who can analyze what I have and help me devise a way to make it work over the expert who stubbornly sticks to his guns no matter the expense.
I think there are local materials near that site that can work if they need to plate a few spots.  It may be a tight budget, but what’s wrong with that? As long as they work with local labor and materials and try to keep it sensible I think they can do it provided they have very strong leadership.  I do think they will need to take a design/build sort of approach where the guys designing are also building. If one of the big builders ends up on site then I doubt they’ll  build it for what they are saying now.

[Tom_Doak]

One note about China:

From what I've seen, everybody there is sand-capping 100% of every golf course they build, trucking in the sand from as far away as necessary.  That can't be a good omen.  Luckily, the two projects I've looked at are sitting on sand already ... I guess I'd better hope they don't start selling the sand to other golf course developments.

[Jeff Dawson]

Gary S-   It's not sad.  I just play all my golf at inspiring places.  Life is too short to waste a round of golf on a course not worth remembering...

[Kevin Lynch]

Jeff:

Fair enough.

By the way, I do blame Jack Nicklaus as being partly responsible for this "feature creep" of construction standards.  You say that we are victims of golfers' expectations, but I don't think most golfers expected Tour conditions until Jack told them they should.

Tom,

Thanks for saying that.  If it matters at all to you, I'm one of those Golf Fanatics who could honestly give a d@mn about the conditioning of a course when I visit.  Obviously, I don't want a course with dandelions or one that hasn't seen a mower in weeks, but when I visit a new course, the conditioning is about 3rd or 4th on the list of things I notice.

When I ask my friends about a new course they’ve seen, if the first thing they say is “the conditions are immaculate”, my immediate reaction is that the course was uninspiring.  If conditioning is the first thing that enters your mind, the designer missed his mark.

If I were in the majority, maintenance budgets would probably plummet.  But thank you for your efforts in redirecting the focus away from such cosmetic issues, and towards more substantive design features.

[Rob Rigg]

Tom,

Why the sand capping at the site in Bend?

Just curious because the high desert, I thought, would have a decent base for a course - although there is a lot of rock.

I can't imagine that they sand capped Juniper which is just down the street or Brasada which is down the road the other direction (and an extremley sandy site).

[Sean_A]

Tom D

I always remember your comment about the courses in the UK making up the standard for the world to follow - or something to that effect.  Was part of that statement driven by relatively low level maintenance?  I ask because I never thought of many of these (particularly) English courses as being superior (with some very good exceptions) compared to the rank and file country club in the States.  Sure, the styles are often very different, which doesn't speak toward quality as much as it does preference.  To me, the main difference is usually cost, which often times has nothing to do with gca.  Its almost as if a cultural differences are really the difference with the American flash often seen as vulgar by the lighter touch Brits. Perhaps they are too far and few between, but I am discovering more and more (thanks to the good people on this site) old time courses (and a few modern ones) which are reasonably priced and at least from pix, look to be every bit as interesting as that Doaker 5 in England.  Is this the sort of model (either public or private), a modest affair (I am thinking of Aiken/Camden at the moment), but not without some pizazz, that developers should be looking to create?  Is a model such as this enough in demand from the public to encourage developers/archies to "make" it more in demand?

To answer the original question, I don't see why any model of design company can't design very good/excellent courses. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Why the sand capping at the site in Bend?

Just curious because the high desert, I thought, would have a decent base for a course - although there is a lot of rock.

I can't imagine that they sand capped Juniper which is just down the street or Brasada which is down the road the other direction (and an extremley sandy site).

Rob:

There is some sand on top at Wicked Pony, but in most places there's lava rock within a foot of the surface.  Occasionally it was 2-3 feet down.  We had to sand-cap.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D

I always remember your comment about the courses in the UK making up the standard for the world to follow - or something to that effect.  Was part of that statement driven by relatively low level maintenance?  I ask because I never thought of many of these (particularly) English courses as being superior (with some very good exceptions) compared to the rank and file country club in the States.  Sure, the styles are often very different, which doesn't speak toward quality as much as it does preference.  To me, the main difference is usually cost, which often times has nothing to do with gca.  Its almost as if a cultural differences are really the difference with the American flash often seen as vulgar by the lighter touch Brits. Perhaps they are too far and few between, but I am discovering more and more (thanks to the good people on this site) old time courses (and a few modern ones) which are reasonably priced and at least from pix, look to be every bit as interesting as that Doaker 5 in England.  Is this the sort of model (either public or private), a modest affair (I am thinking of Aiken/Camden at the moment), but not without some pizazz, that developers should be looking to create?  Is a model such as this enough in demand from the public to encourage developers/archies to "make" it more in demand?

To answer the original question, I don't see why any model of design company can't design very good/excellent courses. 

Ciao

Sean:

Yes, the reasonable level of maintenance on UK courses did have something to do with my statement.  But I was speaking of the architecture as well.  There are 5-6 times as many golf courses in the USA as in the UK ... so imagine comparing the 500th best course in the USA to the 100th best in the UK.  The only guaranteed result is that the American course will have 3x the maintenance staff of the British course.

[Carl Rogers]

Group,

A little O/T concerning climate and maintenance need ....

My impression is that for most of the UK & Ireland the cooler damper climate automatically requires less maintenance than almost anywhere in the USA where it is generally warmer with much larger temperature and rainfall swings.

My impression is that Australia is a much hotter and dryer.  Do they have this same irrigation preoccupation or do they just let the through the green areas bake out?

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

Water is a precious commodity in Australia and their course managers treat it with the respect it deserves.  Their budgets are not as low as the UK, because they have a 12-month golf season in Australia, but most of them are lean and mean by anyone's standard.

One of the best examples I know of right now for minimal maintenance is St. Andrews Beach.  While it was in receivership for 18 months, the bank barely put enough money into it to keep it going -- but by all accounts, the turf is in excellent shape, and they only needed to work on the bunkers and the greens to get it ready for reopening.

[Kyle Henderson]

As an example of how cheaply U.K. courses are maintained, I was told that Golspie has just 3 guys taking care of the entire property, and the place was in great shape. Sure, the turf wasn't perfectly homogenous and tiny flowers grew here and there, but the effect on one's score is negligable whereas the extra green fees necessary to eliminate these small "imperfections" would not be.

[Mac Plumart]

Kyle...

Wait a second.  Your telling me that those pictures you posted are from a course that has a maintence crew of 3?

How can that be?

Are the conditions simply that good that the grass/ground supports that "playable" of turf?  Is the crew simply that good?  What else could contribute to that good of a course (at least from looking at pictures) with such a limited crew?

[Brian Phillips]

Kyle...

Wait a second.  Your telling me that those pictures you posted are from a course that has a maintence crew of 3?

How can that be?

Are the conditions simply that good that the grass/ground supports that "playable" of turf?  Is the crew simply that good?  What else could contribute to that good of a course (at least from looking at pictures) with such a limited crew?

Mac,

You need a trip to the homeland to learn about real golf....   

[Mac Plumart]

Brian...

You are not kidding.  The more I read and interact on this site, the more amazed I am.

As I've said before, I am heading to St. Andrews in May of 2011.  I will begin the journey then, I suppose.  The rest of this year is jammed packed with great courses that I am sure I will learn from...but Kyle's post is a real eye opener.

Take care,
Mac

[Sean_A]

Tom D

I always remember your comment about the courses in the UK making up the standard for the world to follow - or something to that effect.  Was part of that statement driven by relatively low level maintenance?  I ask because I never thought of many of these (particularly) English courses as being superior (with some very good exceptions) compared to the rank and file country club in the States.  Sure, the styles are often very different, which doesn't speak toward quality as much as it does preference.  To me, the main difference is usually cost, which often times has nothing to do with gca.  Its almost as if a cultural differences are really the difference with the American flash often seen as vulgar by the lighter touch Brits. Perhaps they are too far and few between, but I am discovering more and more (thanks to the good people on this site) old time courses (and a few modern ones) which are reasonably priced and at least from pix, look to be every bit as interesting as that Doaker 5 in England.  Is this the sort of model (either public or private), a modest affair (I am thinking of Aiken/Camden at the moment), but not without some pizazz, that developers should be looking to create?  Is a model such as this enough in demand from the public to encourage developers/archies to "make" it more in demand?

To answer the original question, I don't see why any model of design company can't design very good/excellent courses.  

Ciao

Sean:

Yes, the reasonable level of maintenance on UK courses did have something to do with my statement.  But I was speaking of the architecture as well.  There are 5-6 times as many golf courses in the USA as in the UK ... so imagine comparing the 500th best course in the USA to the 100th best in the UK.  The only guaranteed result is that the American course will have 3x the maintenance staff of the British course.

Tom

When you put it that way I get yer drift.  Only I am not sure it is meaning to compare 100 to 500.  Though I can agree that the maintenance crew will nearly always be smaller in the UK.  

Mac

It is very possible to maintain a course with 3 full-time employees, though that will be difficult for a top 100 UK course.  Courses tend to be smaller over here and folks have MUCH lower standards about the edges, details and green speeds than in the States.  

Most members of American clubs would complain about flowers sprouting up here and there.


Or a bunker in this sort of condition.


Or rough looking like this.


Believe me, courses in the UK have been tarted up quite a bit this past few decades and that is no small part in the huge increase in member dues.  I am gonna guess dues have gone up at least 200% in 20 years for most clubs and I am not convinced we have a better product for it.    

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Lower standard over here, do you mind, they are The Standards, others want more then fine let them pay for it – lower standards over here.

I’ve booked you ticket back to the USA and four men in black will be round to collect you soon – be ready as the FO have decided apparently that you are Persona non grata

Melvyn

PS Persona non grata means I owe you a pint in broken Scottish (that’s English to you)