News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2010, 03:36:30 PM »
I think that what ever you wish to call the last 25 years in golf design is over .   Yet I am still of the opinion that golf can sustain itself and courses can and will be built that work.  The problem I see from the last few years is one part...obviously the initial cost of construction and signature design fees.....but that is not what really got us in this mess as much as all of what golf was supposed to subsidize.  The devlopers got into a "weiner" (Southern term for tallywhacker) measuring contest to be a little bigger and better than the development down the road and created monsters....Clubhouses and other amenities will kill a golf development much more than the course itself....
IMHO there are courses out there right now.....that if someone gave it to you you would lose a couple of million a year in trying to maintain the clubhouse, dining, fitness and maintenance budget.....I think we will see a trend shortly of either closing parts of clubhouses, demolition etc and it may make some of the current courses viable.....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2010, 03:49:39 PM »
Pat,

I was trying for a new commission the other day and the discussion of the 7000 yard course came up.

In fact, there is about 1% demand for a golf course that plays over 7000 yards and in fact, that is kind of a no man's land anymore. If its not 6800 yards, it has to be 7,250 for the long ball hitters to be a distance challenge.

But many will argue that while we want to play 66-6800 yards (16%) or 63-6400 yards (57%) or less, that we don't consider a course worthy unless those back tees are back there.

I wonder how long that obsession will be there for 50 yards of real estate that hardly anyone uses or if we can just say we have enough of those and go back to building 6800 yard courses and saying "screw you" to those few who want longer courses and tell them to go play somewhere else?  Or, why should 99% of golfers pay to maintain about 7% of the course that is just a rumor to them anyway/

Jeff-

Thanks for the response.

Of course no one really needs a 7200 yard golf course and I agree with you that most golfers use the back tees as some sort of way to validate the course they are paying to play. I'm not saying that that is correct, but when a golfer is driving down the highway and sees a billboard for the new 7200 yard championship golf course that person is going to think "it can't be 7200 yards without being good!...plus it's championship? Sign me up!"  :)

It seems it's just flat out harder to market a new 6000-6400 yard golf course unless it's designed by a big name GCA or is built on fantastic property.

In terms of maintenence on the extra 50 yards of tees on each hole, wouldn't the GCA's time be better spent worrying about the rest of the hole to see where $ can be saved.
H.P.S.

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2010, 05:05:55 PM »
In fact, there is about 1% demand for a golf course that plays over 7000 yards

Sounds like National Golf Foundation study numbers, so it must be completely accurate.  ;)   But don't tell that to the guys I play with.  They like the option of having the additional length.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2010, 05:35:41 PM »
MB,

I forget where the stats come from but I think NGF actually says 3%. I ask the courses I have done with back tees and its usually about 1%, sometimes less.  At my course in Myrtle Beach the answer came back as "50". I said, "per year?" and they answered "since the course was open in 1994"

Its well known that a lot of this distance thing is driven by the better players who always seem to control things at clubs and whatever.  In some cases, it sounds like your buds might be ones I would be tempted to tell to play elsewhere.

Kelly,

Yeah, with natives and angles, etc. you could be maintaining only 500 SF more per hole.  There is still the construction costs of running the irrigation pipe, cart path, etc. that extra 50 yards per hole, depending on how it relates to the previous hole and the developer still has to give up a wider corridor than that as a safety margin.

Pat,

I actually see a trend to less male ego in that seniors actually revolt against the 6000 yard tees, while my dad would never have played under 6000.  Now, I hear that if there isn't a tee set at 5700 yds or so, senior men don't go play a course, realizing that its too long for them to play comfortably.

BTW, I think Fazio has done more 6800 yard courses than anyone, certainly less than the pro designers.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2010, 05:46:08 PM »
Jeff,
As long as you use the old "6 inch" rule when explaining measurements people will always consider the hole longer than it plays....
I have seen owners do whatever it takes ...from measuring from the very back of a tee to the very back of a green to get the 7000 yard number....guys have been lying about length for years..... ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2010, 06:29:41 PM »
Mike:

That is ANOTHER problem with the slope system ... before the course is even open, the state golf association comes in and rats you out on the true yardage.  :)

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2010, 08:29:58 PM »
I've read this thread and the Architect vs. Producer again and again as I find them both truly fascinating and interesting.  And I know that I am living in the theoretical/fantasy land on this one as I am not in the golf design business and, therefore, I don't have to operate where the rubber meets the road and actually put theory into practice and/or make money off these ideas.

However, after reading them I think Melvyn makes a lot of great points.  But then again, I am not sure he is "in the business" either...but I might be wrong on that.

Either way, I think he makes a lot of great points.

Also, he talks about feasibility studies being part of the architects role and a few people added on to that suggested conflicts of interest.  Furthermore, it is mentioned that if these studies were done then Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes wouldn't have been built as they would have failed the studies and been left on the cutting room floor.

But what I think it interesting/funny, is that I am really confident that I remember Tom Doak saying the only course he's done that failed the feasibility study was Pacific Dunes.  I also think he gave Mike Keiser kudos for moving forward on the projects depsite the results of the study.    But perhpas Tom can confirm or deny that.

So, is this age/era dead?  Probably.  But there are still areas available to make a solid business out of golf course designs, but I think some of the ideas presented in the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" might be the key to on-going success.

Great stuff guys!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2010, 08:48:19 PM »
Mac P. -

Do you really think that a GCA should be expected to have the knowledge & training to conduct a proper feasibility study of a golf course project? In addition to knowledge of soils, drainage, landscape design, agronomy, etc., do you think a GCA should have knowledge of population demographics, community planning & permitting processes, financing, project marketing, real estate trends, etc?

I would suggest that such expectations are absurd. What GCA in their right mind would assume the liability of producing a feasibilty study giving the "green light" for a project and then suffer possible damages should the project fail financially?

Any golf course developer/owner would be smart to gather information regarding the project's feasibility before embarking on a project to build a golf course, but a GCA should be the last person a developer should turn to for answers to those questions.

DT

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2010, 09:00:55 PM »
David...

No, I don't think that at all.  Did I say that?  If you got that impression that is just another poor job of typing/expressing my thoughts.  Sorry.

That is actually one of the points where I think Melvyn is off-base.  I tried to use the Bandon Dunes example in relation to the feasibility studies to show how wrong they can be.

Sorry for the confusion.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2010, 09:15:37 PM »
Mac P. -

Now I must apologize to you. I misread your post and assumed you were including GCA's doing feasibility studies among MHM's "great points."

DT

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2010, 09:31:32 PM »
Mac:

I probably did say that Mr. Keiser's was the only feasability study I knew of that said he should NOT build a course, but that was hyperbole on my part.  In fact, he didn't have a study done, because he was sure they would tell him NO, so why bother?


David T:

I don't think the companies that do feasibility studies offer any money-back guarantees -- if they do, they are running for the hills right now!  However, sometimes, the prospects for the course depend entirely on HOW GOOD it's going to be, and the architect is the only one who really has any idea of that.  For example, I told the owners of both Barnbougle and Ballyneal that those projects would probably fail unless we could build one of the top 100 courses in the world there, and I thought that we could.  It's still not a guarantee that they would succeed, but an honest evaluation of the possibilities is an important part of the process.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2010, 09:32:27 PM »
David...

No need to apologize, you were not rude or attacking me at all...you just asked questions and brought up solid points to debate and quesitons.  However, your class is appreciated and respected.

Here are a couple Melvyn snippets that I think are solid...

"If we are not improving or going off track, then that is the time to address the position and to get back to core values."

"Perhaps a little responsibility rests on the shoulders of the designers, for (a) taken the job in the first place (b) for not achieving the desired affect or thrill (c) producing a lack luster uninspiring design on a questionable site (d) not understand the location and its attraction for the local and visitors alike. "

He has more, but some of them are implicit in his core values/old school mentality on what golf is all about and how that is (or is not) being carried out today.


But again, I stress that I am not in the golf business and my views might be too "Ivory Tower" and theoretical for the real world.

EDIT...Tom D was posting as I was.  His comments regarding his views and point to the developers on Ballyneal and Barnbougle fit in precisely with some of Melvyn points.  Interesting.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 09:36:59 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2010, 07:38:25 AM »
Mac

Interesting comments about feasability studies for golf courses which raises the question with me of what do you want from a feasability study and who should be involved in preparing it. Not being in the business and therefore having never been involved in producing a feasability study I don't rightly know the answer but I would suppose it would consist of the following;

Business Model - the basic economics of seeing that the project is financially viable. That would have to be a bean counter with perhaps input from gca.

Design input - at the concept stage I presume that the gca would advise on whether the type of course that is envisaged could be built given the site constraints etc. Hand in hand with this would be an environmental/landscape report.

Environmental/landscape - would the gca oversee this ? I'd be interested to hear. I'm assuming this would involve bore holes, soil tests, wild life surveys etc.

Planning/Zoning advice - again would the gca have the competence to deal with this particularly if the gca is working abroad in an unfamiliar country. Should the developer get local advice ?

I'd be interested to hear comments from those involved in the process.

Niall   

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2010, 08:31:30 AM »
As a longtime cynic of feasibility studies....I would agree with TD statement regarding Mike Keiser and his study.  
1. Most guys know if it makes sense in their gut....
2. The guys that have the cash to pay for a project are not that concerned with the study.
3.  The guys that wish to borrow the funding for a project and have no personal recourse are concerned that the study show enough upside that they can get the financing.
4.  the guys that wish to borrow and have to sign personally want to make sure that the feasibility study show enough upside that they can draw down on items early in the job and hide it so that when everything blows they have a stash and can do the same again somewhere else.
5.  Many ( not all) of the feasibility studies were "fill-in-the blank"  all had 40,000 possible rounds and all had a radius that needed players and all those radiuses had a specific income group that could afford which ever type of project was desired by the client.
6.  Most lenders I have seen had a list of feasibility/appraiser guys that they approved BUT were HIRED by the developer and they knew how to make the study work because at the time both the bank and the developer wanted the project to go....( a fox and henhouse scenario)so many bankers were on commission and it also meant construction loans on houses, lot loans, and mortgages....AND there was no concern as to whether it was accurate or not...IT WAS NEEDED FOR THE FILE...
A possible solution....lender hires three studies that are done by  groups unknown to the developer.

THINK ABOUT SOMETHING.....the line item called "Development fees"  The signature designers made small money on many of these projects......there were development fees in many of these projects in the millions that were pulled out almost immediately saying they were to replace cost to get the project to a specific point....more than a few $20 million golf courses had a #5 mill to 7 mill development soft cost fees that were never mentioned....
Sorry to be so cynical but a lot of clowns were able to make millions on some of these deals before a shovel was turned....and they could tell their buddies they went hunting with Jack, fishing with Arnie, hung out on the boat with Greg or smoked weed with Donald Ross....A gilded age...yep....
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 08:35:33 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2010, 08:47:05 AM »
I guess for those who want to go the feasability route at least now I would guess they would be much more realistic and conservative, as all real-estate related appraisals are now post-bubble.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2010, 08:56:33 AM »
I can only recall one feasibility consultant ever being sued for a course failure, but I don't know the result of that lawsuit.  Despite all the disclaimers, I think we will see a few more which is generally a shame.

I do know a few that say whatever you want.  But as TD says, most are done presuming the course will be "average" to its competitors and a very very good course will probably do okay and a poor one that isn't a "better mousetrap" to what exists in a market may never make it.  The feasibility guys have no control over management, marketing, design, service, etc. all of which can make the difference.

And MYoung is right - so many of these projects on the muni side got fee'd to death by the bond house, the development company, etc.  They often left too little to build the kind of golf course that needed to be built to be a better mousetrap, but they got theirs. 

Not to mention that most feasibility studies are done a few years in advance of the project and the cost estimates never seem to account for inflation.  At 3% over 3 years, the budget numbers for the golf course are nearly always 10% or more short on dollars.  Then, the operating proformas don't figure in enough capital improvements to overcome original construction deficiencies since its a new course and the operator just can't figure out why they can't make money.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2010, 09:05:23 AM »
from Jeff B

Not to mention that most feasibility studies are done a few years in advance of the project and the cost estimates never seem to account for inflation.  At 3% over 3 years, the budget numbers for the golf course are nearly always 10% or more short on dollars.  Then, the operating proformas don't figure in enough capital improvements to overcome original construction deficiencies since its a new course and the operator just can't figure out why they can't make money.


[/quote]

Wow! these type of calculations would seem like feasability 101!
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 09:07:07 AM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2010, 09:10:19 AM »

David

I quite agree with you that it is absurd, by that I mean to go into a project blind without checking, is just asking for trouble. Clearly you and many others did did not read my post as you would have noted I used the word feasibility check and nowhere did I mention a full scale survey. Tom equated to the designer’s ability to judge a site and it potential which I would put down to his knowledge and experience.

Absurd is in fact making statements without reading previous posts on the subject. It’s becoming a regular occurrence on this site, which is in fact not just absurd, it’s bloody ignorant and these uninformed opinions can cause a least frustration and in some cases hurt to the individual.

My own commercial decisions in the past have been based upon years of being actively involved in my industry and we always checking prior to proceeding with entering a bid. Nothing absurd in trying to protect your company and employees, but of course you did not seem to understand my meaning, you like others of late jump in without reading the topic. I am not certain if you were just making a point or were indeed being rather insulting by using words like absurd.

Tell me David how does that make for a good discussion, it does not, it either kills the post forcing some to consider withdrawing from the topic or some will come out fighting. Whatever happened to consideration and courtesy to others? After all that Pat Craig has said about me, I still have not reacted in an aggressive manner, I have tried to conduct my replies in a calm way adding a touch of humour.

People moan on here about antics of others yet say very little to the likes of Pat or others, showing a total inconsistence and hypocrisy which is starting to become the norm for GCA.com. My understanding is that this is meant to be a discussion group and words like absurd, while mild compared to others comments is not conducive for a good discussion.

If I have upset you, please IM me and point out the statement that concerns you, I will explain or apologise as I do not seek confrontation, that I leave to others more skilled than myself.

Back to the topic, comments alone the line of ‘I needed the work’; ‘I had to keep the family fed’; or like a soldier, who was ‘just following orders’ are just excuses.  If one agrees to do the project you have a responsibility like it or not. The only out is if you confirm to the Client in writing that you advise or recommend this or that and if he ignores your advice then you will not be held accountable or responsible.

I have been trying to say that good modern course and there are quite a few around (which I have never denied) should be acknowledged and designers given credit for them. Yet I am also saying that there are some terrible courses out there built as an afterthought and are I suppose a compromise offering very little in the way of normal golf. Not knowing the American courses I have never listed or run down any course (ever), I have been against non walking courses and all forms of distance aids as I feel that they detract from the pleasure that golf can offer the walking golfer.  Back to bad or poor courses, has there ever been a list or notice of these courses published on GCA.com explaining why they are on the list. I feel that would be far more appropriate than listing the top 10, 20 or 100 course. The old ‘name and shame’ sometimes pushes course to improve yet if the initial site and design are compromised what they can really do to improve their image. IMHO that would be far more productive, in trying to assist and suggest ways forward instead of listing the best each time.

I hope that you now understand my comment and that you feel it no longer warrants being called absurd.

Melvyn


Scott Weersing

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2010, 09:18:30 AM »
It seems like this discussion went from what to name this age and it characteristics to one about feasibility  studies.

The problem with a feasibility study is that it is just a prediction based on some data. There was a study for Glenn Annie GC that showed that the course would be able to make up its investment. The data was flawed and so the course has struggled.

Opening a new golf course is just as risky as opening any other type of new business. You can collect all the data you want, but it still takes an owner to decide to build and open the business. Sometimes, if you build it, they will come, and other times, you can build it and they will not come.


PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2010, 09:39:08 AM »
Tell me David how does that make for a good discussion, it does not, it either kills the post forcing some to consider withdrawing from the topic or some will come out fighting. Whatever happened to consideration and courtesy to others? After all that Pat Craig has said about me, I still have not reacted in an aggressive manner, I have tried to conduct my replies in a calm way adding a touch of humour.

People moan on here about antics of others yet say very little to the likes of Pat or others, showing a total inconsistence and hypocrisy which is starting to become the norm for GCA.com. My understanding is that this is meant to be a discussion group and words like absurd, while mild compared to others comments is not conducive for a good discussion.

It's absurd that you are even bringing me into your "discussion" considering my posts on this thread had absolutley nothing to do with you and everything to do with the topic at hand. Starting to ramble a little bit huh Melvyn?

Want to talk about "venom" and "bile?" Read back through this thread Melvyn and ask yourself what you have added to the topic at hand other than your predictable diatribe.   
H.P.S.

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2010, 09:40:55 AM »
Isn't 'gilded' such a good choice of word!

dictionary.com definition:
"something used to create a deceptively pleasing, impressive, or alluring aspect or character."

The old 'whipped cream on a turd/lipstick on a pig' analogy. Maybe one good thing to come out of the recession will be a better understanding of what minimalism actually is.

FBD.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2010, 09:49:29 AM »

Good Morning Pat

I hope you feel well and are enjoying the pleasure of being alive. There you see a very worth while contribution to this topic.

Melvyn

TEPaul

Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2010, 09:51:04 AM »
"That is ANOTHER problem with the slope system ... before the course is even open, the state golf association comes in and rats you out on the true yardage.   ;)"


TomD:

Are you aware of a state golf association that has actually come in and rated a course before it has opened for play? If so, I think that is a truly foolish thing for a golf association's rating team to do. But even if all of them refused to do that (via some kind of policy or procedure rules for rating) I'm sure a client or architect or developer could basically figure out fairly accurately what any golf course would "rate" at since something like 85% of a golf course's "course rating" is reliant on just distance (even though most raters I know seem to not be willing to specifically admit that  ::)). However, a course's "course rating" is definitely not the same thing as a course's "slope rating" (even though "slope" is calculated from the difference between "scratch rating" and "bogey rating").

Personally, I think one could make a pretty good case that an "ideal" golf course (at least in theory) is one with a high "course rating" and a relatively low "slope rating."

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2010, 09:55:11 AM »

Good Morning Pat

I hope you feel well and are enjoying the pleasure of being alive. There you see a very worth while contribution to this topic.

Melvyn




I'll respond with one of your own posts.



I love the way you can clearly address the issue 'Face On'. You are not a failure if you have no opinion or are unable to voice one.

Say what you mean, be honest with all, including yourself instead of these little side swipes.

Have a nice day

Melvyn
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 10:03:22 AM by Pat Craig »
H.P.S.

TEPaul

Re: The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2010, 09:59:10 AM »
"The old 'whipped cream on a turd/lipstick on a pig' analogy."


Marty:

For no particular reason at all I'm going to ask you to go with one of those analogies but not both. So, which will it be? What do you think is more apropos-----"whipped cream on a turd" OR "lipstick on a pig?"

 ;)


Pat Craig:

As you know, I've been watching this website and contributing to it ;) for an awfully long time and it seems to me there have been no more than a handful of people on the history of this site that somehow seem to devolve every thread they participate on down to bickering and adverserialness. And I would also say you ain't one of them.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 10:07:37 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back