Matt:
To be more precise, it's "Golf where it's run by Americans is no longer sustainable as we know it." We are wrecking the economics of golf in other places as well.
It is probably not of interest to this group, but most design-build contracts for large projects still make the gca responsible for plans and specs to the same degree as design bid situation. The problem for gca's is that in reality, the contractor really sets the specs based on the owners budget, and we can often get into an uncomfortable "rubber stamp" situation, if we happen to disagree.
It is fortunate and rare for gca's like Coore and Crenshaw to be able to work in essence without contracts, budgets, etc. No doubt that helps them in creating great golf courses, but its not for everyone.
Jeff:
For the record, I'm working now with Bill Coore on a project where we'll do courses side by side. I can assure you that there is a budget / cost estimate and that we have put a fair amount of time into it. In fact, I've got to make a special trip in a couple of weeks to have meetings to finalize the budget [and to get my picture taken with Bill and Ben].
We do have some special clients and we work very hard trying to find them. But that doesn't mean we aren't very cost-conscious, as you seem to imply. In fact, if we ever laid out the total construction costs of all the new courses built over the past 20 years, I would be glad to wager a lot of money that our method has produced high quality results for equal or less money than the other courses in the same neighborhood or in the same class.
I am curious how you spec bunker sand in your contracts. In our world, we've got a cost estimate for it, but we get samples of the various sands early in construction and let the client choose what he likes best, weighing cost vs. quality. [I've gone that way because I've had a couple of clients who insisted on paying for bunker sand that I never would have chosen for them.] If you go with your "fixed price" method but then give clients the same option, is it really a fixed price method? Or don't the change orders blow that out of the window?
TD,
I didn't mean to imply you didn't worry about costs. I don't know exactly how you budget things, but as another example, I have seen some Fazio bid forms, and he actually does a fair amount of accurate quantity estimating before hand, despite not having hard finished plans to back those up.
I think the differences we are talking about is when the gca is control, vs the contractor being the lead dog. Many prefer the contractor to head up a project, since he has the financial resources, bonding, etc. It would be nice if ALL projects could be a handshake, but that doesn't always happen.
As to sand, I research the costs and options, and pick one for a base bid. If the Owner wants to change, he pays the difference the contractor would pay for materials. One thing I detest is gca's who don't specify a sand, and try to hang the contractor for $45 sand later on when they reasonably bid $20 sand. In any contract arrangement, transparency and specificity are pretty good things.
In the end, I find that in any contract arrangement, if the parties are all striving for the best value, there is a way to work it out. Change order, field order, informal horse trading, etc. A good gca keeps designing until the last seed is in the ground, with an eye towards quality and budget, in differing proportions, depending on the project, of course.
BTW,
the gca's I know working in China all say they are trying their hardest to keep the Chinese from making the same mistakes we did, like putting money into square mile clubhouses, but to no avail. In some ways, I think there is just a learning curve where a country new to golf just needs to find out for themselves what works and what doesn't. But it is true that China and most of the rest of the world has adopted the CCFAD model of the USA.
Mike,
In truth, golf has never been financially sustainable. The reason courses are built in housing is to get someone else to pay for them, since courses have rarely been able to cover more than operating costs and a smidge of profit. They have rarely been able to cover debt service on construction, although for a brief period in the 90's it appeared they coulc. If debt is $700K a year, then the rising costs of maintenance, say from $500K a year a decade ago to $700K now on average, then how we designed for maintenance isn't as much a problem as the original cost. And that cost was fueled by low interest rates, good times, etc., which probably artificially raised prices. And lower rates, golf course sales, etc. have started to bring debt numbers back in line.
Even some of the construction costs can be - or at least were - justified by long term savings. IF cart paths save 20 days or revenue a year at $3000 per day, then do they pay their share of debt? With money cheaper, did it make more sense to just spend up front rather than add later at twice the cost? IF USGA greens last longer and are easier to maintain, is it cheaper to add $70K in gravel costs than rebuld in ten years rather than 20? (A big IF I know) If more irrigation and sod and drainag got the course open six months earlier, did that extra cost pay off?
Not all increased spending is wasteful if you look at the long term costs, which I think many did. Of course, IMHO, that added $700K of the big name gca may have paid benefits for the first few years, but doesn't help as much as adding irrigation, sod, cart paths, etc. that would probably be added later at twice the cost.