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.


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #200 on: February 19, 2012, 04:57:27 PM »
Rachel Maddow says it better than I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjcNjTRg7wc

This is an interesting history of the Gateway Arch.  It was built at a current estimated cost of $90 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Arch

I have also been a beneficiary of a river walk built at great expense to my community. It charges no fees and serves a large percentage of people living outside the paying tax body.  I can see it from my house and drive the length of it everyday.  I walk on it one day out of one hundred.  It gives me great pride and is worth every penny.

Eric Olsen

Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2012, 05:13:49 PM »
Tom Doak's lament is very wise and insightful.   I have worked in public policy for over 25 years, in governmental, corporate, and nonprofit capacities..  Politics and government are fundamentally questions about our values, about who we are as people, and how do we want to live together.  what's the role and responsibility of individuals, the private sector, civil society, and government?  I never engage in political conversations here, but Tom is spot on here....


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2012, 05:39:21 PM »
Tom, you touched on the key issue, though I take a different view of it.  If a public course does not pay its way, the people must subsidize it.  Whether or not they want to, they are paying so a small (probably tiny) percentage of people can enjoy themselves.  It's not clear to me why others should be forced to pay for your or my pastime.   

...

What this ignores is that hundreds, if not into the thousands, use Chambers Bay on a daily basis. On one pass through the area on the way to Sagebrush with a friend, I drove by to show him Chambers Bay. During the short time we were there I am sure there were at least 200 people using the adjacent areas and walking trail through the course. How many courses have hiking trails through them complete with public restrooms? They got much more than just a golf course when they built Chambers Bay.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2012, 05:41:41 PM »
Having worked with maintenance budgets for a my club in the ATL, I'm still trying to figure out CB's budget is 2.5MM per. In an area with low salaries, utilities, and little need to buy extra water, I don't get it. I would love to hear what I am missing.

I too agree with TD's comments above. A group of us have tried over the last several years to upgrade public courses in ATL, including my beloved North Fulton. I note that public golf is revenue neutral for the city. It has been a sobering experience. The only party that does not seem to be represented at the table is the public golfer.

Bob

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2012, 06:56:12 PM »
Getting behind muni courses and getting behind munis which cost 20 million are entirely different issues.  Even as a golfer I would be pissed off if my local politicians proposed a scheme like this.  It is incomprehensible to me how anybody could attempt to justify this public spend.   So far as I am concerned, it is just another bad rap the game suffers because of short sighted fools.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2012, 07:09:46 PM »
Getting behind muni courses and getting behind munis which cost 20 million are entirely different issues. 

Sean:

Agreed.  The cost of many municipal projects just boggles my mind.  Remember the muni in the Palm Springs area which was built to host the annual Tour event there [for a year or two]?  I think that one cost twice as much as Chambers Bay.  Heck, I think the City of San Francisco spent close to $21 million just to RENOVATE Harding Park [and host a tournament for a couple of years].  Hmmm ... I guess there are two things those projects all have in common.  But at least people in Tacoma got a good golf course out of the deal. 

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #206 on: February 19, 2012, 07:11:17 PM »
Interesting quote from JK's wikipedia link on the St. Louis arch:

"The project did not provide 5,000 jobs as expected—as of June 1964, workers numbered fewer than 100. The project did, however, incite other riverfront restoration efforts, totaling $150 million. Building projects included a 55,000-seat sports stadium, a 400-unit motel, a 24-story hotel, four parking garages, and an apartment complex.[16] The idea of a Disneyland amusement park that included "synthetic riverboat attractions" was considered but later deserted.[62][63] The developers hoped to use the arch as a commercial catalyst, attracting visitors who would use their services.[16] One estimate found that since the 1960s, the arch has incited almost $503,000,000 worth of construction.[64]"

The arch was certainly a catalyst for the riverfront revival that has taken place in St. Louis, and it could be argued the resulting development has saved the downtown area from turning into a ghost town.

At Chambers, I'm not sure what other uses they could have found for the land in the shape it was in.  Much like the Harborside project in Chicago, a golf course was probably one of a few solutions that would work.  

That being said, I'm still not sure the scope of the project that came about was justified.  Time will tell.  I have no idea how much of the $21 million was necessary just to make the land usable, or if the bulk of the costs were the result of the type of course they tried to build.  

Garland makes a good point about the public park nature of Chambers.  I think that would have existed if they'd built a course without the aspirations of hosting a major, one designed to be sustainable on a smaller budget.  

After my earlier posts today I went back and read a good number of the comments from the beginning of this thread.  While realizing we were rehashing a lot of the same arguments made last year, I did find one gem that stood out.  Someone made the comment that the Chambers project was based on the Bethpage model.  Other than the fact that both complexes were intended to be municipal courses, I don't see how the similarities of the end result at Chambers and what exists at Bethpage run that deep.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #207 on: February 19, 2012, 07:42:24 PM »
I think they need to spend another $50-100mm to build another course and first class amenities to compete with Bandon...   ;D
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

Howard Riefs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #208 on: February 19, 2012, 09:45:25 PM »

Anybody still think it is possible for it to lose the us open?

The blue blazers in Far Hills can't be confident in CB/Pierce County's finances. It certainly scares most of us.

It's 3+ years until the 2015 US Open. Is the USGA past the point of no return that it keeps the tournament at Chambers Bay?

And to simply speculate: is it beyond reason that the USGA asks Torrey steps in, thereby keeping the tournament on the west coast and at at a muni?
"Golf combines two favorite American pastimes: Taking long walks and hitting things with a stick."  ~P.J. O'Rourke

Matthew Sander

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #209 on: February 19, 2012, 10:15:54 PM »

The blue blazers in Far Hills can't be confident in CB/Pierce County's finances. It certainly scares most of us.

It's 3+ years until the 2015 US Open. Is the USGA past the point of no return that it keeps the tournament at Chambers Bay?

And to simply speculate: is it beyond reason that the USGA asks Torrey steps in, thereby keeping the tournament on the west coast and at at a muni?

As you mention Howard, it is three years away, and things can happen or turn in that time. However, the financial figures mentioned here are awfully bleak. Regardless, if their financial situation continues on this trajectory, it will be awfully difficult for the USGA to spin the Chambers US Open as a public (municipal) golf triumph...

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #210 on: February 19, 2012, 10:34:48 PM »
I don't know how you glass half empty people ever make a putt. Check out the Pierce County Parks website: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/parks/parks.htm We should all be so lucky.

Jason Walker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #211 on: February 19, 2012, 10:45:39 PM »
BCrosby-

If there's anything you guys down there can do about North Fulton (Chastain) or Bobby Jones, God bless you!

I left ATL in '95 post UGA graduation and have been up north ever since....but wow, if you have even the slightest amount of vision, what could become of those two properties.  I can only imagine the municipal garbage...

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #212 on: February 19, 2012, 11:10:39 PM »
I find myself strangely fascinated by the saga of a municipal golf course on the other side of the world which I have never seen and almost certainly never will, but here are my musings anyway;

Reading between the lines, it would seem that the bulk of the '$21m' figure continually bandied about was for cleaning up a derelict industrial site - money that the county would ultimately have had to spend anyway. Further inroads into the '$21m' have been made by developing the rest of the site into a general recreation area for the benefit of the whole community.

Building what looks like a very nice golf course cost only a portion of the $21m - for the sake of argument let's say $5m. Why then is the income from golfing activities expected to service the entire debt of $21m, and its inevitable failure to do so seen as evidence of the failure of the entire golf course scheme? I smell political shenanigins, maneouvering, and blame-shifting...

It seems clear to me that the big 'mistake' here was in the kind of golf course developed; a muni should surely be intended for the benefit and use of local people, not a "look at the size of my dick" exercise for egotistical local politicians seeking to attract wealthy tourists and the US Open to their godforsaken backwater?

I guess though, that only history will decide whether Chambers Bay is a white elephant.  Municipal vanity projects can sometimes turn ino far-sighted visions once 50 years have passed and everyone has forgotton about the money!

« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 11:29:05 PM by Duncan Cheslett »

Will MacEwen

Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #213 on: February 19, 2012, 11:24:30 PM »
Tom, you touched on the key issue, though I take a different view of it.  If a public course does not pay its way, the people must subsidize it.  Whether or not they want to, they are paying so a small (probably tiny) percentage of people can enjoy themselves.  It's not clear to me why others should be forced to pay for your or my pastime.   

...

What this ignores is that hundreds, if not into the thousands, use Chambers Bay on a daily basis. On one pass through the area on the way to Sagebrush with a friend, I drove by to show him Chambers Bay. During the short time we were there I am sure there were at least 200 people using the adjacent areas and walking trail through the course. How many courses have hiking trails through them complete with public restrooms? They got much more than just a golf course when they built Chambers Bay.


That seems like an expensive way to get some walking trails and public johns.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #214 on: February 19, 2012, 11:27:17 PM »
Tom Doak's lament is very wise and insightful.   I have worked in public policy for over 25 years, in governmental, corporate, and nonprofit capacities..  Politics and government are fundamentally questions about our values, about who we are as people, and how do we want to live together.  what's the role and responsibility of individuals, the private sector, civil society, and government?  I never engage in political conversations here, but Tom is spot on here....



Sorry, but you and Tom are wrong if you think the way to build community is by making collective decisions about how to spend other people's money. And there's no one I respect more on here than Tom, so it's tough for me to say that.

I'll leave it at that; I won't be sleeping well tonight and I won't sleep at all if I say more.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #215 on: December 10, 2013, 04:36:39 PM »
Update:
The profit of holding a US Open is finally coming to fruition.
"Golf course sees revenue jump 24% on more rounds, merchandise sold"

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/12/08/2937195/chambers-bay-on-track-for-best.html

Also... Some rumors about the US Open:
-Major disruptions range from March-July 2015
-No clubhouse planned (at many tournaments, temporary tents are used. USGA and players experience the problem all the time)
-no cruise ship for additional lodging, etc.
-trains and ferries are not ruled out for transportation
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 04:51:50 PM by Matthew Essig »
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Josh Bills

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #216 on: December 10, 2013, 08:03:31 PM »
Having recently finished Brad Klein's Wide Open Fairways appears his community was able to create a course that while not pleasing everyone, at least they took all measures to try and make it a place for the benefit of all.  They never aspired to host an Open or PGA event but to help provide a place for the community to enjoy. The community voted on the issue and while I don't live there they definitely saw the value in it.  That seems like a much more sound and sustainable model to me.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #217 on: December 10, 2013, 09:29:09 PM »
 ??? ??? ???

$21,000,000  yikes .....I knew it was expensive but 21m.  Was it a brownfield reclamation ???

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #218 on: December 11, 2013, 04:00:00 PM »
Archie,

It was a mine reclamation. I understand they screened debris out of every bit of the "soil" (mostly pure sand) of the course by digging it up, hauling it to the screener, and then hauling it back.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #219 on: December 11, 2013, 04:03:42 PM »
I'm not surprised to see their financials are a lot better. Summer 2012 was able to essentially have the course to myself after 3 pm. Summer 2013 I was not able to even get on the course as a single after 3 pm unless I waited for a time so late you wouldn't finish before dark.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #220 on: December 12, 2013, 05:25:45 AM »
I liked this comment under the article:

"After the Open they need to put in carts and paths. The average golfer has a hard enough time walking this course and it takes away from the fun because of exhaustion. I have played it once and could barley walk when I got home and I always walk when I play. I won't pay that much to get beat up again. Too bad, its a great course."

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #221 on: March 11, 2016, 01:33:13 PM »
...
Garland makes a good point about the public park nature of Chambers.  I think that would have existed if they'd built a course without the aspirations of hosting a major, one designed to be sustainable on a smaller budget. 
...


I was searching golf course construction costs today, and this was one of the posts that I came across.


I believe that had the architects given Pierce County what they asked for, there would not have been the public park, i.e., the walking trail through the course. Pierce County wanted 36 holes. RTJ II convinced them to take a larger body of land for one major hosting course. That opened up the land for walking path through the course, and additional land left for parkland.


How much the two courses would cost depends on how much reclamation they decided to do for them. If they reclaimed the land as thoroughly as RTJ II had, they probably would have spent over $30 million for the two courses. In a sense, the high cost was not determined by effort to make it major championship capable other than the increased length needed.


It would be interesting to see how they are doing financially now that the Open is history. Anyone have numbers?

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #222 on: March 11, 2016, 01:36:23 PM »
I liked this comment under the article:

"After the Open they need to put in carts and paths. The average golfer has a hard enough time walking this course and it takes away from the fun because of exhaustion. I have played it once and could barley walk when I got home and I always walk when I play. I won't pay that much to get beat up again. Too bad, its a great course."

Ulrich


Ulrich, you have to take such statements with a grain of salt. All I can say is that one clinically obese golfer, and one morbidly obese golfer held a grudge match on the course that is documented on this website. The morbidly obese golfer made no such complaints, and the clinically obese golfer went out and played a second 18.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Chambers Bay Struggling Financially
« Reply #223 on: March 11, 2016, 08:18:16 PM »
...
Garland makes a good point about the public park nature of Chambers.  I think that would have existed if they'd built a course without the aspirations of hosting a major, one designed to be sustainable on a smaller budget. 
...


I was searching golf course construction costs today, and this was one of the posts that I came across.


I believe that had the architects given Pierce County what they asked for, there would not have been the public park, i.e., the walking trail through the course. Pierce County wanted 36 holes. RTJ II convinced them to take a larger body of land for one major hosting course. That opened up the land for walking path through the course, and additional land left for parkland.


How much the two courses would cost depends on how much reclamation they decided to do for them. If they reclaimed the land as thoroughly as RTJ II had, they probably would have spent over $30 million for the two courses. In a sense, the high cost was not determined by effort to make it major championship capable other than the increased length needed.


It would be interesting to see how they are doing financially now that the Open is history. Anyone have numbers?


Actually, IIRC, the RFP for Chambers Bay was to design 27 holes.  Which was stupid ... 27-hole facilities are almost barred from consideration as great courses, unless you build a "big" 18-hole course and a totally separate, shorter, nine holes.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”