Mac,
Well, obviously the bankers care about $20M here and there. But, I think that many high end courses have been financially successful, and many medium and low ends have gone bankrupt. Its a matter of building a course to fit the specific market and most, but not all courses should be moderately cost to build. But, its just not true that high budget courses lose their shirts every time.
Mike,
I suspect that we are starting to find out how some high end courses will look under less maintenance regimens! No doubt that nearly every course will be scrutinized for bunker reductions. I have been doing a lot of that on mid level courses the last few years....including some of my own where they were nice enough to ask me back to consult rather than just ripping them out. As in the 1930's, I think we can expect large bunker reductions, starting with the ones that get raked every day, but have no footprints! (ie don't see much play) and the ones that are just too hard to maintain.
I put the digital level on a bunker of Faz bunkers, and they have slopes of up to 67%, when we know sand won't hold up on more than 25% slopes typically (can vary with sand type, and liners of course) That is where Faz courses will change because many are built without regard to maintenance. In fact, many have already changed, flattened out.
I agreed with you on fw shaping for a long time. I recall once putting out a plan with notes all over it that I wanted a specific area of fw NOT to be touched. I got out there and the contractor informed me that most gca's shape everywhere, and it was easier for them just to strip the topsoil in anticipation of same. And, they had taken the first pass at shaping the fw based not on my plans, but their past work with me. I was angry.
Another contractor explained to me some time in the 90's that he figured his shapers would be on a project for six months, so shaping the fw, even if not on plan, really didn't cost him anything. Short version, the idea of preserving ground in the fw to save money really sort of went out the window. And fw shaping as you know often isn't all about effect, its about controlling off site water and a number of other things that requirements now demand, so shaping for artistic effect truly doesn't add to cost in many cases.
Lastly, if shaping truly doesn control long term drainage, it may really be quite cost effective in the long run in saving future drainage work, more days in play, etc. As I have said before, maybe the perfect mix of golf shaping is to shape the roughs to keep lots of drainage from crossing the fw, and then leaving the fw contours natural, and many gca's do just that.
Mac,
Back to you!! I would also remind this board once again that there are so many non golf costs associated with a project that saving even a million, believe it or not, probably doesn't affect the project budget as much as you might think. As I said to Mike above, that million probably equates to $85,000 a year in debt, or maybe $2-4 per round. While there are cases where that will make the difference in success, if the project is well designed, located, etc. and popular, it may not make a difference, because people expect to pay more for a new course than an old one.