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.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Business and Golf Course Architecture
« on: August 01, 2011, 08:09:10 PM »
I've been doing some thinking, reading, and observing.  And I have a question.

Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?

I personally think that answer is "Yes" as most owners are concerned with creating thriving business enterprises rather than epic golf courses worthy of critical acclaim.  And given this, most golf course architects are concerned with getting a job, that is giving the owner what they want, versus creating the perfect golf course.

If this is the case, is it possible to do both on a consistent basis?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2011, 08:50:03 PM »
There are no perfect golf courses and every golf course is perfect depending on how you want to look at it. I know what you´re trying to say and a few have taken the road you have described with recent success but they found a niche in the road less traveled. Will it last and how big is that market...??? IMHO it is a limited market. I think we have entered an era with few new courses and an overall increase in quality in relation to any era in the past. There is some incredible work being turned out around the globe and its not just by two persons that this site worships. Sure, there is a lot of lower quality stuff and mixed stuff in between but there are markets and demands for those products too. You have to understand not everybody likes links, firm and fast, rocket speed greens, foot and half rough three feet off the fairway or around a green, deep punishing bunkers, rolly pollly fairways, ect! These courses are works of art and wonderful test of golf but not eveybody´s cup of tea. So I see a continual increase in quality with more attention to strategy and more and more amazing artistic elements implemented and this will be attributed to an increase in overall competition amongst architects for the few projects coming on line.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2011, 09:42:15 PM »
I think we have entered an era with few new courses and an overall increase in quality in relation to any era in the past.

Randy, I think and hope you are correct.  But perhaps the issue is what consitutes an "an increase in quality"?  Can we firmly turn the corner on green means good, lush means good, etc?  God, I hope so!

What would happen if the golfing powers that be started to build architecturally significant courses in place of your average standard run of the mill country club courses.  That is what if the average golfer got a steady diet of courses built on solid architectural principles like:  The National Golf Links of America, Ballyneal, Pinehurst #2, and The Old Course are. 

Would that mean more golfers or less?  Would that make for a more healthy industry or less?  Or do the courses we lust for on this site appeal to a much smaller niche than the niche sport of golf itself?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2011, 10:24:28 PM »
The industry to remain healthy will need a steady supply of new golfers and it is for this reason that the variety will continue to be iimportant and the golfing experience must remain fun for a large percentage.
Hopefully, we are leaving or have left an era where a large amount of golf courses are concieved out of the demand for an extension of one lawns with a little art and eye candy thrown in(and lots of sexy water too). We live in the information age, I expect the developers will be more educated and hire architects who can give you can give the art and a unforgetable quality golfing experience. Archtiects are getting better and better in this information age and this site is a directly related to that fact. John Q Public will gradually become more educated and demand a better product as they come to understand what is a quality product and hopefully that will start to drive the market more than a big name. I don´t see the big names disappearing, they will evolve also as they have been and begin to produce better products and most likely for more reasonable fees.

 

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2011, 11:21:22 PM »
If this is the case, is it possible to do both on a consistent basis?

Yes.

Some architects are better than others.
Same with clients.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2011, 04:55:06 AM »

Mac

I think you are making a very good point although ‘stunted the growth of quality in GCA’ is not quite the direction I would concentrate upon.

I would look to the modern trend or compulsion to over engineer our golf courses, which bears little reflection upon the design but does cast a long financial shadow over the viability of the course.

We have taken Nature and decided that we need to improve her. First by stripping back the very thing that attracted us to the site, then once we have resolved the substructure to our likings or needs, we start to remould the course into a faux reflection of Nature. The over engineering I mentioned earlier has now become part of the construction process to the effect that it allows what I call terraforming, creating an unrealistic landscape for the sake of what, a business plan. Yet just look to the after sales maintenance programmes and financial burden the construction has imposed on the club or owner irrespective of the quality of the GCA

Admittedly, the modern construction methods allows for terraforming, but that IMHO is required due to poor selection of site for a course. And here is where I seem to part company with many on GCA.com as I sincerely believe that land ‘Fit for Purpose’ is a paramount requirement for quality design otherwise you burden the club financially. Selection is still as important as it was 150 years ago. However the access to funds with modern construction methods and equipment has duplicated that old TV show The Six MILLION Dollar Man in that ‘we have the technology and therefore we can rebuild him’ better than Natures original form. But can we, do we or are we scratching an imaginary itch.

Because we have (or had) the financial resources and the construction equipment, does that give us the right to build GOLF courses on alien sites. My view is simply no, we must build courses in the correct sites and location with maintenance cost being well and truly controlled and not left as a potential open sore that will just keep on festering if not bathed in money on a very regular basis.

Quality design, I believe needs the correct canvas to work its magic, yet the thought of destroying that which initially attracted one to the site, just to gives you a bland canvas is close to madness and just squanders money. Is this the true legacy of Allan Robertson and Old Tom? 

So to Mac’s question “Has commercial interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?” the answer must be yes otherwise why would we build course in this way by destroying that which we found in the first place.

Yes to are we over engineered course,  yes to bloody expensive courses, yes to restrictive design, not due to the land as it is now a blank canvas but due to the commercial interests of the club/owner. 

As for using the excuse that we need the business as it puts food on the table, that’s totally irrelevant and IMHO does not justify building some of these courses on the sites chosen. If all that drives designer these day is to feed the family then quality may well be compromised and again Mac has rightly raised the question “Has commercial interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?”  Again the answer must be a Yes.   

The modern world does not have all the answers; we need to understand our heritage as people with more intelligence have already walked the Earth well before our conception.

Melvyn


Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2011, 06:40:48 AM »
Dear Melvyn

How I wish we practised in the idealogical world you advocate!  There is nothing you write that I can intrinsically disagree with, except for the fact that we do not have free reign to choose magical sites.  Very often, as is the case with the site I am looking at today, the proposed site is the one owned by the developer.  Very often, that site has little to commend it as a 'natural' golf course site, which is where our skill as a golf course architect comes into play.  We have to take something that isn't intrinsically 'fit for purpose' and endeavour to make it so.  That is just the REAL WORLD, I'm afraid to say.

Commercially viable golf courses need chimney pots within the horizon line and it is just not the case that one can bank on finding a fantastic golf course site in a location close to centres of population.  I'd love to be in the financial position to turn down work until a dream site comes along, but if I did that, I would have to move my family out of our 3-bed semi-detached house and find a cave to live in, which, to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, is where the human race should reside anyway!  That doesn't make me a bad architect, or a design whore.  Just a realist.  As a species we have had to adapt to living in less than ideal locations and environments and hence have developed an approach to living and construction techniques to suit.  Golf is no different and for us to take the game within reach of those not fortunate enough to live adjacent to linksland, we have to adapt our skills to suit the terrain and soils at our disposal.   

Oh, and to answer Mac's original question, YES.
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Carl Rogers

Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2011, 07:46:31 AM »
We all need to remeber the difference (at least in the parts of the USA where I have lived) between a $30-$40 & a $300 round of golf in the idyllic setting. 
Financial constraints limit design options.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2011, 08:00:27 AM »
Randy

Have you not hit the nail firmly on the head of the problems that has been facing Golf since the end of WW2.

Examples

A). You have to understand not everybody likes links, firm and fast, rocket speed greens, foot and half rough three feet off the fairway or around a green, deep punishing bunkers, rolly pollly fairways, ect! These courses are works of art and wonderful test of golf but not eveybody´s cup of tea

B). So I see a continual increase in quality with more attention to strategy and more and more amazing artistic elements implemented and this will be attributed to an increase in overall competition amongst architects for the few projects coming on line.

As for example A). I would say that there is already enough choice in courses without the need to service each individual player’s requirements – well there would be if we just kept close to Nature and the original land that was deemed Fit for Purpose for the game of golf. Clearly it was not so as along comes the bulldozer and produces the design (which within its self on the right terrain would probably be regarded as blood good) and created a full compromise both in the way its plays and how it blends in with the surrounding countryside. The lesson I would have thought is you build courses within the brief but for the average golfer. Then the choice is down to the golfers if he likes or dislikes the course. For years my local course was a new course dated 1972 built at Beauport Park (http://www.beauportparkgolf.co.uk/pages.php/index.html) at Hastings but it’s a rather poor course, so we would trek around the country looking for more entertaining courses, and as Hastings is only 15 miles from Rye we have a course of note, then -  well it was not long before we found some rather great out of the way courses as defined on Fine Golf (http://www.finegolf.co.uk ). Have we not become too picky, too fussy as the 20th century progressed, watering down what was once great golf more to fit our way of play rather than being committed to the game. The choice should be inland or seaside courses, how deep the rough depends upon the designers understanding of the land, his design and have zero to do with the players moods or personal requirements. Don’t like it, don’t play it.

As for example B). I first think we need to understand the meaning of strategy, some seem to feel it has to do with course being difficult, hard or easy. I say it has zero to do with that because the inherent quality of a golf course is its challenge, some might say penal nature or even rating on a penal scale. Easy is escapism and IMHO has not place on a golf course because the player is there to be challenged, seeking a more sportier course not an easy course. Where is the satisfaction in easy knowing then even your 10 year old son with few skills can better that hazard and course.

The problem is penal today is a nasty word because it means commitment, determination, of facing the challenges and being man (or woman) enough to want to face the traps and perhaps if the designers has done his job well, the unexpected – some might call them hidden (but once known no longer hidden) traps deployed in parts of the course to catch the unwary.  Strategy for a golf course must have its foot firmly in the penal corner, because it is as much to do with the game of golf as the golf ball.

I firmly believe that the game is losing interest with many leaving, some looking hard at the Hickory side because main stream golf is seen as easy. I’m not going to discuss in detail the usual aids but they have had a major part in eroding the need for skill, be it through the eyes or understand the need to observe the course with legs doing their part by sending through messages about the terrain. Then what about understand fitness and balancing fatigue which is also part of the game.

We have offered too much of the Good Life to the modern player, so when he has to exert himself, interest in the game wains as this is not what he thought he signed up for. We need to learn from the terrible mistakes since WW2 and put the challenge back into the game  - and no, not through players equipment technology, because we will start the whole sorry business all over again.

I hope I have been constructive and tried to develop the good point raised by Mac. The designers have an important part to play, perhaps more so now than ever before so have to stand up for their beliefs, even in these hard times, because gentlemen no one else is going to design our top courses.

The game is just too cluttered, its getting over complicated, it needs to get back to basic and I also feel that a single designer should be credited with a course design, not a design house as that is just too impersonal. Golf needs it heroes, and we should be allowed to know which individual actually designed the course. Design Houses need to understand this simple fact otherwise the history of Golf from the late 20th to early 21st Century will become a minefield with the real designers not getting a look in and claiming their right – Don’t screw with history guys, give credit to either one or two, but not a design house name.      

Melvyn

PS Robin  The real world, OK but your real world is the reason this game is in such a mess, perhaps you need to get into my real world and stand up for what you believe in or is that too much of a challenge for many these days, preferring to do nothing hoping things will get better by themselves. You may think me a dreamer, or whatever but I am in my own way trying to do something with my home game. They say Gold loves a trier - perhaps I should have said God loves a trier, but Gold just seems the right word or should I have used silver as it only took 30 coins to, well change the world according to the bible
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 08:10:43 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2011, 08:14:25 AM »
To me, this is beyond fascinating and is really helping me put together some of the moving pieces.  Already in this thread we've touched on a few of the points/ideas that are tumbling around in my brain.

Melvyn's point about the land the golf course is built on is so vitally important.  In fact, I wonder if it is THE single most important factor.  I personally think it is.  What is the turf like?  What are the natural landforms on it?  What is the climate like?  Any extraoridnary views?  Add it all up and it makes a HUGE difference in all aspects of the design work and the cost to build/maintain the course.

And I'm glad Mike Nuzzo posted on here.  It appears that he has built a true gem on a course that wasn't designed to be a robust economic engine.  Perfect for what I'm getting at here.  And quite frankly, do we need more of this type of thing to take golf course architeture to its apex?

And to all the people who make their living by being a golf course architects, I hear you regarding putting food on the table and doing what it takes to get a job.  I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do that at all.  I'm just saying financial interests (most likely from the owners/developers of the courses) are not putting a premium on golf course architecture, the golf courses seem to be an afterthought to some broader business scheme.

In fact, it seems like a lot of golf's timeless gems were built by non-professional golf course architects... Leeds, Emmet, Fownses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Behr et al. They didn't really care what the entire world of golfers thought about what they did because ultimately they weren't doing it for them.

PS Melvyn posted while I was typing and I haven't had a chance to read it.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2011, 08:47:51 AM »
Mac

Yes, you're right.  Sometimes the golf course is viewed by the developer as window dressing for a bigger scheme and we have all seen courses in abundance that fit this bill with paint by numbers design.  They depress me as much as anyone else on here, because it is still possible in those circumstances to come up with imaginative and creative architecture.  Good design doesn't necessary take more space or cost more money than bland, mediocre design, it just needs the correct practitioner on the job.

Melvyn

I love what you love. With a passion.  There is NOTHING I enjoy more than wandering around a traditional links course with a golf bag slung over my shoulder.  It is my idea of heaven.  

I dispute that golf is in a mess.  It has diversified.  Those of us who have spent the time to educate ourselves with the skills to allow us to practice our passion for golf course architecture in the commercial world take what we have learned from our experiences and apply them to a whole range of sites and situations.  We are not really any different to the guys who first took the game inland from the links, except we are often having to deal with sites that we would not ideally choose.  In my time I have worked on links, parkland, moorland, farmland, waste land, woodland and desert.  Few of these would fit the billing as an ideal golf site, but the lessons i've learnt from studying ideal golf sites has enabled me, as it does others in a similar position, to enrich these sites with a flavour derived from the best the game has to offer.  Personally, I think that is quite honourable work and I am very proud to see people enjoying the courses I have designed and hope that their interest in golf design will be piqued by what they have experienced and perhaps lead them to seek out the courses that you and I cherish so dear.  

Interested to hear that you are familiar with Beauport Park.  That is possibly the cruellest golf course I have ever played.  A dark, dark place.  The kind of course I could imagine Lord Voldemort as club president!
 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 09:00:26 AM by Robin_Hiseman »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2011, 09:13:23 AM »
Mac,

I wonder how you can ask, when in fact, there is more quality golf course architecture out there than ever?

It's true not every course has a goal of being a classic, nor does it need to be.  90% of all golf rounds (or more) are played at courses that are most convenient, (ie within 20 miles of home) or offer the most value.  Both are great things.  And, in those courses, things are pretty good.  Brauer (and my ilk) are better than Bendelow, no doubt, in that category.

In other words, like most discussions here, you get a skewed view of things by comparing everything to the top ten courses of this era, or the top hundred of all time.

Things are good.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2011, 09:51:04 AM »
Guys - Great thread.

Golf isn't growing.  Hasn't been for a long time.  Why?  Time and money.  I'll offer an owners viewpoint.

Like any business, economics are important.  Golf development became the primary amenity to sell real estate so Mac is correct - commercial interests are (or were) big.  It wasn't about golf, it was about money.  Golf became very expensive to build and maintain, mostly on borrowed money and there isn't any money to borrow these days, probably for good reason.  How many debt ladened clubs are out there today struggling to make it?   Golf then became expensive to maintain due to the ever increasing desire for conditioning.  We have a course with more than 2,100 irrigation heads, for crying out loud!  Becoming a member of a club became very expensive with some "bells and whistles" memberships in six figures just to join, with dues at astronomical levels - at the same time people have less time and money to spend.  Equipment became expensive.  At the time of budget cuts, even public courses are growing pricey as the costs to maintain remain high and subsidies are lower.  There is an oversupply of courses and we all must think differently because of it.  That isn't bad, just different.  Simplicity is better.

Great land is vitally important...as are the basic economics.  We have both here.  There is good land out there for architecturally significant places, much of it now remote.  The constraints here are cost to build infrastructure (beds) and lack of people to work.  Lickily, we have enough of both already.  Its more than a bit funny, the most beautiful land for great architectiure is seemingly in the middle of nowhere but, yet, in the middle of everywhere.

Golf is a game of fun and friends but it does take time and commitment.  It can also be frustratingly difficult to play for most.  Our new course will be (like our existing course is) absolutely beautiful to the eye but will also very efficient.  There is no ongoing cost for water out here, we have free sand, and dirt is cheap.  The cost to be part of our place is deliberately low and will always be comparatively reasonable.  Why?  We are trying to build something special for the widest range of the private golf community and members here come out a handful of times per season.  Like every club and course in the universe, we all depend upon usage.  Can we make it "affordable" to everyone?  Possibly not.  But we can make it more reasonable for the widest range of people we can.  That is good for us and good for the game.   Exclusivity = limited.  Limited isn't good for the future of the game.  Ratings are good for those rated (or are they?) but they do these help the game we love?  Do we really need a guy to clean our clubs at the range? Is that really golf?  Pro V1's on the range and shoes polished?  Really?   For most, keeping things simple is good.

The economics of golf have changed, painful for many, but probably for the better.  Pencils are much sharper today and the gold chasers are gone.  Our new course will have less than 900, or so, irrigation heads and that is plenty.  These days, its about the golf and that is good. There is a future for golf, godd land and great design, but we are all seeing it will be different.  I see a future where redesigns (refreshenings) will be the norm as we don't need alot more added to the supply side.



Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2011, 10:05:35 AM »
I'm with Jeff on this one.  Just look at the Post-Modern thread.  Yes there's been plenty of crap development courses and over-manicured championship layouts built, but many of my favorites have been built in the last 2 decades.  I think for longer term investors good courses are good business...
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

Peter Pallotta

Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2011, 10:21:42 AM »
Mac - I've come to believe that today's best courses are better than the best courses of the golden age, but that the second-tier courses of today are in most ways of lesser qualty and value than the second-tier courses of the golden age.  It is in that latter context (i.e. in the world of the average golf courses where most average golfers play most of their golf) where changes in the market and demographics and commercial expectations have had the biggest impact.

Peter

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2011, 10:25:20 AM »
Jud,

Thanks!

This may be another thread, but one of the flaws of modern design is the greater pressure to design for greatness. I don't think it can be done, much like rock bands who start out with great music, and then decide they need to "say something" with their music.  It always goes downhill.

Just think how many courses we play that were really just designed for everyday play that are still very charming, if not great.  Or how many funtional buidlings, like New England cottages, that were built to be as cheap as possible (thus, using local materials) but are still charming.  Even some industrial structures, like railroad bridges, built just for function can have a sort of beauty about them.  

So, its possible to design for function and cost, and still end up with something approaching greatness.  As I tell my potential clients, once you have decided on a course with, say, 30 bunkers, it doesn't really cost any more to build those attractively than unattractively.  So, if they like my bunkers better than others, they should hire me.  

Now, in truth, those jagged edge bunkers probably do have some long term cost over smooth edged ones in most cases, so if your criteria for "great design" means jaggedy bunkers, then yes, there will be fewer great designs based on golf course owners business reasons, just as bunkers smoothed out after 1930 to allow better machine maintenance.  But, there can still be great looking bunkers that are easy to maintain, and if that meets all the criteria - looks, hazard, and easy to maintain, I suggest that is truly great design.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2011, 10:47:12 AM »
Mac

Mass appeal is so large that it can be divided into many layers - to the point where all sorts of good and bad can fit comfortably under the umbrella.  We tend to throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the period between say 1940 and 1995.  While I admit that not many of the designs during this period do much for me, at least strings of great stuff were kept alive either by new design or keeping older designs front and centre (ANGC, most of the Open rota, Mac/Raynor courses).  This is all that really matters as ideas and styles come and go.  Creativity needs the ebb and flow through good and bad, but time decides what is classic.  They say we are in the middle (or near the end?) of a renaissance in design, but I am not convinced the courses of this renaissance are all that many or any where near as influential as the Golden Age, but as I said, time is the final judge of that. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2011, 10:54:30 AM »
Melvyn makes a lots of valid points but..I feel things began to change around the early 90¨s and now it pretty common practice to move as little as possible. I think what he described was happeneing in the 80´s to the mid 90´s. I have always tried to do things in an economical fashion and 90% of our course in the last fifteen years have been under the three million mark in total cost. If your not on a sandy soil, you look at the future dirt moving through the eyes of a civil engineer and do what it takes to drain the property in order to get the public on as soon as possible after a rain and also to ensure future turfgrass quality. I am using less and less artificial mounding to display bunkers as I showed on another post of Santa Martina. The fad is less everywhere you turn and I think its what golf needs. I really think we have surpassed the golden age, the modern field has taken most or sa lot of their successful concepts and are now being incorporated into modern designs and mixed in with a truckload of ART! A recent thread, on I think was St. Andrews Beach, a Renniance golf project examplifies or reflects our era. Did you see those pictures, everyone was a post card or calender picture. I would feel guilty playing there and disturbing such a work of art and the experts on here that have played it give it nothing but praise saying it plays better than it looks. And that particular project is somewhere around fifth on thier list of their best.

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2011, 10:57:42 AM »
In the past few months, the half dozen deals that have come across my desk have been terrific.  Why?  They are existing facilties, in abiove average/good locations, which can be acquired for roughly $0.20 on the dollar of replacement cost.  The facilitiea re sound and the economics begin to work, with leverage (borrowing) capped at 50-60% of cost, the debt to coverage ratios for the exisitng and projected NOI of the assets passes the bankers sniff test.

There will be a repositioning of assets, with groups having financing acquiring good properties for reasonable prices that will be sustainable.  As for the other troubled assets - some may be acquired by the members or local/county governments, others lost to taxes and incorportaed into passive open spaces or parkland.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2011, 11:03:11 AM »
There are no perfect golf courses and every golf course is perfect depending on how you want to look at it. I know what you´re trying to say and a few have taken the road you have described with recent success but they found a niche in the road less traveled. Will it last and how big is that market...??? IMHO it is a limited market. I think we have entered an era with few new courses and an overall increase in quality in relation to any era in the past. There is some incredible work being turned out around the globe and its not just by two persons that this site worships. Sure, there is a lot of lower quality stuff and mixed stuff in between but there are markets and demands for those products too. You have to understand not everybody likes links, firm and fast, rocket speed greens, foot and half rough three feet off the fairway or around a green, deep punishing bunkers, rolly pollly fairways, ect! These courses are works of art and wonderful test of golf but not eveybody´s cup of tea. So I see a continual increase in quality with more attention to strategy and more and more amazing artistic elements implemented and this will be attributed to an increase in overall competition amongst architects for the few projects coming on line.

We fancy ourselves on this site as being the sophisticates, the "in-the-know", the ones who "get it".  Yet, if golf is a sport, a game that is played with a card on which to record the "quality" of our performance, we are probably a pretty ordinary bunch.  Perhaps we play a far superior game in our minds than we do with our clubs, and there is probably something to be said for that.

Moving from Columbus, Ohio to Arlington, Texas in 1978 I had a very hard time finding a course that I thought was extraordinary.  Colonial CC, in my humble opinion, was not in the same class as Ohio State's Scarlet where I learned to play golf, and there was not much around on a daily-fee basis.

Today, there are at least a dozen courses in the D/FW area that I would consider as really good- Jeff Brauer designed a number of them- in the public category, and maybe that many as well privates.  In fact, just perusing the top 20 Texas golf courses on the Dallas Morning News list, 17 were built after the "Golden Age"; 10 since 2000.

Not all courses can be built on sand.  For whatever reasons, population densities and the resulting real estate uses don't seem to conform with our view of what constitutes ideal golf land.  Sure, I'd rather have a large body of natural water or an immense dune as the background for my approach, but if a McMansion is the best the site can offer, so long as I can execute a variety of shots, I can live with that.

Residential real estate development and golf course design are not necessarily in battle with each other.  Much progress has been made in my 30+ years in Texas in this regard, and I can cite a number of courses that are enjoyable and challenging which were built at least in part to enhance the value of surrounding real estate for higher uses.

If I may be allowed to preach, we have a tendency to think in the ideal and decry most anything that we believe falls short of it.  Nothing in life is "ideal".  Reality is made up of a tremendously large number of variables which seldom align in ways that yield the results we crave.  Longing for perfection, I suppose, is okay.  Expecting it and then being disappointed with its great rarity are counterproductive.

I was once chided a little bit by the coordinator of a rating panel for allegedly liking courses too much (he thought I was about a half point too high, though I provided him a mix analysis which showed I was within the statistical range of the panel).   I confess that I have some issues with what some define as "critical acclaim".  My expectations are that like life and reality, all courses will have flaws.  I have played about half of the courses on the GD and GW lists, and not a single one comes close to perfection.  They are all great to varying degrees relative to the 17,000+/- others in the U.S., but like my friend Tom Huckaby once noted, all golf courses have good qualities and we should enjoy them.  

 


Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2011, 11:23:33 AM »
Nice Lou
It is more fun to play with you and the Huckster than most of the 14,000 courses in the US.

The treehouse can be pleased without excluding others.

We discuss the details - shaping, a bump, a swale, a tee well done - all make a big difference for me - all at no extra cost to the construction budget/client/player - the extra cost is to the architect.

It is possible to please both this group and the public golfer.
The question is why don't more courses please this group?

I'll stick with my original answer.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2011, 11:36:09 AM »
Well said Lou. 

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2011, 01:53:51 PM »
Melvyn - Robin explained the situation perfectly, you should just nod your cap and agree. Whilst you and I disagree on many issues and you disagree with others on here, we all basically love the same the thing as you do and its called golf. It is a shame you cant accept other opinion, land fit for purpose can mean different things to different people. Its a numbers game IMO, Askernish is great land but not enough people live there, perhaps there is great land in central Greenland but what is the point in great land for golf if no people. Quite simply the equation is measured the other way..... People + People = the need for a golf course. If the land is crap then we can make it good. Discovering sites is just one side of the art of smart course design, making something nice from a flat field is another skill. Great soils dont exist in certain areas without building courses on these not so pefect sites the people living in these areas would not be able to golf. Old Tom designed plenty of courses on land not perfect for golf, he seemed to recogonise something that you cant. Try and underdstand that others see things differently, they WANT to ride a car and use a distance aids. I am more on your side about tradition but the front line is very different and golf is part of the entertainment business and we have to pamper to the guests' wishes to suit their day.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2011, 02:10:20 PM »
It is possible to please both this group and the public golfer.
The question is why don't more courses please this group?

Mike Nuzzo,

Probably a separate thread but a great set of questions. 

To wit, at the senior open, I had a nice discussion with some pros regarding Tom Doak.  The general sentiment was (and I quote) "Why is he so F***ing famous?  I don't like his courses at all."  Of course, any such thinking would be trashed here, but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

It illustrates (to me) how the groupthink here (to the degree that it exists) has come to favor only one kind of bunker style, demands quirk that others don't like, and likes native areas which don't sell houses or please average golfers, does not question a few favorite designers, even if they really haven't played the courses in question.  Its really substituting the love fest for Fazio with a few hot new designers.

In reality, pleasing the "retail golfer" isn't as hard as pleasing those here, because the group generally has a haughty, we know best, attitude, which is always hard to satisfy.  If we would just go out and play golf and enjoy it (like most do) rather than compare the holes to some theoretical "better" level of design from the Golden Age or favored designers, we would all probably be a lot better off.

Its hard to measure up against a "theoretical design" or even a theoretical approach that never really happened (like Melvyn proposes).

I recall Peter Lynch telling investors to look what is right in front of them.  Since his kids liked Wendy's, he invested in Wendy's when others used theoretical statistical models and did far worse.  I say enjoy the hamburgers.  There will always be more burger joints than five star restaurants because that is what people like, what they can afford, and what they can access within their schedules.  In that sense, they meet the market and are "perfectly designed" for what they set out to do.

For that matter, when you play a course with smooth bunkers, does it really affect your whole day?  Need an aspirin to even tee off?  If so, I feel sorry for you.

And yes, under these parameters, I think I have designed some damn fine golf courses.  If 30K average joes enjoy them every year, and you say "it could be better" then I am happy as a clam.  Of course they could be better.  But, whether choosing golf courses, or choosing a mate, restaurant, or whatever, it must get pretty frustrating to compare each to perfection, or even benchmark to the very, very best.  You would never be married, and would never eat!

Short version, when did this group become the golf equivalent of Niles and Frasier Crane?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Business and Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2011, 02:58:22 PM »
Pleasing the Professional and this group is completely different and nearly impossible.
It has bee the Professional influence (USGA, PGA, Pros, Competitions, scoring, Opens...) that have influenced golf courses to a great extent.  It has to be a challenge and championship.

More courses don't please this group because the industry/architect/owner has been focused on other priorities.

If the architect focuses a lot of their energy on insurance, marketing, contracts, documentation, specifications, new employees, training, seminars, speaking, parties, proposals, pleasing the USGA, the big vendors, Industry Partners, conferences.... it gets much tougher to spend time on site to work on the things the treehouse likes.


I designed, built and tested 1/2 a satellite without any documentation or specifications... it wasn't until I delivered the antenna to the payload that I realized how much documentation my counterpart for the spacecraft group had to organize, write and process.  Afterwards I said there would have been no way to do all that paperwork and accomplish what I did.  (I wrote it afterwards - while it was in space)
I spent my time watching the machinists and fabricators work - it was called design for manufacture.

Cheers

I'd rather have been doing this than writing a spec about a helicoil installation or how many glass beads to put in the glue.

And my blog post from a few years ago...
http://nuzzogolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2008/03/working-in-field.html
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 03:04:35 PM by Mike Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back