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.


Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« on: February 16, 2012, 10:05:54 PM »
The financial reality that the owner/developer faces a very challenging environment?  What obligation do architects have to educate the client regarding the likelihood of financial success? 

Bart

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2012, 10:25:44 PM »
Bart
Are you talking about the architects that specialize in designing poor golf courses so when the 2nd owner calls they can suggest renovations.

It would be hard to dispute if the client believed he was going to be special because there are some unique examples of success.
There are many architects that think they can design a great course that it will be successful no matter what.

If someone hired me to design a golf course in a development in Belize - how could I advise on their business plan?

If it were obvious I would tell them - otherwise we do our best to keep the capital investment to a minimum.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2012, 10:35:58 PM »
Bart:

No one else in the world is telling the truth about the very challenging business environment -- why should we be any different?  :)  It's really no different now than it was 5 years ago, most people were just oblivious to the reality back then.

I will try to inform a client [or potential client] about whatever they ask, including the finances.  I've never pretended to do a feasibility study, though -- the ones I've seen were pretty ridiculous, they basically tell the client whatever they think he wants to hear, with numbers.  But, I also learned many years ago not to try and tell my clients things they don't ask me about.  What they do with their money is their business.

I do remember telling Rupert O'Neal that the only way Ballyneal could succeed was if we built one of the 50 best courses in the U.S., and we shouldn't start unless I was pretty sure it could be that good; but, as Mike points out, even building a course that good was no guarantee of success.  I will also admit that when the developer of Stone Eagle mentioned fairly late in the planning process how much money they were spending to build the place -- $75 million -- I had to bite my tongue pretty hard not to blurt out, "There is no way that will work."  But, of course, those are the kind of clients that never ask you.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2012, 01:21:26 AM »
Stone Eagle cost 75 millions $ ??? what does it includes, (if not indiscrete) probably not just for the clubhouse, the course and the access road ?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2012, 06:38:32 AM »

How many designers/architects on this site would chase a £100,000 max budget for a new course? Take as an example the site at Askernish, how many would have committed themselves to that project if they knew it was pending?

It is just business or are there times when a site offers all that is great about GCA & design, that you just must get involved with the project? 

Another question
The Following location is well known but if you had total authority would you advise your client to build courses south east of the town. The site as some may well know is farmland now converted to two courses the last one being Castle.


Is Farmland the appropriate place to build a golf course noting the amount of ground work involved before starting to re build the new design? Would you willing accept this site or would you have tried to persuade your client that is was not fit for purpose.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2012, 07:22:35 AM »

Is it just business or are there times when a site offers all that is great about GCA & design, that you just must get involved with the project? 


No.... Yes....

Once your family has food on the table...

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2012, 07:26:17 AM »


So it is a big no, it's all about the money, be it The R&A or humble designer. Golf is just a business

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2012, 07:31:31 AM »


So it is a big no, it's all about the money, be it The R&A or humble designer. Golf is just a business

Who said that?... I certainly said the opposite...

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2012, 07:33:56 AM »


No.... Yes....

Is that not a Yes... No.. sort of thing which means perhaps, well really a No or am I just looking at it from a womans point of view?

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2012, 07:35:17 AM »


No.... Yes....

Is that not a Yes... No.. sort of thing which means perhaps, well really a No or am I just looking at it from a womans point of view?

I was answering your two questions in order Mr.M... Mr.H-M?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2012, 07:39:28 AM »

How many designers/architects on this site would chase a £100,000 max budget for a new course? Take as an example the site at Askernish, how many would have committed themselves to that project if they knew it was pending?

Melvyn:

I think there are a lot of architects who would have committed themselves to the project at Askernish if they'd known about it, just as long as they would at least make back their expenses on it.  I don't know if Martin Ebert and Gordon Irvine made any money on it at all.  

But, it's easy to do a project that's good for the game every once in a while, especially if you have made a lot of money in golf previously, or [sadly] if you think it will bring good publicity for free.  Just look at all the designers who were willing to submit proposals for the Olympic project, even though it's set up so it the winner will make only a little money, and the also-rans are all out of pocket for trying!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2012, 07:46:05 AM »
Stone Eagle cost 75 millions $ ??? what does it includes, (if not indiscrete) probably not just for the clubhouse, the course and the access road ?

Philippe:

The $75 million didn't include the clubhouse -- that was phase two!

I never saw all the numbers, but I would guess that the land cost at least $30 million [California, before the fall], the legal and permitting costs were $10 million, the developer's cost was $5 million, and buying the water rights and getting the water up the hill was $5-10 million.  The actual golf course construction contract was $10.5 million, which, I just noticed, is what the course sold for in bankruptcy.  I am not sure where the rest went ... landscaping, buildings, maintenance facility, engineering, etc.  It sure wasn't all the golf course design fee ... when I heard the total was when I realized I needed to charge more for my services!

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2012, 07:50:54 AM »
So that's why we get courses like The Castle and alas no longer get courses like TOC.

A sad day when designers would want to build a Castle course instead of an Askernish or TOC, but that's lack of progress for you. :'(

Technology uncontrolled, designers can't see the design for the trees island lakes or large shallow hard sanded bunkers. It’s not surprising gifted golfers want to get over todays so called designs so quickly.  You just can't get the designers anymore that remember how the game of golf was played - technology has made them too lazy, hence the use of GPS. >:(

From now on it’s not The R&A to blame but sodding designers playing with their GPS/CAD systems and reading too much, forgetting to get out there (not on their GPS Carts) and search for land fit for purpose – if they know what that means anymore.  ;D

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2012, 09:03:51 AM »
You know, I think the realistic answer to the question is that people with wealth can refuse any and all endeavors that are not ideal.  People who are not independently wealthy must take most every job to put food on the table.  And, frankly, I see nothing wrong with that in any way, shape, or form.  Simply do the best you can with each and every job. 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2012, 10:01:30 AM »


Mac

hhhhhmmmm...... I think that in life you have to make a stand, identify yourself to yourself and others, otherwise who are you and what are you doing. That inward struggle to decide your destiny as I do not believe it is laid out for you as many believe.
Rich or poor, money should have very little to do with it unless you have totally failed yourself.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2012, 11:20:13 AM »
Its important to me that the project works and I go through the financial aspects with the client so he knows what to expect at every stage and this has been quite an eyeopener to some where I have gone in as second or third arhitect interview and the ones before me have painted a pretty picture. I have never had a golf course casualty and in most cases (my) clubs have then added another 9 holes or 18 holes and are(still) good money earners. I dont really want to work with an iffy scheme wherby people are not going to get paid at the end of the job and misery to people where the scheme to do the fundraise is just crazy. This of course happened here in the UK where a lot of courses were built in the 90s by one firm, huge amounts of money taken off people and then the misery of bankcruptcy and fraud and a resurection deal 2 years later at 10% of the original. So for me I walk away at that initial stage.
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

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2012, 11:31:50 AM »


Mac

hhhhhmmmm...... I think that in life you have to make a stand, identify yourself to yourself and others, otherwise who are you and what are you doing. That inward struggle to decide your destiny as I do not believe it is laid out for you as many believe.
Rich or poor, money should have very little to do with it unless you have totally failed yourself.


Melvyn...I have no doubt that you believe this 100% and live this 100%.  But I know if it was me and I had a choice to build a golf course that I wasn't 100% on board with rather than have no money, not be able to make my mortgage payment, or pay the bills.  I'm building the course.  I gotta believe most think this way...but maybe not.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2012, 11:52:21 AM »
Normally I tend to skip over anything written or thread that Melvin interjects hiis holier than thou drivel into.  But I can't refrain in this instance. Here's a reality check for you Mr. Morrow (why dio you need 3 names anyway?).  GOLF IS A BUSINESS!  If it wasn't, your great-great grandaddy would have had yo find some other way of putting food on the table.
Just what the hell have you ever done anyway except ride the lucky sperm family tree - as if someone in that family tree in any way provides any credence or validity to any of your views.
I have to laugh everytime I read your stupid "land fit for the pupose" crap.  Who are you to say what's fit and what isn't?  It all depends on who's Ox is beng gored. Hell, I could easily make the arguement that your beloved St. Andrews is built upon land with a much higher and better use.
As for the original question, where is it written that a golf course architect is in the best posiition to offer financial real estate development advise?  He isn't the one doing the development.  He doesn't know all the parameters involved or the calculuis the developer used to formulate his decision to build in the first place.  Unsolicited advise could be seen as an insult.  It's like saying "I know better than you and you are an idiot".
You can go back through history for cases where people shouldn't have built something. Sometimes they are initial successes but later fail (Nero's Golden House), other times the are initial failures but prove to be long term successes (Brooklin Bridge, Trans Atlantic cable, train line connecting the Florida Keys.  If they ask, well that's a different story.

Like Adrain, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I will take a pass.  As Dad used to say, "some of the best jobs are the the ones where you took a pass only to see the next guy become mired in a loser."

Who here would have told Mike Kieser, "you know Mike, trying to build a golf resort here in Bandon is a crazy idea. The permitting will be horrid, you may never get it passed. Plus, where will the golfers come from, it's too far away from everywhere."  
I guess to many forget that hindsight is 20/20. And if you want to hear how much smarter the masses are than the decission makers, just tune into Sports Radio talk programs.
Oh, and MHM, don't bother replying, I won't see it.
Coasting is a downhill process

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2012, 12:01:37 PM »
Melvyn - The equation really with Askernish and the Castle course is; land fit for puropse that is absolutely beautifull but in a remote location that very few people are going to get too. Its easy for you to say everyone should go there but they are not. The Hebridies are just too difficult, even getting to the Isle of Arran is a pain and in some respects Northern Scotland is murder, it is just the way it is. The Castle course by contrast is perfect location that financially works so lets make a great golf course there. Yes you can argue that CC is great, but I am sure it will thrive, by the same token forget CC and just substitute for the 95% of course that are BUILT on land that god did not allocate for gawf, because thats what most newer projects are. How do you measure which project is right or wrong, I know which one I think is right and I know which one you do, but thats our subjective opinion. If you want objective you might need to look at the end numbers. Location in my opinion is very important and its the first box that must be ticked and if you cant tick that box straight away you got to put some great combos in to make the box tickable. So....the result of the equation is land fit for purpose is only great coupled with location.
We need land like Askernish near London........ but
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 12:05:16 PM by Adrian_Stiff »
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

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2012, 12:23:56 PM »
the success of the golf course project depends on the owner/developer...

the success or failure is independent of the architect's ability to design

the acrchitect's role is to design the course or whatever the owner/developer wants

there is certainly less work for folks who build most things these days, except those in China who make iPhones
It's all about the golf!

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with...
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2012, 12:55:56 PM »
the success of the golf course project depends on the owner/developer...

William I would say this, the owner has to be on a number of right plans. That aside it depends how you measure success, Askernish could be deemed success in that it is a mighty fine golf course. Success is not always about dollars there have been plenty of great musicans that are poor, artists, writers too. If we are talking about financial success at least to the point that the project washes its face then sometimes it needs more than a combination of lots money and great art to work. Most projects under achieve and missing your figures, hiring expensive staff, big marketting campaigns coupled with high debt lean to one thing, we try and force everything today, we want to go from zero to great course in 2 years wheras 100 years it took a lifetime to get there. There is a hard penalty for moving too fast in anythig and then missing your numbers.
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

Melvyn Morrow

Re: how do architects reconcile their need to work with... New
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2012, 01:44:43 PM »
Mac

I am saying that we each have it within us to do what we wish or want – OK many may not obtain their ultimate dream or wished destiny, but that could be for a hundred different reasons - some dreams falling by the wayside, others being taken over by circumstances and some because as we age our priorities change. Yet throughout this we still control our own destiny by will of mind. You are a classic example to us all with how you have coped

Adrian

To you golf is a business, courses have to pay, be successful or close, yes clearly understood. What I am trying to inject is that location, location, location is a critical part of that equation. IMHO we have for far to long decided that as we have the technology we will build our courses where ever we want, as long as we have a big budget. With resources and ultimately money being in short supply not just to build but maintain courses I have used Askernish not for its remote location but for the choice of the land the course has been built upon.

For nearly 30 years, maybe more we have had the funds to do more or less what was wanted, land selection became less important, clear example is how golf courses had to fit around resort housing in many places around the world, restricting design and forcing long distances between Green and Tees. I am trying to say is that we need to be more selective, we need more sustainable courses without that hell of a financial burden placed upon the club, its owners and the members. The lesson from Askernish are there to learn, do not get confused or think I am say that all courses should be located in out of the way remote sites.

To prove my point The Castle course is located near St Andrews, OK, good for local business and visitors, but for me and I had hoped for golfers and The Links Trust, the land it is built upon is wrong. It’s not suitable for golf unless you spend a fortune, placing a financial burden upon all involved – this is the madness of the late 20th Century GCA which still has not been full accepted. Fine if you have the money build what you want, but is it then right to initially try and charge the same price for a brand new course (built upon manmade hillocks) as you would for a 600 year old course, yes TOC. Was and is the Castle worth the initial £140 per round?

GCA need to think, its needs to think out of the box, a bit of lateral thinking would also not go a miss. Askernish location is wrong but the land it is built upon is for pure golf requiring in real terms little work while still giving the golfer that challenge they seek. Any idiot can throw money at anything and get it to work – well for a while, that is  while money is plentiful, but today’s reality says that money is hard to get hold of, to borrow one requires fast short term borrowing deals when the money is available, does that sound right for golf?


Tim

Why do you read my posts, you keep saying you will not, one day I may be the death of you and that is not my wish. So let’s see if I can ease your frustration.  ‘Holier than thou’, no Tim, but I certainly care more about the game than many, to the point that I look to its history, its archives and consider the implication of allowing aids and other things affect the game but worst still our courses. So if that makes me ‘holier than thou’ then many thanks I will wear that badge with honour from now on. Again may I correct you “your great-great granddaddy” as you call him was a green keeper, a golfer, that was a way of life. Yes he also designed golf courses for £1 fee per day which he maintained for 50 years of his life to help other enjoy golf. He was also a club and ball maker too. AS for your comment “Just what the hell have you ever done anyway except ride the lucky sperm family tree - as if someone in that family tree in any way provides any credence or validity to any of your views.” Seems rather an unpleasant comment noting that I make no living from golf or from anything to do with Old Tom. In fact I have only used my family connection to obtain or try to obtain the Courtesy of the Course for some members of GCA.com and others, I have never played a free round in my adult life. As for “provides any credence or validity to any of your views”, I do by attaching articles as and when appropriate, perhaps you should read more of my posts in future. As for Land fit for Purpose, that comment of yours is just showing your poor understand of GCA and respect for the game of golf.

My understanding, as a designer in my own right in another industry requires me to advise the client based upon my experience and knowledge on the subject. If the client decides to ignorer our advice, we would either proceed as per his instruction having already placed our concerns in writing or walk away from the project. Yes I have walked away from a few and placed my comments and recommendation on paper before continuing with the clients instructions. That’s was down to due diligence required by our indemnity insurance cover, something most consultants will have cover for and is not cheap either.

My last comment to you Tim is you are a hypocrite not to mention rather ignorant. You make an attack upon me then have the stupidity to say  “Oh, and MHM, don't bother replying, I won't see it.” – you poor closed minded moron, I do hope you have a nice day.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 03:04:33 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »