[Patrick_Mucci]

by escalating maintenance costs ?

If the Depression resulted in AWT advising courses to eliminate bunkers due to the cost to maintain them, will a poor economy have a significant impact on feature and course design ?

Streamsong has no rough.

More courses are allowing areas not considered in the playing corridors to go "natural"

Wild Horse has bunkers designed with ramps to allow the entry and exit of riding bunker rakes.

Will the creative process be tempered by "cost to maintain" ?

And if so, how so ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think you have the question kind of backwards.

A poor economy doesn't have a lot of effect on design, because there aren't a lot of new courses being built in a poor economy.  And the few that ARE built are trying to outdo their neighbors.

However, a poor economy will continue to have a DOWNWARD effect on what all courses (new and old) can afford for maintenance costs.  Rising fuel prices will add to the downward pressure.

To the extent that designers can help, it would be to use some of our creativity to temper the cost to maintain.  But, to be honest, there's little sign of that so far.

[Niall C]

Patrick

From what I understand, you've done more than one stint on a greens committee and presumably have some idea on relative costs for maintenance. That being so, where do you see the opportunities to spend less money and do you think they would be worthwhile or just false economies, and crucially in light of Tom's comments how do you see architects playing a part in that ?

Niall

ps. feel like I'm some College professor setting a coursework assignment so just so you know, marks will be deducted for green ink !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

From what I understand, you've done more than one stint on a greens committee and presumably have some idea on relative costs for maintenance. That being so, where do you see the opportunities to spend less money and do you think they would be worthwhile or just false economies, and crucially in light of Tom's comments how do you see architects playing a part in that ?

For over 30 years I championed several causes.

1  Letting the non playing areas go natural ( I lost that battle)
2  Reducing water usage, especially in Florida   (I lost that battle)
3  Raking bunkers on a needs basis versus daily ( I lost that battle until I won it)
4  Eliminating flower beds and decorative areas on the course ( I lost some of those battles)
5  Altering/Reducing Mowing intervals (especially tees, won but with resistance)
6  Cutting down on overtime at the cost of pristine conditions
7  Seperating or crediting the green committee budget for functions performed by the green crew, such as maintenance of the pool, tennis and
    clubhouse areas.   All three of those departments should have had maintenance in their budgets instead of dumping it into the green committee
    budget.  When you burden the green budget with the costs to maintain the pool, tennis and clubhouse areas, the green budget swells and as
    such it becomes more visible as a large budget and therefore the first budget to get attacked when there's a move to reduce costs.

The problem with my suggestions was that they were ahead of their time and no course wanted to be the first to embark on those programs.
In addition, the great majority of the membership wanted to maintain the status quo.  Change doesn't often come easy at clubs, especially in those areas that tend to be highly noticeable.  And, the Pool, Tennis and House Chairman didn't want to reduce their budgets to pay for functions/maintenance that had nothing to do with the Green Committee.

I think all of those were areas where significant savings can be achieved.

The problem isn't so much each item, rather the problem is the "culture" that's evolved over decades and decades and it's really, really difficult to change that culture.

Architecturally, I often observe a feature that presents a maintenance headache, physically and financially.
Such as a steep mound, but, I think you have to weigh retaining that feature in the context of style and continuity versus safety, labor and cost.

An acquaintance/friend of mine was developing a course open to the public.
He called me and asked me what advice I could give him.
I simply said, don't build anything that you can't maintain.
Don't stifle the architect's creative license, but, don't build something that's going to siphon dollars on an ongoing basis.
If it was going to be a private club I wouldn't have offered that exact advice, but, since he was looking for a for-profit venture, I thought it made sense.




ps. feel like I'm some College professor setting a coursework assignment so just so you know, marks will be deducted for green ink !

And, I feel like the student who asks himself, how is this guy going grade my paper when he doesn't know the answers himself ?

[Dan Herrmann]

Actually, I think that water shortages will be the driving factor that will lead to changes in maintenance practices.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Actually, I think that water shortages will be the driving factor that will lead to changes in maintenance practices.

Dan,

They may be the catalyst, but the driving factor will be cost, especially in the Southwest and Southeast

[Dan Herrmann]

Unless it becomes illegal to exceed a water quota.   

[Greg Chambers]

Actually, I think that water shortages will be the driving factor that will lead to changes in maintenance practices.

Bingo!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Unless it becomes illegal to exceed a water quota.   

Dan, it already is.

Fines are levied against those courses who exceed their permitted allotment.

[Tony Ristola]

The EU and US are entirely different on this.

The first solo job I had in 1995 the owner said right from the start... do what you want, but remember this 18-hole course must be maintained by 3-people. Today it's being maintained by 4.

Some fairways have been narrowed, and perimeters of greens shrunk by a meter; but neither of these changes needed to happen.

The number of and expectations of maintenance are among the first questions asked; Don Mahaffey's input on reducing cost (See Mike Nuzzo's blog post) has been great in this regard. It wasn't long ago when the courses in the EU were gang-mowed, and there is no reason they can't go back to doing so.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,
Good question and a good list of potential cost reductions for courses that don't already do those things.

Overall, for most of us in the biz, not at the top end, maintenance has been a big driver of design features forever, but we kind of forgot about that in the go go 90's.  Now the emphasis is coming back, but I am not sure its even quite as high as when I entered the biz in 1977, but that is just my experience.

You don't hear about it much any more, but there used to be the "design triangle" of maintenance-aesthetics-playability.   In fact, in 1977 I wondered if the emphasis was so great that we would ever build a great course again, with all the limitations.  For most mid level projects, our owners picked maintenance as the most important element of that triangle up until 1990 or so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()