What are the trade offs?

[Don_Mahaffey]

You want to develop a nice local club. You've got a nice site. Good soil and water, so no imports needed and no special water treatments, expensive water source pipelines, or water utilities to pay. Area has very few "nice" courses or "nicely" maintained courses, but strong golfing culture.

You think you have good design ideas, and some guys with enough experience to build something cool and sustainable. But you just can't quite raise enough money to really do it right. What trade offs do you make to still make it happen? Probably have to choose more than one.

1. Make the clubhouse a double wide with a wooden porch. Gravel parking lot, no bag drop or islands or fancy entrances.

2. Minimal irrigation - greens, tees and single row of cannons down the middle with an extra here or there in key areas. Climate supports dryland farming, but turfgrass needs irrigation.

3. Tied into #3 above, cut the grass a little longer, keep the ground a little dryer, focus all on green's complexes and let the rest kind of ebb and flow with nature's whims.

4. Reduce green sizes, reduce size and numbers of bunkers, limit turf areas.

5. Have a few double greens and shared fairways to reduce total maintained acreage

6. Big part of club plan was 3 hole kids course open to all youngsters in the community. Long term idea being exposing kids to the game and growing your future membership. Delay this until club establishes?

7. Put it off until you have enough money to do it right from stem to stern.


I would pick #1, #2, & #3....but probably ought to stick with #7. Don't think I'd do it without #6, and #5 might be doable with some clever design.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - I hope this is a real-life example and not a hypothetical. If so, I urge you not to think in terms of trade-offs - one, because it's a negative way to think about a project (even if it seems practical); two, because you and your team are more than able to turn these negatives into positives; and three, because in your heart of hearts you know that none of these so-called trade-offs/negatives are in reality any such thing, save nos. 6 and 7.  (Imagine you have a potential client, a wonderful and kindly man who asks you to build the best course you can for his community, but for even less than a modest budget. I bet if you took the job you'd find a way to pull it off; so treat yourself with the same respect, and the same discipline, as you would this poor but benevolent client.) So:

1) Go even further than you did at WP in creatively conceiving of and designing a minimal and sustainable irrigation system, and be proud of it and of its results.
2) Keep thinking about and routing and designing different versions of your golf course until you have come up with a great design that is actually made better than you ever imagined for having to factor in/integrate a) minimal irrigation, b) longer, drier grass that flows with nature's whims, c) less bunkers, d) generally smaller greens and less turf, combined with e) broad double fairways and the occasional double green.
3) Figure out something better and more attractive than a double wide. Ask for help and think imaginatively: maybe a local builder of pre-fab homes/cottages can donate his labour in turn for a special membership.

Dont wait. Don't postpone the 3 hole course for children. With it on opening day, you will have set a tone for life, and garnered a great deal of good will; with only a promise of such a course, you are (i.e. you might appear to be) just another slick operator who promises a lot and delivers little.  

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

A better title would be What Are The Essentials?

From your list:

#1 is a no-brainer.  You build the absolute minimum thing you need, and then invite the locals to build something more if they want it.  See:  St. Andrews.

#2 is your expertise.  You will know how much you really need.

#3 is probably the toughest nut to crack.  You've got to keep the course in whatever shape the locals deem as "reasonable".  But, this is not really a construction question ... you simply have to make the maintenance budget fit the revenues after the fact.

#4 - the most important thing is playability (turf areas), the second most important is interesting (for me that would be interesting greens ahead of bunkers)

#5 - be careful with these, they will hold you back

#6 costs almost nothing to build and very little to maintain.  Keep it in there.

#7 - I know you know this, but don't confuse "doing it right" with all the bells and whistles.  If you can do 1-6 as you think appropriate, go for it.  If you can't, hang in there.

[Bill_McBride]

After Hurricane Ivan blew down our clubhouse at Pensacola Country Club and we had to build a new course as well, we brought in a triple wide until the new clubhouse was built.  I don't think our members were ever happier or closer than in that triple wide for over a year.  This is highly recommended. 

[Garland Bayley]

#8 No bunkers.

[Blake Conant]

#1 seems most logical.  If you haven't seen The University of Auburn's Rural Studio, it's worth a look.  Their Architecture program gives students the opportunity to plan, design, and build for underserved populations in rural Alabama.  Most materials are recycled or reused, and each project has a funky, unique look to it.  They also do this stuff quickly and cheaply.  I don't know if there's a college with an architecture program near by, but if so, you could present them with a similar idea.  Have the clubhouse be part of a design/build class.  Give them a budget (maybe there's incentive for you to match the amount that would've otherwise gone to a double-wide, lumber, and gravel) and let them run wild with it.  It'd damn sure be different than anything else out there.

http://www.ruralstudio.org/ Some of the noteworthy projects include the Butterfly House, 20k project, Lucy House, and Willie Bell House

#6, #4, and #5 would be the last ones I'd want to trade off.

[RJ_Daley]

Don, I am going to try to do a Mucci-green text job and take your points one by one, below.  But first, I think you have to define your market before you move to these other points.  You say in the hypothetical that the area has this great land site, soil and water resource that is exploitable and not an issue.  And, you say the area has a "few nice courses - nicely maintained" and "strong golfing culture".  Right there is where it can go off the rails, IMHO.  If you don't exploit a price point as a privately owned-open to public play, with a competitive green fee, AND you don't at least match the expectations of that so-called 'strong golfing culture';  how you gonna compete?  They aren't going to come to your superior designed shot value oriented design, IF they don't perceive competative price and conditions.  So, you have to start with:  Are there enough strong golf culture afficianados of whatever it is your design will go above and beyond to achieve, AND beat or compete on conditioning?  You know all the rule of thumb formula, particularly; one course in area for every 10,000 population.  And, you know the how to do the math to define how many rounds at what price you have to do to break even, let alone make a profit.  That sort of pro-forma evaluation isn't really all that hard for a fellow like you, who knows very well the budget process of both maintenance and clubhouse.  So, what seasonal or year around facility can you have, and how many realistic projected rounds a year can you do?

Now for the response in Mucci-form, and what I think is the prototype for your set of criteria:

You want to develop a nice local club. You've got a nice site. Good soil and water, so no imports needed and no special water treatments, expensive water source pipelines, or water utilities to pay. Area has very few "nice" courses or "nicely" maintained courses, but strong golfing culture.

Yes, for most of this exercise, I'm going to use Wild Horse.  Great site, sandy soil, water galore in the aquafir, relatively good golf culture, and more courses in the area than the 1 course per 10,000 population (albeit, not nearly good conditioning nor notable design)

You think you have good design ideas, and some guys with enough experience to build something cool and sustainable. But you just can't quite raise enough money to really do it right. What trade offs do you make to still make it happen? Probably have to choose more than one.

you find two guys and their friends like Dan Proctor and Dave Axeland and some of their pals, and turn them loose - or you, Joe Hancock and Mike Nuzzo come to some sort of minimalist (doing it for the love of the project) just meet expenses and a pitance left over to sustain.  You have to capitalize it somehow, and so you decide; can you live with a public offering sort of arrangement like WH did with an intra-state share offering, and have a side amount of lots to subdivide to pay back shareholders as lots sell, or just have a membership with a feature of 'semi-private - open to the public play'.  If you want to own the whole shootin match, you need to win the lottery, or have a very adventurous and golf nut cheerleader, banker...  

1. Make the clubhouse a double wide with a wooden porch. Gravel parking lot, no bag drop or islands or fancy entrances.

yes, with a design that can be added to later, if success ensues

2. Minimal irrigation - greens, tees and single row of cannons down the middle with an extra here or there in key areas. Climate supports dryland farming, but turfgrass needs irrigation.

sure, if you have the talent (which you do as a turf pro who has worked in this mode most of your career. But, you still need to make it attractive enough for customers to like it!

3. Tied into #3 above, cut the grass a little longer, keep the ground a little dryer, focus all on green's complexes and let the rest kind of ebb and flow with nature's whims.

Yes, once again, you know what turf species and cultivars will do best in your given set of resources, but it has to be palatable to the customer and at a competitive price point.

4. Reduce green sizes, reduce size and numbers of bunkers, limit turf areas.

Is that marketable at a competive price? A "strong golf culture" in the area probably doesn't actually come with a set of tastes and values that the average 500 GCA.com members have.  Their culture is what is marketted to them, constantly on TV and magazines, etc.  So, the design and conditions have to meet their expectations at the end of the day.  Can you do that based on your turf  and facilities mangager experience?

5. Have a few double greens and shared fairways to reduce total maintained acreage

same questions - same answers

6. Big part of club plan was 3 hole kids course open to all youngsters in the community. Long term idea being exposing kids to the game and growing your future membership. Delay this until club establishes?

Sure, that feels good.  I've seen a perfectly nice 'first tee facility' for kids with its own kids shack CH, go to seed.  Does that "strong golf culture" come with a set of demographics that you can interpret and identify the need?  If so, go for it.  If not, why waste time and money?  The customers in the pipeline is a great concept.  But, is it based on reality of the area demographics (numbers of families w/kids and disposable income who are seeking golf as recreation?

7. Put it off until you have enough money to do it right from stem to stern.

The winning powerball ticket tonight is, 5, 9, 28, 32, 38 pb 29.   Did you have it?


I would pick #1, #2, & #3....but probably ought to stick with #7. Don't think I'd do it without #6, and #5 might be doable with some clever design.

[Tom_Doak]

#1 seems most logical.  If you haven't seen The University of Auburn's Rural Studio, it's worth a look.  Their Architecture program gives students the opportunity to plan, design, and build for underserved populations in rural Alabama.  Most materials are recycled or reused, and each project has a funky, unique look to it.  They also do this stuff quickly and cheaply.  I don't know if there's a college with an architecture program near by, but if so, you could present them with a similar idea.  Have the clubhouse be part of a design/build class.  Give them a budget (maybe there's incentive for you to match the amount that would've otherwise gone to a double-wide, lumber, and gravel) and let them run wild with it.  It'd damn sure be different than anything else out there.

http://www.ruralstudio.org/ Some of the noteworthy projects include the Butterfly House, 20k project, Lucy House, and Willie Bell House

#6, #4, and #5 would be the last ones I'd want to trade off.

Blake:

That is a very cool suggestion, but I don't know if it applies to Don's potential project, because it seems like he could live with a temporary solution for several years until the members wanted to pay for something better.  But, if it could really be built for the same as a trailer, I'll change that point of view.

I do have another client for whom this would be a wonderful idea ... I hope it's okay to share.

[Bill_McBride]

#1 seems most logical.  If you haven't seen The University of Auburn's Rural Studio, it's worth a look.  Their Architecture program gives students the opportunity to plan, design, and build for underserved populations in rural Alabama.  Most materials are recycled or reused, and each project has a funky, unique look to it.  They also do this stuff quickly and cheaply.  I don't know if there's a college with an architecture program near by, but if so, you could present them with a similar idea.  Have the clubhouse be part of a design/build class.  Give them a budget (maybe there's incentive for you to match the amount that would've otherwise gone to a double-wide, lumber, and gravel) and let them run wild with it.  It'd damn sure be different than anything else out there.

http://www.ruralstudio.org/ Some of the noteworthy projects include the Butterfly House, 20k project, Lucy House, and Willie Bell House

#6, #4, and #5 would be the last ones I'd want to trade off.

Blake:

That is a very cool suggestion, but I don't know if it applies to Don's potential project, because it seems like he could live with a temporary solution for several years until the members wanted to pay for something better.  But, if it could really be built for the same as a trailer, I'll change that point of view.

I do have another client for whom this would be a wonderful idea ... I hope it's okay to share.

It would really be cool if designed specifically to be expanded over time.  You can do things like roughing in plumbing for future locker rooms.  

[Blake Conant]

Tom, feel free to share with anyone. 

[Charlie Gallagher]

   I have a a question for the experts who are discussing this topic. What is the cost of heavy machinary operation in a construction budget for a site such as Don has contemplated here?  Diesal is going to be expensive and I assume there is a formula you can follow where you can project cost per cubic yard of  material moved. There is machinary wear and tear. Then there is operator cost. I also assume that machines may be rented from a local dealer for the project. What machines would you need? I would amatuer guess a couple of medium sized bulldozers, at least one excavator, a tool carrier, front end loader, a Turbo Cheiftan type power screen, a small dozer, several dump trucks or scrappers, and utility vehicles like Gators. What would operator cost be?
     I know of a course in Vermont, Crown Point Country Club in West Springfield that was built by the members in the early 1950's. The members ran the dozer and did the construction themselves. I assume that this must have saved a a significant sum of money in cost of construction. What are your views regarding influencing expense in this area? Can an amateur be taught how to shape? Could an amateur do the rough in? Would it slow the project down too much? I ask to find out how flexible cost might be regarding this aspect of construction.

[Lou_Duran]

expensive water source pipelines, or water utilities to pay

1. Make the clubhouse a double wide with a wooden porch. Gravel parking lot, no bag drop or islands or fancy entrances.

2. Minimal irrigation - greens, tees and single row of cannons down the middle with an extra here or there in key areas. Climate supports dryland farming, but turfgrass needs irrigation.

3. Tied into #3 above, cut the grass a little longer, keep the ground a little dryer, focus all on green's complexes and let the rest kind of ebb and flow with nature's whims.

4. Reduce green sizes, reduce size and numbers of bunkers, limit turf areas.

5. Have a few double greens and shared fairways to reduce total maintained acreage

6. Big part of club plan was 3 hole kids course open to all youngsters in the community. Long term idea being exposing kids to the game and growing your future membership. Delay this until club establishes?

7. Put it off until you have enough money to do it right from stem to stern.

With scarce money and expensive water, 1-5 are likely requirements, though I am not sure about the double greens.  Unless 6 is important to the likely members/customers, that too might be postponed- have a functional driving range and adapt a few holes on the regular course during slow periods for the kiddos.  If there is momentum to build now, I'd go for it- the money people may change their minds later- otherwise, I'd wait to get my ducks in a row.  Depending on area of the country and weather, cart paths might be a necessity.

What it takes to build today is mind-boggling.  I played a nice muni in north Texas recently that was totally renovated (three or four new hole corridors, irrigation, bunkers, tee boxes, new grasses) a couple years ago for $9 Million.  Afternoon gf $28+tax with cart.  Anyone want to do this deal?

[RJ_Daley]

Anyone want to do this deal?

Nope!  Unless the standard playing conventions of golf can be changed to 6somes, sending them off every 5 minutes, and two players at a time are required to hit their shots simultaneously...and must finish in 3:10 or the ex-marine corps D.I. ranger deals with them... 

[Joe Hancock]

Not to side-step Don's question, but to answer Charlies question(s):

The cost of either owning or renting equipment, along with the cost of fuel and the costs associated with extending project times makes the perfect point why you wouldn't save money by using amateur shapers/ operators.

Joe

[ward peyronnin]

Cost of capital pales in comparison to ongoing maintainance costs.  Hiring good staff who have seemthing to promote like couples golf or leagues is critical. Can the course retain character yet cater to the needs of the locals WHO HAVE THE TIME AND MEANS TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM?

This assumes The Donald is not your owner

[Charlie Gallagher]

Joe,
Thanks for your response. Can you tell us what the cost of equipment operation and equipment is in the overall budget in building a new course? Do you have any insight into the right mix of equipment for construction?

[Joe Hancock]

Charlie,

The answers to your questions are highly site specific, so it's difficult to throw numbers and percentages around. Equipment, fuel and operators are certainly a significant line item in the budget, but when you compare a course being built where 20,000 cu.yds. are moved vs. a course that moved 200,000 cu. yds. you understand how much it varies.

The equipment choices are also variable, as shapers and operators have their preferences. I have heard of some shapers who prefer to do it all with an excavator, and some who even prefer a skid-steer loader. Having said that, you would usually find on a golf course construction site these pieces of equipment, in various numbers and sizes:

Dozer
Loader
Excavator
Material handler(like dump trucks, for instance)
Tractor
Sand grooming machine, for finish work

Hope this helps,

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Thx to everyone for weighing in.
Peter, it's not hypothetical but it is probably premature. Thank you for your encouragement and wise council.
Tom, yes, essentials would have been better and I agree that design trade offs are not a good idea.  The whole idea or theme behind this course is to build something low cost, but cool. The golf has to be excellent no matter what.
Blake, that is good info, thank you.
Lou, the only water costs are well drilling and pumping.

The equipment discussion is good info as well. In our case, my company already owns most of the equipment required with the exception of some specialty equipment like pipe fusers and plows. Fuel costs are high with diesel on the rise again.  The job would be a shape in place with no hauling anticipated at this time. The site is 234 acres of sand that exceeds USGA spec. The topography is basically a broad, soft, ridge with about 25 ft of elevation change. It is mostly covered in trees, but there are sandy scrapes scattered about.  This soil is very rare in my region and does not even support grazing very well as the abundant heavier soil nearby has much more forage.

It is very early and many things would have to fall into place but we are chipping away as time allows.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Don, it is an interesting range of choices, and after reading all the replies, and something I struggle with a little at the club I play at and the golf on offer in our region - is the sense of what the punter wants, many on here would love firm and fast all year around, with the colors of the turf varied with nature's 'whims' - but many paying members I know, and paying travelling green fee players, love green, and at first site of brown, are jumping online and making proclamations of dead turf and courses in trouble. So, as RJ detailed above, working backward from a segment of the market that you feel/believe wants this or would want it after seeing it, is perhaps the approach to take, where the dollars need to be carefully managed, to ensure financial  survival.
...and or wait until the education of the 'punters' catches up, which may or may not happen, tournament golf on tv may never see this happen. perhaps just budget for a good supply of fertiliser and iron.

Or perhaps the environment will catch up with us, and we will get to a point where courses will have to be presented and maintained in the fashion.

I wish you ever success, wouldnt it be great, if you had a hit on your hands, becuase in the end that is actually what people really wanted.

[Lou_Duran]

.... and no special water treatments, expensive water source pipelines, or water utilities to pay. Area has very few "nice" courses or "nicely" maintained courses, but strong golfing culture.

Sorry Don for my poor reading comprehension.  I failed to pick up that the "no" before water treatments also applies to the expense of the other water items.  In my book, a good source of inexpensive, abundant water ranks right along with having a viable market and a suitable site.

While I like F & F- the Wild Horse presentation that Dick and I saw back in 2002 was near ideal (the natives were probably a bit more lush than they needed to be, but it was probably more due to weather as opposed to wind-driven irrigation water migration), I think that what Brett notes nearby is right.  To the extent that you don't need to cover the demands of all types of golfers, you might be able to do with the type of maintenance you appear to endorse.  But as much as we decry green here, there is a reason- probably primordial- why the Masters gets its high ratings and a syndrome has been named after the course.  People like green, and maybe that has a bit to do with golf's popularity despite its many drawbacks (expense, time, congestion, difficulty, etc.).

Me, I'd spend the money on drainage, great green complexes, a good irrigation system, and, sorry to say, cart paths that I wouldn't have to constantly repair.  If I was a young man convinced that a market exists for the envisioned course, willing to make a personal commitment to the project for as long as it takes, had enough money raised to get it opened and operating for a couple of seasons with a trustworthy core group of investors/members behind me, I might just throw caution to the wind and go for it.  Delving in some detail into the Wild Horse experience might be helpful.   

[archie_struthers]

 

Don , sounds like you are on the right track. Don't get the need for number 5 .  Good luck!

[Don_Mahaffey]

The reason I'm even talking about this project is because my core group of supporters are lovers of Wolf Point, a course that is often met with the mantra, "I love it but most people (the punters) will not accept the wild greens and scruffy conditions". I'm still waiting for the punters as I wade through the letters on my desk from people who are asking to come and play.

Is that a fair representative sample of the golfing public? No. But does it reinforce what I've learned in the last 25 years? Yes.
Everyone hear often says, "the golfer wants lush and green". The loudest I've ever been yelled at is a result of giving golfers a wet golf course. They hate, HATE, a wet golf course. I have been asked about off color areas, and I have been questioned in the past by owners about off color, but I've never been threatened with my job because it's never been widespread or  long term.

I don't think the average golfer is as different from us here in the treehouse as some would have you believe. If so, why the popularity of Bandon? Why is Pat Mucci running into so many people he knows at Streamsong?  Why is it so hard to get a tee time at TOC in the summer?

Conventional wisdom says golfers want green and lush. My observations is the majority love firm and fast as much as we do here. Do you have to keep it green, sure, but there is a difference between green and lush.

[Mac Plumart]

I don't think the average golfer is as different from us here in the treehouse as some would have you believe. If so, why the popularity of Bandon? Why is Pat Mucci running into so many people he knows at Streamsong?  Why is it so hard to get a tee time at TOC in the summer?


Great points!

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - I think your last post really gets to the heart of the matter, i.e. to the attitude/approach that will make all the difference between your course becoming a reality or not. The approach I'm talking about -- and I think you are too -- is taking the road less travelled, i.e. the approach/road that your own experience has told you is right as opposed to the road of conventional wisdom and the popular consensus. I think that's the choice that faces people in all walks of life, in all professions -- but it is one that most of us rarely even recognize, let alone face up to and make a decision about. It's a hard choice, and a hard road. I know for myself, it took me a long time to see that reality/choice -- and indeed, just a couple of weeks ago I applied for a job I really wanted and really thought I would be good at and through which I could make a positive contribution; well, I had an interview, and something took over -- I couldn't even make myself give the conventional answers, the answers they were probably looking for and expected to hear; I couldn't pretend I didn't have 13 years of experience in the area we were addressing, and couldn't help myself talk about the related issues in a way that was true to MY experience as opposed to the stock/consensus experience.  The result: it's been two weeks, and I haven't heard a word, and that almost certainly means that I didn't get the job -- and that hurts. I don't like feeling the regrets ('oh, maybe if I just had answered 'by the book' I'd have gotten it'). But I console myself with this: that if I do get the job, I will be able to do it as I think best.

Peter

[Dan Byrnes]

To main things to me is

1. Clubhouse needs to be there but no opulent .  Depending on your market and what catering/weddings etc you wish to host.  It doesn't need to be anything special.  See Taconic Golf Club for instance.

7. Not having enough capital?  You just don't want to be over extended, need emergency funds or access.  I wouldn't cut back on course but can build club house over time.  Most places fail because of debt and that is what needs to be avoided.  Once you can't pay debt you choose between upkeep or just keeping the place, neither provides a good result.

Lastly 6. Is a great idea but can certainly wait. 

Would need to know more about area demographics and such to add more