Where would golf conditions be today if developers had not made golf an amenity?

[Mike_Young]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

[Bill_McBride]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

Mike, "fawn over?"  What are some of the courses you are talking about?  I see most of the "fawned over" courses as non-RE courses. 

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
Read it again.  I'm not talking about 1500 guys on a website that like to go to Nebraska and walk.  It says"majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over".  That means to me all of the 20 million dollars signature courses .

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
Aren't we learning the answer to your question now?
We still have professionals in all fields associated with golf development trying to hang on to the old ways, but I see more check signers asking questions.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Aren't we learning the answer to your question now?
We still have professionals in all fields associated with golf development trying to hang on to the old ways, but I see more check signers asking questions.

yep

but I want to see when the universities catch on...

[Andrew Buck]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

The conditioning would be no different, IMO.  What would be different is the number of courses would be right-sized and most other clubs would be healthier.

[Mike_Young]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

The conditioning would be no different, IMO.  What would be different is the number of courses would be right-sized and most other clubs would be healthier.

Andrew,
Would that make golf more affordable or just a smaller golf market?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

It's a good question, one with a great deal to be learned from an historical perspective.

Let me think about it and get back to you this weekend.

[Andrew Buck]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

The conditioning would be no different, IMO.  What would be different is the number of courses would be right-sized and most other clubs would be healthier.

Andrew,
Would that make golf more affordable or just a smaller golf market?

Like so many things on this board, it really is location and market specific, although I don't think the market would be much different in most areas.  I also think the impact on Country Club golf and Public golf may be different.  

In established markets where population growth is at or below the national average, if supply matched demand, I fear that many Country Clubs would actually spend more on conditioning and amenities with a full membership, as opposed to charging lower dues to cover existing expenses.  For public courses, they may be able to charge more for lesser conditions without the added competition.

I see a good number of the development courses being public access, and I do think that has pushed public access conditioning, but in established markets (like Chicago) I don't see where the development clubs or courses have done anything to alter the maintenance practices of established clubs.

Now, in areas where population has grown or retirement communities have popped up, the answer may be different, although still not "one size fits all", as Sun City or The Villages is much different than Desert Mountain or Isleworth.  I really don't know enough about these areas to know their impact on course conditions (overseeding, etc.) or non-golf grounds conditions (flowers, waterfalls).

[Brent Hutto]

I wasn't playing golf in the early days of the golf-as-real-estate-amenity boom (I started in 1994) but around here it seems to have sorted out that the mid-range housing developments installed public/semi-private golf courses while the higher-end neighborhoods built basically the same courses but set them up as private, presumably to gain extra cachet as well as possibly gaining members from the homeowners.

The area I live in can't possibly support more than 4-5 (at the very, very most) true full-service "Country Club". Yet there are or have been nearly 3x that number set up over the past several decades. Most have reverted to some sort of semi-private status since about 2007, though.

I'd imagine without the real estate dollars, my area would have fewer public courses and many fewer Country Clubs. I guess we'll find out. There are already fewer than there were a decade ago and unless the real estate teat starts producing again real soon we'll be seeing something like the alternative-history number of courses left hereabouts.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
Read it again.  I'm not talking about 1500 guys on a website that like to go to Nebraska and walk.  It says"majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over".  That means to me all of the 20 million dollars signature courses .

Ah, thanks.

[Lou_Duran]

You mean golf is not an amenity?  

Look at the decades of policies to artificially lower the cost of homeownership for the real villain.  Developers typically do what the consumer demands AND only when financing is available.  Even now, at my home club which is supposedly hemorrhaging cash, some 95 lots are in development, with more than a dozen reserved after the first public meeting.  Maybe residential development is the salvation of golf in some cases- last time I played, there were more than 20 kids on the practice green with the teaching pro, mothers and fathers on the patio, drinks in hand, socializing.

There are many golf clubs that are doing well today.  One near DFW airport is about to redo its immaculate driving range and greatly increase the size of its already sizable clubhouse.  I suspect that the basis to date is well over the $20M and apparently its members are willing to pony up some more.  Golf is a Big World.

[Jeff Taylor]

Food for thought.  The majority fo the golf courses we see people fawning over these days could not survive on just green fees or dues due to conditioning and clubhouse expenses which were created in order to be competitive in a RE market.  If golf had not been used to create lot value would we have seen all of the elements of maintenance that have begun in RE and crept into "for profit" golf?  I say no....

Business models and practices live and die based on their worth. People found it valuable and paid for it. That conditions change is a statement of the obvious. The real question is whether you personally suffered from these conditions. I expect the answer is no.

[Mike_Young]

I've read the replies so far and I don't think I made it clear what I was asking.  I understand the replies and i know that some clubs are doing well and some are profitable but my question is:  Would we see clubs go to the lengths they go to for bunker construction and bunker maintenance if there had never been competition with developers for higher end communities?   Would we have seen the 8 ft wide curbed cart paths with exposed pea gravel or pavers?  Would we have seen half way houses that cost $750,000?  Would we see irrigation systems that cost two million?  I understand completely that technology would have evolved and huge improvements and cost savings would have emerged over the same period of time BUT if the golf courses themselves were the main revenue stream that was going to pay for golf condition improvements over the same time period, would we have seen the same focus?  I say no.  Designs would have been much more user friendly; maintenance buildings would have remained maintenance buildings instead of becoming turfcare centers; scented towels would have never been seen; walk-mowing approaches would have been laughed at.  Take a look back at ANGC in 1985 and those conditions were considered excellent.  Greens were walk mowed but fairways were cut with ground driven reels and bunker edges were trimmed with a pair of grass clippers.  If we had even maintained that level of maintenance until today it would have been acceptable and it would have been affordable and good for golf.  But developer competition took golf conditions and put it in a place where being sustainable was not a question that was considered.  It's no different than someone needing a Viking Stove to cook a bowl of soup when the basic Kenmore stove worked just as well for parents.  We do it or accept it because it's there and we can.  Golf never required all of these improvements; half million dollar lots did..
JMO

[Jeff Taylor]

"BUT if the golf courses themselves were the main revenue stream that was going to pay for golf condition improvements over the same time period, would we have seen the same focus?  I say no.  Designs would have been much more user friendly; maintenance building would have remained maintenance buildings instead of becoming turfcare centers; scented towels would have never been seen; walkmowing approaches would have been laughed at."

Same focus on meeting customer needs? Yes. Different needs? Maybe.
Turfcare centers? Not even sure what that means but my guess is- yes if that is what customers demanded.
Scented towels? Same answer.

Do you disapprove of these amenities? Do they do harm to the courses you play? Do they do economic harm to anyone? Is the game harmed?

I think my initial answer gets to the heart of your question and my response is the same. Why does it matter to you that others may prefer something different? We could have the same discussion about homes, cars, and clothing.

[Brent Hutto]

I believe the point, if I may be so bold, is that if every dollar to pay for scented towels and walkmown approaches had to come from the pocket of the member or the daily-fee punter it's entirely possible the demand for such upscale nonsense would be almost nonexistent.

Let's say you borrow money to build a golf course and your business plan consists of charging X number of goflers per year $Y in green fees out of which you have to pay everything from the initial investment to the cost of scented towels. There would probably be lots of those business plans built around what nowadays we'd consider a bare-bones, shoestring budget way of maintaining and operating a golf course.

Our expectations of "bare bones" or even "penny pinching" are determined in part by implicit comparison with all those courses built and operated by green fees plus developer contributions. All in the service of the developer wanting everything high-end, upscale, high touch, top drawer and better than the place across town.

I find it a plausible theory...

[Mike_Young]

Same focus on meeting customer needs? Yes. Different needs? Maybe.
Turfcare centers? Not even sure what that means but my guess is- yes if that is what customers demanded.
Scented towels? Same answer.

Do you disapprove of these amenities? Do they do harm to the courses you play? Do they do economic harm to anyone? Is the game harmed?

Jeff,
IMHO the scented towels and such were not necessary to the game.  I don't feel it is my place to approve or disapprove if someone wants one.  But, I  believe they would have never evolved if golf had not been trying to convey a particular image at a development that gave it a small edge over the competing development down the road.  And at the same time I am all for free enterprise and competition.  I don't think such things do harm to the course I play  but I do think they have done economic harm to the game if the game is considered independently and not as an amenity.  IMHO it has harmed the game by making it out of reach for so many and by increasing the expectations for so many that were satisfied with the core expectations before.  
JMO cheers...

Brent,
Yes...you write better than I do.

[Jeff Taylor]

All in good fun folks.
Brent, I think you underestimate the consumer's ability to spend their money wisely (based on their standards). Unbundled options are common in the marketplace. No scented towels at Lake Presidential but it is very green.

Mike,
"it has harmed the game by making it out of reach for so many and by increasing the expectations for so many that were satisfied with the core expectations before".
I think you are speculating here. When was before? More people play golf now than did 50 years ago. I would call that a good thing. Not sure I understand what core expectations were before. After all, high end country clubs have been around for a long time. Just as long as unkept or bare bones public courses. All discussion about affordable products tend to have the same characteristics (unless we are talking about strictly regulated markets). I was just describing why that is. With such a wide variety of consumers, why would we be surprised that there is a wide spectrum of quality and availability in the product that meets those needs? Cadillac's don't make Malibu's more expensive.

[Mike_Young]

All in good fun folks.
Brent, I think you underestimate the consumer's ability to spend their money wisely (based on their standards). Unbundled options are common in the marketplace. No scented towels at Lake Presidential but it is very green.

Mike,
"it has harmed the game by making it out of reach for so many and by increasing the expectations for so many that were satisfied with the core expectations before".
I think you are speculating here. When was before? More people play golf now than did 50 years ago. I would call that a good thing. Not sure I understand what core expectations were before. After all, high end country clubs have been around for a long time. Just as long as unkept or bare bones public courses. All discussion about affordable products tend to have the same characteristics (unless we are talking about strictly regulated markets). I was just describing why that is. With such a wide variety of consumers, why would we be surprised that there is a wide spectrum of quality and availability in the product that meets those needs? Cadillac's don't make Malibu's more expensive.

Jeff,
We've lost over two million golfers in the last few years.
Handicaps have not gone down over the years.
The high end country clubs I am familiar with have tables they have had for 50 years, their lockers are often metal, they have no scented towels,and they offer very little pretentiousness.  
And IMHO the Cadillac did make the Malibu more expensive.....but GM understood where to place the Cadillac dealer and where the Chevy dealer was needed.  Golf did not do that....

I just don't think the majority of the conditions we have come to accept as standard did anything for the game and in many ways harmed it.  Tighter fairways definitely made the course longer and made the ball go further.  Lower green heights brought about many agronomic issues that were not present before.  None of this made more people play...but it probably forced some to stop.  I often ask myself if my grandchildren will think of today's golf conditions as unplayable and unacceptable.  

[JMEvensky]

There is a market for scented towels just as there's a market for bare-bones--and everything in between.The problem,IMO,is that a lot of  clubs chased the scented towel guys which skewed their priorities.More money toward the amenities and less to the golf course playability type stuff.

Now,the scented towel guys are nowhere to be found but the clubs refuse to re-order their spending priorities.

[Andrew Buck]

All in good fun folks.
Brent, I think you underestimate the consumer's ability to spend their money wisely (based on their standards). Unbundled options are common in the marketplace. No scented towels at Lake Presidential but it is very green.

Mike,
"it has harmed the game by making it out of reach for so many and by increasing the expectations for so many that were satisfied with the core expectations before".
I think you are speculating here. When was before? More people play golf now than did 50 years ago. I would call that a good thing. Not sure I understand what core expectations were before. After all, high end country clubs have been around for a long time. Just as long as unkept or bare bones public courses. All discussion about affordable products tend to have the same characteristics (unless we are talking about strictly regulated markets). I was just describing why that is. With such a wide variety of consumers, why would we be surprised that there is a wide spectrum of quality and availability in the product that meets those needs? Cadillac's don't make Malibu's more expensive.

Jeff,
We've lost over two million golfers in the last few years.
Handicaps have not gone down over the years.
The high end country clubs I am familiar with have tables they have had for 50 years, their lockers are often metal, they have no scented towels,and they offer very little pretentiousness.  
And IMHO the Cadillac did make the Malibu more expensive.....but GM understood where to place the Cadillac dealer and where the Chevy dealer was needed.  Golf did not do that....

I just don't think the majority of the conditions we have come to accept as standard did anything for the game and in many ways harmed it.  Tighter fairways definitely made the course longer and made the ball go further.  Lower green heights brought about many agronomic issues that were not present before.  None of this made more people play...but it probably forced some to stop.  I often ask myself if my grandchildren will think of today's golf conditions as unplayable and unacceptable.  

I think there are as many, or more, affordable options as there ever has been.  I think there has been an unreasonable reach to extravagance in some cases, but that has happened with homes, cars, electronics, education and all aspects of life.

I think participation is down because societal norms have changed.  Time spent on family activities have changed, and expectations in other areas (school, house, etc. have changed).  A quick look at golfnow shows I could play over a dozen courses in the western suburbs of Chicago tomorrow for under $25 with a cart, which compares to $9 in 1980.

I'm sure some developments had multiple negative impacts, but I think most of the posh clubs would have made the same upgrades they have otherwise, and many have foregone some of the amenities you are speaking of.  

[Andrew Buck]

All in good fun folks.
Brent, I think you underestimate the consumer's ability to spend their money wisely (based on their standards). Unbundled options are common in the marketplace. No scented towels at Lake Presidential but it is very green.

Mike,
"it has harmed the game by making it out of reach for so many and by increasing the expectations for so many that were satisfied with the core expectations before".
I think you are speculating here. When was before? More people play golf now than did 50 years ago. I would call that a good thing. Not sure I understand what core expectations were before. After all, high end country clubs have been around for a long time. Just as long as unkept or bare bones public courses. All discussion about affordable products tend to have the same characteristics (unless we are talking about strictly regulated markets). I was just describing why that is. With such a wide variety of consumers, why would we be surprised that there is a wide spectrum of quality and availability in the product that meets those needs? Cadillac's don't make Malibu's more expensive.

Jeff,
We've lost over two million golfers in the last few years.
Handicaps have not gone down over the years.
The high end country clubs I am familiar with have tables they have had for 50 years, their lockers are often metal, they have no scented towels,and they offer very little pretentiousness.  
And IMHO the Cadillac did make the Malibu more expensive.....but GM understood where to place the Cadillac dealer and where the Chevy dealer was needed.  Golf did not do that....

I just don't think the majority of the conditions we have come to accept as standard did anything for the game and in many ways harmed it.  Tighter fairways definitely made the course longer and made the ball go further.  Lower green heights brought about many agronomic issues that were not present before.  None of this made more people play...but it probably forced some to stop.  I often ask myself if my grandchildren will think of today's golf conditions as unplayable and unacceptable.  

I think there are as many, or more, affordable options as there ever has been.  I think there has been an unreasonable reach to extravagance in some cases, but that has happened with homes, cars, electronics, education and all aspects of life.

I think participation is down because societal norms have changed.  Time spent on family activities have changed, and expectations in other areas (school, house, etc. have changed).  A quick look at golfnow shows I could play over a dozen courses in the western suburbs of Chicago tomorrow for under $25 with a cart, which compares to $9 in 1980.

I'm sure some developments had multiple negative impacts, but I think most of the posh clubs would have made the same upgrades they have otherwise, and many have foregone some of the amenities you are speaking of.  As for the tight fairways, unfortunately "tree-lined" fairways and beautification programs were in place long before developments were in vogue. 

[Mike_Young]

I'm not saying posh clubs would not have made inprovements and I 'm not saying participation is down or up....I'm saying we would have never heard of many of the improvements that have become the norm for the "new high end clubs" if it were not for development.  Golf itself could have never afforded it.  Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Tom_Doak]

You mean golf is not an amenity?  

Look at the decades of policies to artificially lower the cost of homeownership for the real villain.  Developers typically do what the consumer demands AND only when financing is available.  Even now, at my home club which is supposedly hemorrhaging cash, some 95 lots are in development, with more than a dozen reserved after the first public meeting.  Maybe residential development is the salvation of golf in some cases- last time I played, there were more than 20 kids on the practice green with the teaching pro, mothers and fathers on the patio, drinks in hand, socializing.

Though I am not usually the type to blame our woes on too much government, one of the driving forces behind a lot of these struggling golf courses has been some well-intentioned development guidelines that have backfired on everyone.

Many communities have mandated that new developments include a minimum of 30% open space so that new developments do not overwhelm the landscape.  In our western states, development blocks tend to come in big chunks [640 acres], so those laws mandated 192 acres of open space.  And developers, not wanting to have a bunch of land they couldn't sell, became sold on the idea of building a golf course in those 192 acres, on the idea that it would raise the value of the lots they could sell [whether or not it actually did].

The problem with that is that many of these developers never really wanted a golf course and never had a plan to pay for it.  They just had to have 192 acres of open space, and what else would take up 192 acres besides a golf course?  So they built them -- and, as Mike says, they built them to "world class standards," because their only real interest was to make the lots as attractive as possible.  They didn't care if the golf course was sustainable or not, because they didn't intend to keep operating it -- the plan was to dump it into the members' laps as soon as possible and let THEM deal with the ramifications.  And that's where we're at today.

I've said it here before:  world-class standards are the bane of our industry.  Just because it's possible to maintain a golf course at a ridiculously high standard doesn't mean everyone can afford to do so.  

[Jeff Taylor]

"We've lost over two million golfers in the last few years.
Handicaps have not gone down over the years.
The high end country clubs I am familiar with have tables they have had for 50 years, their lockers are often metal, they have no scented towels,and they offer very little pretentiousness.  
And IMHO the Cadillac did make the Malibu more expensive.....but GM understood where to place the Cadillac dealer and where the Chevy dealer was needed.  Golf did not do that....

I just don't think the majority of the conditions we have come to accept as standard did anything for the game and in many ways harmed it.  Tighter fairways definitely made the course longer and made the ball go further.  Lower green heights brought about many agronomic issues that were not present before.  None of this made more people play...but it probably forced some to stop.  I often ask myself if my grandchildren will think of today's golf conditions as unplayable and unacceptable."

Mike,
Thanks for the reply. Also, I think this thread is going exactly where you hoped it would. Me too.
The conditions you speak of did not surface in the last few years. Maybe it took that long for it to happen. Possible, yes. However, there are other potential causes for that reduction in play and not all of them related to scented towels, nice clothes on old tables, or agronomic issues previously unanticipated. Maybe my Malibu anaolgy was flawed, but I doubt it. You make the case that high end golf has harmed a more traditional view of the game. We can differ on that definition, but it was people that did it. People with disposable incomes that wanted what they wanted. Were they correct? In your eyes, probably not. But then again, how are you and I harmed? Do you like classical music less because of Led Zeppelin?
I think Tom Doak is correct in suggesting that highly regulated markets result in the kind of "mis-use" of resources that you write about. Even those regulations are the result of the acts of people. And who is to say that some of those communities would not have been built by folks that love that audacity that we deplore? I like wide fairways and firm conditions. We want the same thing when it comes to golf. I hope to be able to play that ideal golf course that you decide to build.