[Jason Thurman]

My club has begun bringing in architects to develop our master plan. We’re a 91 year old Langford and Moreau family club with a completely intact original routing. Our greens committee largely agrees on our needed areas of improvement, and they’re the standard things you’d expect at a club of our age – too many trees, old turf varieties throughout the course that are becoming tougher to maintain, bunkers that need renovation, drainage issues in a few locations, an irrigation pond with a retaining wall that needs to be replaced with something to control erosion, a handful of greens with too much slope for modern speeds and shrunken putting surfaces, and a perceived lack of length among some prospective members.

We have talked about all of the things above, and we largely agree on the areas of greatest and least importance in a vacuum. We also agree that the mission of any alterations made should be to grow the club and enhance its sustainability for the future. We have a history of responsible spending that we intend to carry forward should we decide to do any work to the course.

This is not a “What would GCA do?” thread. Guys like us obviously love the recapturing of bunkers from the original design, restoration of original shapes, and clearing of trees and reclaiming of width. We also spend most of our time talking about clubs with deep pockets and no aversion to spending. My club doesn’t want to spend money unless we think we’ll get long term value from it. That's been our philosophy for 91 years, and it hasn't changed in 2014.

The question is, what factors to be considered in a master plan’s incorporation best drive revenue while reducing costs? We have our own ideas about what our biggest priorities should be, but we could be wrong and I’d love to hear what others with experience have seen.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

A few years back, someone posted a NC master plan for a private club. It examined specifically where it was in the marketplace - entry level, mid level move up, or final destination club. I thought going to that level of market analysis was a good start to their master plan.

And it might lead a gca buff to some hard conclusions, such as do the 25 year old members you seek (if that is your market niche) really give a hoot about LM?  I hope they do, but who knows.  If its a family, club are some of those LM bunkers too deep?  And do you need forward tees up at 4000-4400 yards?  Do you move a green for a pool or tennis?

Again, I like the idea that you are starting with an eye to the future and payback potential.  At most clubs, retaining the old charm that made them a viable place for membership fits in almost any plan, but you might be surprised at some of the conclusions you draw if not starting with architectural preservation.

[Josh Tarble]

I like Jeff's suggestion of a market analysis.  Or at least a strategic plan on how you're going to target the young members.

But the only thing I can suggest is Trees, Greens and Range.

Surely that is what everyone will suggest...but right or wrong, young people like to hit the ball all over the place and want to be able to hit it again.  Greens, expand them out as far as they can go, make sure they are smooth and fast (I know that's probably not a popular suggestion)  and the range is important to have plenty of spots, some good targets to hit at and a nice short game area.

But I think more important is how you're going to target new members vs. what you're going to do.

[Jason Thurman]

I think we've played our cards wisely in recent years. We've installed a very nice practice facility that's only limited by the fact that it's a little too short for Josh to hit his 3 iron, but most members can still hit drivers. We've started putting in a new, farther forward set of tees that are small but functional.

Jeff, your post is appropriate in light of a comment last night. Our 18th hole is a 275 yard par 4 that some non-members may consider to be too soft for a closing hole. For our membership, though, it's sometimes accused of being too hard. A pair of bunkers guarding the left side of the fairway are really deep and the 110 yard wedge shot out of them is too much for the guys who find them with regularity. Our deep greenside bunkers are great. We have some pretty toothless fairway bunkers that a guy like me would love to see made more formidable, but that might chase members off.

[Tim Gavrich]

I would recommend you look at how the club can minimize the amount of turf outside the normal intended field of play that needs more than cursory maintenance. Project 91 more years into the future: it's at least conceivable and likely probable that being able to use less water is going to be a help to the course (corollary: is having scruffy, rather than lush rough a concept that is saleable to the membership on the condition that the (well-widened) fairways and (max-expanded) greens are going to be in wonderful shape more often?) . And err on the side of having more greens that are open in front.

Also, as Josh alludes to, try and keep some funds left over for a solid local marketing/PR plan if growing your membership is a priority, too. Get any local TV/news folks who play to come out to your club the day it reopens to mingle with what will be an extremely excited membership.

Jason, re: shallower fairway bunkers, I wonder if a compromise could be struck whereby they're kept rather shallow but the fairway is cut to run straight into them, bringing them into play a bit more?

[Jud_T]

Wait a minute, Jason, I didn't even know your club was L&M.  I may have to get my butt down there this spring to take a look for myself!    Host the Midwest Mashie after the work is done and you've got free marketing!  Best of luck.  I like most of the suggestions thus far.  I'm not sure bunkers will scare away members.  They are like eye candy.  It's really the maintenance budget long-term that's at issue.  How about taking some bunkers out but having one or two fearsome fairway bunkers?  Do you have original aerials?

[BCowan]

Jason

    I think if you cut trees around greens down you will see improvements with the greens.  If they are worth saving a deep core aeration for the Push up greens would be a great cost effective way to improve them.  You can look for companies that provide that service to area clubs.  You don't have to lengthen short holes to attract young people.  It is just good to have a couple long 4's somewhere in the course.  A short hole should have some Penal bunkers on it IMHO.  I agree completely to save some money for advertising.  

[David Royer]

Jason, Interesting question.  I'm currently chairing a master planning process with a nationally recognized architect conducting the work.  We are about half way through the process.  Jeff's point regarding where your club is "slotted" is critical.  We, like you, are focused on very similar issues. (bunker renovation, recovering green areas, tree removal, re-introducing lost fairway bunkering, recovering lost fairways, etc.) We were built in 1927.  We have a full membership which is very nice.  That said, we are focusing on adding strategic value for all players regardless of handicap. We want to maximize our best topographic features.  Additionally we want to seriously upgrade our short game practice areas.  We think if we can accomplish these goals it'll sustain membership and continue to develop our young players.

[Sean_A]

Do folks think work on a private course (unless it is in bloody awful condition) can encourage new membership?  If so, enough to warrant cash outlay? 

To me, if a club must be frugal, work should be focused on long term reduction in maintenance costs.  There needs to be a cost out in terms of how many years of savings will it take to cover the cash outlay.  If increased membership is a goal, then its effect should be very conservatively estimated because there is no way to accurately forecast membership increase based on course improvements.  At some point, if a club wants to work on its course, it is a leap of faith as to whether it will financially pay off.  Therefore, it is essential that the membership buys into increased playbility and improved long term conditions which will also reduce costs.  Finally, strongly consider phasing the work over at least a few years.  Keep the membership happy with keen forward planning on mimimal course closure. 

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

Do folks think work on a private course (unless it is in bloody awful condition) can encourage new membership?  If so, enough to warrant cash outlay? 

 

Yes,frequently. It's called "build it,they will come".

It usually only works in the movies.

[Morgan Clawson]

Jason,
You ask an interesting question. And I don't have the answer to your specific question, but I have a few thoughts.

First, buy Brad Klein's Wide Open Fairways. There's not a lot of photos, so the ebook will do. He talks about the master plan process in a few chapters, and makes some great recommendations for how to get changes implemented at the end of the book.

I don't know your club or market, but based on your photo tour and this thread, I think your best strategy might be to "be the best, authentic Langford & Moreau possible".  As Klein says in his book, "nostalgia sells". Realistically, it may be impossible to be better than Lawsonia, as it looks like they have a better piece of land. But, it might be possible to be a strong #2. I just revisited the Wakonda thread that made its way back to page 1, and their membership doesn't seem committed to improving the course or restoring it sensibly. Sure, not a lot of people know L&M, but you could still be known as the fun and cool old club in town.

I wouldn't worry about trying to convert a few potential members by adding length, particularly if you have to force it. Most of the time the people you work so hard to appease don't end up coming on board anyway.

I think you said somewhere that your club had a casual vibe. I think that's a good attribute to have, and particularly for the future. Younger people often aren't in to formal and stuffy. So I would incorporate that into your messaging too.

Good luck with your plan; that's an exciting thing to be involved with.

[Nigel Islam]

Jud, It is a very nice course. I had a blast the day I played it. I think a guy with a chainsaw on a pole could do wonders there and don't change anything else. Clovernook would be a great course to be a member. If you are in Cincy and that Camargo connection falls through then I know who I would be calling

[Bill Brightly]

Tree removal is obvious. It has so many benefits for a relatively low cost. But as much as I would like to think so, architectural changes are probably a dubious expenditure of funds if the goal is to grow the membership.

I can't quite put my finger on how to do this, but I think the long term sustainabilty of many family clubs has to involve kids and wives. In other words, assume that the guy wants to join a golf club. What is going to make the WIFE want to join a particular club, because wives are increasingly part of the decision making process.

There is a tennis and swim club in a very nice suburb of NYC. It is owned by a family. They had a large number of tennis courts, platform tennis courts, a quaint old clubhouse, baseball field, and a lake for swimming and canoes and sailing. The owners decided to make very large capital improvements, assessed the members, and raised dues. They built an olympic size pool and a beautiful new clubhouse, complete with restaurant and bar, as well as an exercise facility.

They instantly lost many members, but within two years membership was full and now there is a waiting list. Why? Because if you are raising children in the towns that surround this club, your wife will want to join because that is where all of your kids' friends are hanging out all summer. Even guys paying dues to area country clubs with a golf course and a pool find themselves forking over the money to join here.

I can't help but think that many country clubs have to change their attitude to children on the golf course, find time to get kids playing, maybe even run summer camps that include tennis and swim team. Make it a place where Moms want to send their kids, and oh by the way, Dad can play golf there. It's not so much "build it and they will come" but rather, "change your attitude and they will come."


But since you mentioned the 18th hole wouldn't it be cool to take out all the trees on the left as L & M built it, and let the bombers have a go at the green? Or would that be a safety issue with the hole on the left? The fairway bunkers on the left are a classic problem: they are far too close to the tee to be relevant for today's game, so they only catch the shorter hitters. Do you move them out or leave them alone? Good luck!

[Jason Thurman]

Bill, I'd love to see trees come down around 18. Make no mistake, the big hitters already go at the green. It's an easy reach from the blues even for a short-knocker like me. The real problem with the trees is that they go too far in separating players who hit good drives vs. players who hit slightly offline ones. It's easy to be 20 yards off-center, hit a tree, and end up in the water facing a 220 yard 3rd shot on a 280 yard hole. That sorta sucks.

I agree with you totally on kids and wives. We have a pretty strong female playing membership, and a handful of REALLY good junior players. But overall, I don't think we do enough to get kids on the course. Our policies are pretty junior-friendly, and I think our membership would be too. But for whatever reason, we don't get many of them actually playing (probably because our membership, like many, is aging and doesn't have a lot of young children).

Jud, the key with our bunkers is that we don't have too many of them, especially in the fairways. If we deepened a few of our fairway bunkers to reflect more of a L&M look, I think people would really like it. If we put them in on every hole, it'd probably be too much. We currently only have four holes with real fairway bunkers though, so I think recapturing them would be well received.

There are very good old aerials at HistoricAerials.com, and a handful of great old photos in the club archives. I also have the original routing map, which called for a lot more bunkering. Other than that, though, the course is basically as designed. A few bunkers here and there have been moved or added or subtracted, but the routing is almost exactly as it was on the original map (one tee's angle has changed slightly). I think we have a great opportunity to capitalize on nostalgia and also pure fun.

[Tom_Doak]

I have been reading Nassim Taleb's new book, "Antifragile", and it reinforces my distrust of the Master Plan process --

a)  how wasteful it is [$30k for a report that requires a day or two worth of decisions?],

b)  how the introduction of club politics can distort the architect's recommendations,

c)  how the emphasis upon detailed plans and qualified contractors gets in the way of efficiency.


Of course, a club has to be certain it is not dealing with an architect who is no good; but once over that hurdle, it seems it would be much wiser to spend the $30k on completing a project and showing the membership what is to be gained.

Wakonda is a very cool course.  $30k worth of tree removal and fairway restoration would go a long way toward people being able to see what a sexy piece of land they are playing on.

[BHoover]

Tom, if a Master Plan is a waste of money, and what you're saying is that a club should not spend the money for an architect to prepare a Master Plan, then how exactly is a club supposed to put together a thoughtful and well-reasoned plan for the members to approve? Presumably the renovation or restoration process has to begin somewhere, doesn't it?

I'm all in favor of tree removal. I think many courses would be greatly improved simply with significant tree removal. So in a sense I agree with you. But what if a course has lost features such as green pads, bunkers or routing? Or what about if the club wants to redesign bunkers or build new tees? Or anything beyond tree removal? Are you saying there should be no formal planning process? If not, where and how does the process get started?

[Bill Brightly]

In this particular case, it sounds to me that the Master Plan is not simply asking the architect what they should do. Rather, the club's leaders are forcing themselves to make disciplined decisions that involve far more than what do change on their golf course. I applaud this effort.

Jason, I was very close to getting a summer camp started at the club near my home when I was on the board. (I have seen it work beautifully at Saucon Valley where I am a non-resident member, but that is not really a fair model because SVCC has 3 full courses PLUS a 6 hole course where kids can play golf all day.) I envisioned parents dropping kids off in the morning where they would be broken up into groups by age. Kids would rotate between the pool, tennis courts, paddle courts for fun games, driving range, and the older kids could be sent out to play a few holes on the course (maybe holes 14-18 before anyone got there.) We were going to open it up to kids of members as well as grandkids of members. Our GM had even lined up school teachers on summer break to handle the kids. But it got snuffed out with some behind the scenes board discussions. It was the last of my 7 years on the board, and the idea has never been brought up again.

I had this vision of the camp growing to the point where it became "the thing to do" in our town. The kind of activity that would obviously please fathers who played golf, but also mothers who were looking for things for their kids to do in the summer. Mothers who knew what their neighbors' kids were doing. I'm convinced it would have generated a completely new demand for memberships, including social memberships where the parents don't play golf.

But having 40 or 50 kids running around the facility for a few weeks in the summer is NOT what members are used to seeing. That's not the reason that was given for killing the idea, but I know it was.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()