[Thomas Dai]

Can too much client/member money make for a worse golf course than if less client/member money were available?

Additions and over-elaborations that are not really needed?

Materials, supplies, equipment that are much cheaper but can give a very nearly similar outcome?

Just curious.

atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thomas,

Successful people don't like to waste money.

That doesn't mean that their tastes will produce a minimalist course.

I'd say that an unlimited budget would produce a more manufactured course, but, not necessarily a worse course if far less money was available.

[Joel_Stewart]

Pat: What about Medalist?

Greg Norman tinkered with the course with his own money for years until it was off everyone's radar.  When originally built it was a world top 100 course and hosted a Shells Wonderful World of Golf.  Now its the 28th best course in Florida.  Norman succeeded in bulldozing every inch of Pete Dye out of the course.

A friend of mine who is a member said every year it was a brand new golf course.

Augusta also comes to mind but those are well thought out changes that haven't turned out very good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat: What about Medalist?

What about it ?
The only expensive part of that project was the water reclamation system.

Greg Norman tinkered with the course with his own money for years until it was off everyone's radar. 

Ross tinkered with Pinehurst # 2 for 26 or so years, CBM at NGLA for the rest of his life, Ken Bakst and others have tinkered with their courses as well.

I don't see what "tinkering" has to do with a huge expense to design/construct the original course.

When originally built it was a world top 100 course and hosted a Shells Wonderful World of Golf. 

That it hosted Shell's Wonderful World of Golf is irrelevant.
As to a world top 100 ........... in whose mind ?
Certainly not mine.
The original course was excessively difficult. so much so that I doubt that Norman and Faldo or Price broke 80.

I don't see where the "Too much client money" is coming from in this case.
The amendments to the course, subsequent to opening day weren't excessive in terms of cost.

Now its the 28th best course in Florida.  Norman succeeded in bulldozing every inch of Pete Dye out of the course.

Let's just say that his "tinkering" might have detracted from the original design

A friend of mine who is a member said every year it was a brand new golf course.

That's an exageration

Augusta also comes to mind but those are well thought out changes that haven't turned out very good.

How so ?
Other than acquisition of land, the changes haven't been the product of costing too much money.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:

Absolutely.  There are dozens of examples from the last decade.

[Andy Stamm]

Price managed a 72 in that match and Norman a 76 (with a triple). They were 1 and 2 in the world, the course was rated 75.7 with a slope of 146 and was absurdly difficult.

[Jud_T]

To me it seems it's more an issue of rich guys being so used to getting what they want that they often meddle too much.  In other words ego is a bigger problem than money.  Frankly makes what Keiser has accomplished all the more impressive.

[Wade Whitehead]

Does Mr. Trump know when to stop spending?

WW

[Patrick_Mucci]

Price managed a 72 in that match and Norman a 76 (with a triple). They were 1 and 2 in the world, the course was rated 75.7 with a slope of 146 and was absurdly difficult.

Andy,

Like the Nelson - Littler match at Pine Valley, I have my doubts regarding the actual scores shot at the Medalist for that match.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does Mr. Trump know when to stop spending?

YES

And his expenditures have primarily been for acquisitions.

Trump Scotland seems to be his only original design/construction.

[Jim Nugent]

Does Mr. Trump know when to stop spending?

WW

I was thinking Trump LA.  His website says he spent over $264 million on the course; with $61 million on the 18th hole alone.  (http://trumpnationallosangeles.com/html/newsroom_0805b.asp).

He also calls it a Donald Trump design: he takes credit for it.  From what I've read here on GCA.com, the course is a mess, and brings to mind the old adage that the man who represents himself has a fool for a client. 

[James Boon]

Thomas,

From my experience of working on private houses, I'd certainly say that just because the client has plenty of money it doesn't mean they necessarily have the taste, class, or understanding of the subject enough to get an end product that the cognoscenti would approve. Of course there are also plenty of examples where that money has led to an interesting end product, be it innovative or overcoming difficult engineering challenges.

I don't see golf courses as being any different? One key thing related to your opening post is that the current thinking of the cognoscenti (which I suppose in this case is those nutter on GCA  ) related to golf course architecture is a minimalist approach which doesn't necessarily need much money to be spent. As Patrick says, successful people don't like to waste money, but that doesn't mean they won't want some ostentatious show of their wealth by spending money? 

Cheers,

James

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

LA was another "acquired" course, not one he had designed/built.

The add on cost occured through no fault of his when the ocean side land slid into the Pacific

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thomas,

From my experience of working on private houses, I'd certainly say that just because the client has plenty of money it doesn't mean they necessarily have the taste, class, or understanding of the subject enough to get an end product that the cognoscenti would approve.


Can you name five (5) owners with money who designed their own course in the last 20-30 years ?

Most owners are smart enough to hire GCA's.

The problems seem to arise when some of those owners dictate the end product


Of course there are also plenty of examples where that money has led to an interesting end product, be it innovative or overcoming difficult engineering challenges.

I don't see golf courses as being any different? One key thing related to your opening post is that the current thinking of the cognoscenti (which I suppose in this case is those nutter on GCA  ) related to golf course architecture is a minimalist approach which doesn't necessarily need much money to be spent. As Patrick says, successful people don't like to waste money, but that doesn't mean they won't want some ostentatious show of their wealth by spending money? 

Sometimes that manifests itself in the clubhouse.

When you eliminate the acquisition cost and just consider the costs related to the golf course, doesn't the architect dictate costs vis a vis his design on each particular property ?

Cheers,

James

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

LA was another "acquired" course, not one he had designed/built.

The add on cost occured through no fault of his when the ocean side land slid into the Pacific

He acquired it, then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into it.  He totally redesigned the course, and considers himself the architect of record.  So I feel it fits the criteria Thomas set in his o.p. 

I haven't played it.  But judging from comments in this forum, it's a hatchet job.

Note: I just looked at Trump LA website, and saw this in the FAQs:  "2. Who designed the Trump National Los Angeles Golf Course?
This golf course is the world’s first and only Pete Dye and Donald J. Trump Signature Design."

That's a change.  I remember a few years ago, Trump took sole credit.  Even so, he still says that Pete's design has been "greatly enhanced by Donald J.  Trump." 

My sense is that Trump doesn't really 'get' golf.  He does not have an innate sense of golf course design: Trump LA proves that.  (And I'm getting the feeling that even his new course in  Scotland may prove it too, as a faux-links that plays more like a parkland layout.)  But he's so successful, at so many things, he believes he can ramrod his way through golf as well, using many of the same techniques that have served him well in other fields. 

$61 million on a single hole?  $250 million on a course?  Bragging about a design that, from accounts I generally trust, misses the boat pretty thoroughly?   

Tell me, Pat, have you played Trump LA?  If so, what do you think of the course and its design? 

[Gib_Papazian]

Trump LA - really along the cliffs of Palos Verdes - gets a little too much criticism because The Donald is such an ostentatious asshole. Crowing that the 18th was "the most expensive golf hole ever built" permanently retired the belt for most obnoxious statement ever chiseled into a plaque - and made it almost impossible to look at the golf course objectively.

The problem is that - hate him or admire him - Trump bought a landslide disaster in bankruptcy and turned it into a pretty decent golf course. Yes, the waterfall is enough to make Ted Robinson blush, but given a tough piece of land, the terraced fairways and general flow of the golf course is by no means terrible.

Yes, another plaque adjacent to the first tee proclaims it the greatest course in California, but statements of that ionospheric arrogance are actually amusing as hell. Once you get past that - and concentrate on what is out there - the golf course is a soft-6, but hardly a horrific whiff.

It is a far more egregious sin to fund a golf course with excellent results - and then start screwing around with it from a standpoint of absolute architectural ignorance. There is a course in Poway, CA a (wink wink) friend of mine designed with some of the most devilishly clever greens I have ever seen. It turns out the owner is a terrible putter and after a year, decided to blow up the three most outstanding greens on the golf course.

As a result, something of real merit was diminished by pure, unadulterated stupidity. In fact, the single most outstanding feature on the golf course was the putting surface on #2 - ironically the very first thing to go. There is now a vapid, near-pancake in its place.

I've heard Trump criticized for thirty years, but I cannot deny - bombast aside - that he holds everyone to a high standard of quality and attention to detail. It pisses me off because though I would never deal with my team in such an abusive way, you cannot argue with his results.

OMG, I just defended Donald f*cking Trump. Hell must have just frozen over.

[Michael Felton]

Thomas:

Absolutely.  There are dozens of examples from the last decade.

Tom - to expand a little on Thomas's original question, if you had a project with a good, but not great piece of land to work with (and let's assume that you've taken on the job), would you rather have an unlimited budget or a smallish one?

I guess one part of the question is do people judge the course based on what it cost to build? I don't mean the architect, but rather the owners and members. I've never been anywhere near Trump LA, but from what Gib says it sounds like it's an okay course, but gets judged quite harshly on account of the money spent (which is a fair criticism). If you spend $100 million on a golf course and it comes out as a "7",  you're probably not going to be too pleased. If you spent $10 million on it, you might well be pretty pleased.

[Sean_A]

Michael

Yes, of course.  Most people would rather work with a large pot of money than a pot too small.  I find Thomas' question difficult to answer for two reasons.  First, I don't care how much money is spent on a course.  I may think it obscene and stupid to drop 100 million, but we are surrounded by obscene examples of waste on a daily basis.  Second, I don't know what it costs to build courses so I don't really know what too much money is. 

Thomas

On the flip side, can a super have too much money in the budget?  I think the UK went through a period of spending money in the 70s and 80s on water and feed only to realize in the 90s and 00s that this approach had detrimentally altered the character and playing qualities of their courses.  Its to the point where there are probably only a few true heathland courses remaining in the country and some, such as St Georges Hill aren't even close to being heathland. 

Ciao

[Michael Felton]

Hi Sean,

I think what I was getting at is with a good piece of land and a small budget, it really gives the architect an opportunity to showcase his abilities. There is something quite impressive about having limited funds and still being able to create a really good golf course. With enough money, there's a certain amount of "well it would be good, look how much money they spent". Same thing is true of a spectacular piece of land. Now obviously an architect would most like to have an unlimited budget and a spectacular piece of land, so that they can build their CPC or PV or what have you, but I was wondering from an artist point of view, would you rather have to deal with the canvas you've been given or be able to create your own canvas as you go.

I must admit I have no idea what it costs to build a golf course, but I had heard of plots of land on Long Island driving costs for courses up to around $100 million or so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

LA was another "acquired" course, not one he had designed/built.

The add on cost occured through no fault of his when the ocean side land slid into the Pacific

He acquired it, then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into it.  

That's not true.
Where are you getting your information from ?

He totally redesigned the course, and considers himself the architect of record.  

That's also not true.
Where are you getting your information from ?

So I feel it fits the criteria Thomas set in his o.p.  

Not at all.
Acquisition costs have nothing to do with design and construction costs

He poured the money into it ONLY after a good portion of the land/course slid into the Pacific.
That wasn't a planned or desired aspect of the project

I haven't played it.  But judging from comments in this forum, it's a hatchet job.

And random comments about Trump are the sole criterion you use to evaluate a course ?

Note: I just looked at Trump LA website, and saw this in the FAQs:  "2. Who designed the Trump National Los Angeles Golf Course?
This golf course is the world’s first and only Pete Dye and Donald J. Trump Signature Design."

That's a change.  I remember a few years ago, Trump took sole credit.  

I doubt it.
Could you cite where Trump claimed sole credit for the golf course ?
The universe, including Trump, acknowledges that the original design was a Pete Dye design.

Even so, he still says that Pete's design has been "greatly enhanced by Donald J.  Trump."  

That's correct.
A good portion of the Pete Dye course slid into the Pacific, mandating a reconfiguration, which Trump was responsible for

My sense is that Trump doesn't really 'get' golf.  

Then your "sense" is wrong.
He does get it.

He does not have an innate sense of golf course design: Trump LA proves that.

HOW does Trump L.A. Prove that Trump doesn't get golf ?

(And I'm getting the feeling that even his new course in Scotland may prove it too, as a faux-links that plays more like a parkland layout.)  


In that case, I'm getting the sense that you don't have a clue about Trump Scotland and are relying on the opinions of a few anti-Trump posters.
When Brad Klein, Ran Morrissett and other well respected architectural analysts deem the course to be exceptional, I'm inclined to accept their evaluation over those of who have a built in bias who are looking to find any and every flaw.

But he's so successful, at so many things, he believes he can ramrod his way through golf as well, using many of the same techniques that have served him well in other fields.  

Would you list those things that you claim he's "ramrodding" through golf ?

$61 million on a single hole?  

If you understood the circumstance you wouldn't make that an issue. OR, would it be your recommendation that Trump L.A. Be a golf course with just 15 or 16 holes ?

$250 million on a course?  

Do you think that Doral is just a course.
Ditto Trump L.A. ?

Do you have any concept of real estate values ?

I didn't see you objecting to a Mike Pascucci's acquisition costs at Sebonack.

Bragging about a design that, from accounts I generally trust, misses the boat pretty thoroughly?  

Then your beef is with Pete Dye.
Or, are you suggesting that Trump's marketing effort should be along these lines ?
"I bought a good golf course right on the Pacific, but a good portion of it collapsed into the ocean and when we reconfigured the course with the available land, it didn't turn out as well as the original".  Is that what you'd do ?

Tell me, Pat, have you played Trump LA?  If so, what do you think of the course and its design?  

The original or the course that was left to be redesigned after a good portion of the original collapsed into the Pacific ?

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:

Absolutely.  There are dozens of examples from the last decade.

Tom - to expand a little on Thomas's original question, if you had a project with a good, but not great piece of land to work with (and let's assume that you've taken on the job), would you rather have an unlimited budget or a smallish one?

I guess one part of the question is do people judge the course based on what it cost to build? I don't mean the architect, but rather the owners and members. I've never been anywhere near Trump LA, but from what Gib says it sounds like it's an okay course, but gets judged quite harshly on account of the money spent (which is a fair criticism). If you spend $100 million on a golf course and it comes out as a "7",  you're probably not going to be too pleased. If you spent $10 million on it, you might well be pretty pleased.

Michael:

I don't know why people would judge courses based on what they cost to build.  Like yourself, most people have no idea what it actually cost to build the courses they play, and to the extent they have heard numbers, the numbers are almost certainly fibs.  Some owners (Trump) exaggerate high, because they want to impress you with how much they spent; others (Sand Hills) don't include all the costs, because they want to impress you with how smart and frugal they were.

For most projects, I'm the one who determines what it will cost to build the course, and all I want is enough to do it the right way.  If the client tells me he is willing to spend a lot more, it doesn't matter, we'll only spend what we need to spend.  If he doesn't have enough, maybe we'll figure out a couple of ways to save $, but if it's going to cut into the quality of the finished product significantly, then I might not want to be involved.  (Note that my idea of what it takes, is probably far less than some other architects' idea of what it should take.  I've built several great courses for between $2 million and $3 million construction budgets ... if someone can't scrounge up that much, the project is going to have trouble.  There is NOTHING worse than running out of money before you're finished.)

If somebody wants to spend more than what I think is necessary, it worries me.  Maybe they want a bigger irrigation system, or more drainage, or fancier cart paths, or more bunkers ... all I know is that they are making the project more complicated, which takes focus away from getting the essentials right.  The biggest problem in China is that everyone seems to want to make the projects as complicated as possible, and it all distracts from the golf.

[Jud_T]

I suppose there's a certain elegance and simplicity to having just enough money to build a good course.  It's kind of like my theory on women- the ideal girl is probably one who is just good looking enough to attract you.  Anything more can be a real pain in the ass.

[Peter Pallotta]

As Jud elegantly suggests, too much of anything can lead to problems.

Any of you remember that film from a couple of decades ago (I think it was called New York Stories). The producers gave three great filmmakers -- Martin Scorcese, Francis Coppola and Woody Allen -- complete cart blanche and all important 'final cut' on any 30-45 minute film they wanted to make, about any subject, with no script or casting approvals, and with as much money as they needed. All the producers would do is then package those three 'shorts' into a feature length film.  A dream situation, for any filmmaker - finally, the artistic and financial freedom to do exactly as they pleased, to have their talent and passions shine through, unfettered by nasty money men or puerile commercial considerations. And so what did the these three makers of top notch films like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull and Mean Streets and Apocalypse Now and The Godfather I and II and The Conversation and Annie Hall come up with? As close to garbage as you can imagine. Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but easily the worst, least interesting, least engageing films any of them ever made. I was shocked for years afterwards - my house of cards (i.e. my belief that they -- and I -- could do truly great work if only someone would let us) came crashing down.
Peter

[Michael Felton]

Thomas:

Absolutely.  There are dozens of examples from the last decade.

Tom - to expand a little on Thomas's original question, if you had a project with a good, but not great piece of land to work with (and let's assume that you've taken on the job), would you rather have an unlimited budget or a smallish one?

I guess one part of the question is do people judge the course based on what it cost to build? I don't mean the architect, but rather the owners and members. I've never been anywhere near Trump LA, but from what Gib says it sounds like it's an okay course, but gets judged quite harshly on account of the money spent (which is a fair criticism). If you spend $100 million on a golf course and it comes out as a "7",  you're probably not going to be too pleased. If you spent $10 million on it, you might well be pretty pleased.

Michael:

I don't know why people would judge courses based on what they cost to build.  Like yourself, most people have no idea what it actually cost to build the courses they play, and to the extent they have heard numbers, the numbers are almost certainly fibs.  Some owners (Trump) exaggerate high, because they want to impress you with how much they spent; others (Sand Hills) don't include all the costs, because they want to impress you with how smart and frugal they were.

For most projects, I'm the one who determines what it will cost to build the course, and all I want is enough to do it the right way.  If the client tells me he is willing to spend a lot more, it doesn't matter, we'll only spend what we need to spend.  If he doesn't have enough, maybe we'll figure out a couple of ways to save $, but if it's going to cut into the quality of the finished product significantly, then I might not want to be involved.  (Note that my idea of what it takes, is probably far less than some other architects' idea of what it should take.  I've built several great courses for between $2 million and $3 million construction budgets ... if someone can't scrounge up that much, the project is going to have trouble.  There is NOTHING worse than running out of money before you're finished.)

If somebody wants to spend more than what I think is necessary, it worries me.  Maybe they want a bigger irrigation system, or more drainage, or fancier cart paths, or more bunkers ... all I know is that they are making the project more complicated, which takes focus away from getting the essentials right.  The biggest problem in China is that everyone seems to want to make the projects as complicated as possible, and it all distracts from the golf.

Thanks Tom. I guess the cost to build isn't really the determinant (other than to the owner), but rather the cost to play. I would imagine that the people who are paying to join Sebonack would probably expect better than the people who are paying $50 to play at a local municipal.

[SL_Solow]

Michael;  Sometimes, what people are paying for is exclusivity, prestige and conditioning.  Fewer folks consider GCA than you imagine.  My experience on admission's committees has surprised me over the years when I learn how little people who are considering a club know about the pedigree of the course architecturally.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()