Another one soon to bite the dust

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:

Since you upheld your part of the deal, I had to uphold mine.

Assuming your clubhouse minimums are low or non-existent, there's no mandatory cart or caddie fees, the initiation wasn't the cost of a Hampton's down payment and you get out there at least 40 times a year, I'll go with Southampton as my choice for Best Bargain in Golf.

Then again, I might take that $5600 and spend three weeks at Bandon in the off season.

Sven

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven - I now understand more and can appreciate better where you're coming from, but here's where we really see things differently. You write:

"I have no problem talking about whether or not it was worth $129 (a number higher than I recall paying to play there), but I'd rather have that conversation with people who have played the course, not folks who are making comparisons to their own little corner of the world."

For me, there is no course that is worth $130 per round. Granted, that amount (and even much more than that) is what many golfers may and very often do choose to pay -- but to me that's a different issue. What someone pays for a high-end experience/event/item is only rarely, it seems to me, based on the inherent value and utility and worth of that experience/event/item.

I can't imagine how anyone justifies the cost of playing say, Pebble Beach, unless they add concepts 'bucket lists' and 'father and son once in a lifetime reunion' into the mix. And I've never seen a case for how membership costs at a high end private club -- initiation plus annual dues plays yearly fees -- is actually worth it on a per-round basis, no matter how good the course/architecture, and yet people are very pleased to join and grateful to retain membership in these great old clubs for a variety of other reasons.

All of which is to say: no doubt at all that the Harvester is a fine, fine course -- but to me it is easy (and totally defensible) for Brent and I and Jeff to agree that at $130 is too much to play there -- in your language, that the course isn't "worth it"  -- even if Brent's in the southwest and I'm in Toronto and Jeff is in Connecticut.

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

RJ just for clarification, I tossed Wild Horse into the discussion because Nebraska and Iowa golfers often compare the two courses, and in the year I spent consulting in both states I heard quite a bit of debate about the two. I also think The Harvester gets far less publicity on this site than Wild Horse, and I wanted to compare it with a well-known GCA entity to offer it a bit more credit than Mark's original post did. Beyond the fact that they're both public courses not too far from I-80, I agree that they're very different courses in different markets, likely with a very different business approach.

As for whether the local market appreciated the acclaim that the course received, it's worth mentioning that when I talked about the course to Des Moines-area golfers, they immediately referenced its high magazine rankings. There seemed to be a lot of local pride in how highly touted the course was, but that pride doesn't always equate to a lot of people making the 30 minute drive and paying the steep greens fee. On that note, I never paid more than $70 to play there. I wouldn't pay much more than that, but only because I don't have to. I'm perfectly happy to play at twilight.

Just for kicks, a few photos:

1st tee shot:



The short par 4 5th:



The skyline approach to 7:



The long, downhill par 3 14th:



The Dye-ish par 3 17th. Part of the reason I prefer The Harvester just slightly over Wild Horse is it's greater variety of par 3s. I like all four:



A panorama of the wild, controversial, potentially drivable par 5 18th. It wraps around the lake with the green by the stand of trees on the right. Personally, I'm a fan. One of the things I really like about The Harvester is its handful of very original holes. The 18th is one, along with holes like the 2nd.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff:

Since you upheld your part of the deal, I had to uphold mine.

Assuming your clubhouse minimums are low or non-existent, there's no mandatory cart or caddie fees, the initiation wasn't the cost of a Hampton's down payment and you get out there at least 40 times a year, I'll go with Southampton as my choice for Best Bargain in Golf.

Then again, I might take that $5600 and spend three weeks at Bandon in the off season.

Sven

No we've got minimums
$75 capital assessment fee
$150 minimum
no mandatory cart
no caddies
so let's call it $7000 -and it's a very local membership who uses it quite extensively-packed during the week so many, many guys get their 50+ rounds in annually to beat the $129
Initiation was very low when I joined and still is around $15-20,000 now I believe
Not the best deal in golf, but certainly the best deal in The Hamptons
Palmetto's the best deal in golf-my per round rate is the same there and I only get in one round a year!

[John Kavanaugh]

Jason,

What year did someone reference magazine ratings in a friendly discussion?  I miss those days.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:

Since you upheld your part of the deal, I had to uphold mine.

Assuming your clubhouse minimums are low or non-existent, there's no mandatory cart or caddie fees, the initiation wasn't the cost of a Hampton's down payment and you get out there at least 40 times a year, I'll go with Southampton as my choice for Best Bargain in Golf.

Then again, I might take that $5600 and spend three weeks at Bandon in the off season.

Sven

No we've got minimums
$75 capital assessment fee
$150 minimum
no mandatory cart
no caddies
so let's call it $7000 -and it's a very local membership who uses it quite extensively-packed during the week so many, many guys get their 50+ rounds in annually to beat the $129
Initiation was very low when I joined and still is around $15-20,000 now I believe
Not the best deal in golf, but certainly the best deal in The Hamptons
Palmetto's the best deal in golf-my per round rate is the same there and I only get in one round a year!

Jeff:

At $7000, one could get 100 rounds in at the Harvester at the price that Jason noted (54 at the $129 number).  You'd have to make a full time job of it, the season is pretty short out that way.

Sven

[John Kavanaugh]

A caddie lecturing me about value in golf takes me back to when my Priest said masturbation was a sin.

[Shane Wright]

Mark,

It is inexcusable and utterly ridiculous that you would post this unless you are 100% positive this is true. Not 99% positive, 100%.  

The course is easily the best in the state and is a beautiful piece of property. There are some challenging parts to the property and I think they routed it beautifully.

But racing to get this bit of gossip onto GCA is stupid and only hurts the owners and people considering playing it in the near future,
whether it is true or not.  

It is hard enough to run and maintain a golf course without this sort of careless yapping.

Shane

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven - I now understand more and can appreciate better where you're coming from, but here's where we really see things differently. You write:

"I have no problem talking about whether or not it was worth $129 (a number higher than I recall paying to play there), but I'd rather have that conversation with people who have played the course, not folks who are making comparisons to their own little corner of the world."

For me, there is no course that is worth $130 per round. Granted, that amount (and even much more than that) is what many golfers may and very often do choose to pay -- but to me that's a different issue. What someone pays for a high-end experience/event/item is only rarely, it seems to me, based on the inherent value and utility and worth of that experience/event/item.

I can't imagine how anyone justifies the cost of playing say, Pebble Beach, unless they add concepts 'bucket lists' and 'father and son once in a lifetime reunion' into the mix. And I've never seen a case for how membership costs at a high end private club -- initiation plus annual dues plays yearly fees -- is actually worth it on a per-round basis, no matter how good the course/architecture, and yet people are very pleased to join and grateful to retain membership in these great old clubs for a variety of other reasons.

All of which is to say: no doubt at all that the Harvester is a fine, fine course -- but to me it is easy (and totally defensible) for Brent and I and Jeff to agree that at $130 is too much to play there -- in your language, that the course isn't "worth it"  -- even if Brent's in the southwest and I'm in Toronto and Jeff is in Connecticut.

Peter

Peter:

I get the subjective analysis you are describing.  What I was getting at was more along the lines of RJ's market analysis.  

Just because you and Brent (Jeff's $1000/round price point knocks him out) wouldn't pay $129 to play any course, doesn't necessarily mean that it was a price point that wouldn't work for this course.  Until we know exactly what is going wrong out there, we don't know if they were off base in what they were asking.

Jason is really the only person who has offered any sort of constructive insight into what was going on.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

A caddie lecturing me about value in golf takes me back to when my Priest said masturbation was a sin.

Would it be worse if it were a lawyer doing the lecturing?

[Gary_K]

RJ:

It was priced at $89 up until at least 2009.  At some point after that they upped it to $129.

In 2009, it was tied as the 11th cheapest GD Top 100 Public Course in the country.

Here are a few other price points to consider from that 2009 list:
 
7. (55) Quarry Oaks G.C., Ashland, Neb., $73

T11. (36) The Harvester G.C., Rhodes, Iowa, $89

I think a better cost comparison (not type of course: Harvester vs. Wild Horse) is with Quarry Oaks in Ashland, NE.  Quarry Oaks is located just off of I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln.  A larger population base, but the course is a similar distance from Omaha or Lincoln as the Harvester is from Des Moines.

Now look at the rates (for 18 holes and a cart):

In 2009: Harvester - $89.00     Quarry Oaks: $73.00

In 2014: Harvester - $129.00 (no matter what day)  Quarry Oaks: Mon-Thurs $65.00, Fri-Sun $75.00  (take off $10 after 2:00 pm any day)

Very little rate change for Quarry Oaks where as the Harvester has increased over 40% for a comparable course.  That's quite notable to me and likely to most golfers in the Iowa/Nebraska region. 

I think the golf experience is comparable between the two course.  Even if they were to cost the same to play, I'd probably prefer to play Quarry Oaks over the Harvester.  I just like the feel of the course better. 

Gary K.

[John Kavanaugh]

A caddie lecturing me about value in golf takes me back to when my Priest said masturbation was a sin.

Would it be worse if it were a lawyer doing the lecturing?

Even a lawyer provides value when looked at in total rather than by the hour. You are a member of a private club 24 hours a day 7 days a week. A public course fee only entitles you to rights for a short time. A private course in total is always the better value. But then again, I prefer to take a trolley when I walk.

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

What year did someone reference magazine ratings in a friendly discussion?  I miss those days.

It was the fall of 2011. I was working with a bunch of doctors who were documenting on paper and helping them create an electronic system to replicate their workflows in the digital world. It's probably partly my fault that none of them likely still subscribe to print media. Before they met me, though, they definitely knew about the course's accolades.

[Sven Nilsen]

A caddie lecturing me about value in golf takes me back to when my Priest said masturbation was a sin.

Would it be worse if it were a lawyer doing the lecturing?

Even a lawyer provides value when looked at in total rather than by the hour. You are a member of a private club 24 hours a day 7 days a week. A public course fee only entitles you to rights for a short time. A private course in total is always the better value. But then again, I prefer to take a trolley when I walk.

That's alright, I prefer dirt roads to asphalt.  Can't please all the people all the time.

[Mark Johnson]

Mark,

It is inexcusable and utterly ridiculous that you would post this unless you are 100% positive this is true. Not 99% positive, 100%.  

The course is easily the best in the state and is a beautiful piece of property. There are some challenging parts to the property and I think they routed it beautifully.

But racing to get this bit of gossip onto GCA is stupid and only hurts the owners and people considering playing it in the near future,
whether it is true or not.  

It is hard enough to run and maintain a golf course without this sort of careless yapping.

Shane

Shane,  PM me and I will give you the source.

That said, I am hardly the first to know.   Many in the Minnesota/Iowa golf community have known for some time.

[Shane Wright]

Mark, unless this has been posted publicly somewhere, it is still premature.  I know one of the owners and will ask him directly. 

As for the comparison between Harvester and Wild Horse, architecturally, there is no contest.  Harvester wins easily.  It has WAY more interesting shots.  I've played both a bunch of times.  As for maintenance meld and value, Wild Horse definitely wins.

As for the costs to play Harvester, it's too high.  Why?  It's purely location.  I have a hunch it is way better than many of the courses Sven lists with higher costs, but they have other drawing factors to be able to command their prices.  Harvester just doesn't have this going for it.  The property is one of the more beautiful properties I've played golf on.  But the location is working against it, at those prices.

Shane

[Jason Thurman]

Even if they were to cost the same to play, I'd probably prefer to play Quarry Oaks over the Harvester.  I just like the feel of the course better. 

Gary K.

The geographical comparison between Quarry Oaks and The Harvester isn't a bad one. Quarry Oaks is probably a little bit less hassle from Omaha or Lincoln than The Harvester is from Des Moines. It also benefits from having two cities nearby as opposed to just the one. I don't know anything about their financial situation to know whether they're faring better than The Harvester or not.

As for preferring Quarry Oaks to The Harvester, I thought LaFoy did an impressive job of routing a slightly above average course on an outstanding property at the former. I'm not as big a fan of that as some, but I have friends who love Art Hills' work that thought Quarry Oaks was a great golf course.

An older thread on The Harvester, starring the legendary Matt Ward: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,25674.0.html

[Andrew Buck]

If you take down the green fees significantly, then you lose value on the season pass.   I agree with most of the board that from a pure golf perspective, $60 rounds could be more profitable.   However, the question is how much does that devalue the attached real estate.

To me, it seems the "business model" was a failure from the get go if it was predicated on selling high end homes in a cold weather climate at a location that is about 30 miles from even basic restaurants, grocery shopping, etc.  

If it's closing, hopefully there will be a buyer that can get it from the bank cheap, and operate it as a lower maintenance (not low maintenance, just focus on areas of play) public course.

[Chris DeToro]

This is a bummer if true.  Had always wanted to play Harvester but like many others that have commented, I've not yet made a point of driving through rural Iowa which is possibly part of the issue

[Jim_Kennedy]

Type in "Golf courses near Des Moines Ia" in Google maps and you'll see a fairly saturated market given the population in the area.

Harvester is 30 minutes from Des Moines, 40 minutes from Ames, and 20 minutes from Marshalltown.

Most of the courses you'll see are 1/3 the green fee of Harvester,  a couple are 2/3's of it.

I sincerely wish them good luck if their survival is based on $129.00 green fees.  

[Chris Wagner]

Who would ever pay $129 when there is plenty of good and fun golf for under $35. $100 green fees big problem with golf and one of the causes for its decline.

[Greg Tallman]

32.50 per hour for something you enjoy doing... Don't see the problem.

[astavrides]

32.50 per hour for something you enjoy doing... Don't see the problem.

...said the director of golf at a place where green fees are $365.

[Jason Topp]

I hope they pull through somehow. 

In contrast to Mark's description, the Harvester is one of my favorite modern courses.  I am sure some searches would yield old posts of mine praising the place.  I have not been back in a few years but I have played there 20-30 times and it would always be my first choice compared to any other course within 100 miles.

I have never paid anything close to $130 to play there.  They always had offers for prices better than the rack rate, particularly for 36 holes.

I can't speak to the business model.  The housing always seemed like a tough sale to me but I have learned time and time again that I have no nose for real estate. 

It was always more expensive than other places in the area but easily worth it for me.  Locals would look at me strangely, however, when I praised the place.  I am not sure great design commands a premium in an area where most public golf costs $30.

[Greg Tallman]

32.50 per hour for something you enjoy doing... Don't see the problem.

...said the director of golf at a place where green fees are $365.

Alex, how are the fees at our resort relevant to this discussion? Or are you just trying to be a wise ass?

And by the way you could have played today for $115 USD