First, I’ve never met Rees Jones (gasp). As the site civil engineer, I worked closely with Rees’s associate (Bryce) and the developer from cradle to grave. The site design included: all exterior paving, drainage, utility services, lift station, wastewater treatment plant, highway turn lanes, site grading (non-golf course ~700,000 cu. yds. mostly from the 10 acre pond and to build up the parking lot); coordinate and permitting with the 2 rural water systems, DOT, DNR, Corps of Engineers (wetlands) and WAPA (150’ transmission line easement through the golf course); and prepared SWPPP for the golf course.
The second paragraph more accurately describes the situation. The word ‘hate’ may be a bit strong but it greatly impacted the architect’s routing. It wasn’t just the waterfall, it was also all the fill material to build up the waterfall and surrounding area. I mentioned this was right when Mickelson was raking Rees through the coals and the PGA Championship was played at the Atlantic Athletic Club that year. I can see where an architect could’ve walked away at this point because it was likely to attract criticism.
I don’t see any issue with wanting to work with a repeat client. Those are usually the best clients in the engineering world. If one can develop a good working relationship with a client and perform good work so they want you back for the next project, then you don’t need to market the client as heavily, prepare proposals, marketing materials, overhead, overhead…. Instead of marketing, you can focus on performing the client’s work, the product performs the marketing. This reduces the firm’s overhead cost and in turn saves money for the client because you don’t have to include that increased marketing cost in your fees. I don’t think I’m saying anything you don’t already know. You can’t dismiss the motivation to maintain a repeat client as a bad reason to staying with a client that may throw the occasion curve ball. Even though it was a very demanding project, I really enjoyed working with the client and I believe RJGCD enjoys working with the client too.
The reality is that there are around 1,000,000 admissions onto the casino floor each year and each admission leaves approximately $60 behind. Maybe there will be 20,000 rounds of golf played there next year at an average cost of $55 per round (fee range $40-$70). Same amount spent. If I’m the developer, do I focus my efforts on improving the experience for the 1M or the 20K? If there wasn’t the 1M, there wouldn’t be the 20K. Heck, the developer could’ve said screw the golf course because it will be around break even and he’ll still draw the 1M to the casino floor, but he didn’t.
I believe the developer does care greatly about providing a very good golfing experience that isn’t available in this area. That golfing experience may be slightly different than the golfing experience that is sought by participants of this forum. Do I dare say that the developer’s expected ‘golfing experience’ is more in tune with the majority of golfers than the ‘golfing experience’ sought by participants this forum?
Are you motivated by money? Do you want to provide the best you can for your family? Do you want to provide the best you can for your employees’ families? If I wasn’t motivated to earn money, I wouldn’t be able to afford to travel and play a variety of golf courses.
I’m glad they removed the reference to Indian burial grounds. That was a concern raised by the Santee Sioux Tribe at the start of the project and is not something to be taken lightly.
Tom, I’m glad you’re willing to come on this board and participate in discussions with meatballs like me. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else. I knew that when the waterfall was introduced that at some point there was going to be comments on this board once it was found out. I told myself at the time that I would try and make people aware that the waterfall wasn’t the architect’s plan. It just so happens that you were the person that started the discussion. Sorry.