The Domino's Pizza school of golf course architecture?

[Tim Gavrich]

Come to think of it, I think I'll compile a laminated menu like they have a Waffle House that has photographs of a myriad of greens that could be adapted to any site.  The developer gets to pick and choose with prices commensurate with size and complexity!


Paging Mike Young.

Nicklaus Design is rumored to have a menu of greens like that, but it didn't come at Waffle House prices.




The real problem though is you would freak out the Raynor fans if you had a menu with more than 25 items.

This exchange from the housing development course thread made me wonder. Would the so-called "Dark Ages" have been so dark if there had been a catalogue of greens - heck, why not entire hole designs? - for developers to choose from, leaving the construction company to make subtle tweaks in the field as needed to get a given green or hole to fit within the terrain?


Exported far and wide, this might have been almost a chain-restaurant approach to course design. A build-your-own-burger sort of thing, like Domino's different pizza toppings and conveyor-belt cooking method.


Here's an excerpt from an article about Netflix's influence on food TV that gets at what I'm talking about:


“I think one of the main reasons I like Domino’s is because I’m being told by the culinary snob patrol that I can’t like it,” says David Chang in the pilot of his Netflix series Ugly Delicious. The Momofuku chef/restaurateur is setting up a scene wherein he works a shift as a pie-maker and a delivery driver at America’s most popular pizza chain. “It’s not something I eat all the time, but it reminds me of growing up — because this is literally the pizza I grew up eating,” Chang says as he enters a suburban Domino’s location.

In the Domino’s kitchen, Chang looks like a kid in a candy store, admiring the toppings bar, the conveyor belt oven, and the digital order-expediting system. “This is very exciting for me to see,” he tells his manager during training, “because this is years and years and years of a lot of people’s efforts to make it as streamlined as possible.”

By expressing his un-ironic love of Domino’s and its delivery operation, one of the most acclaimed chefs of his generation is forcing viewers to rethink their own conceptions of “quality” in the food world.


Tongue-in-cheek though it was, given that Tom Doak's proposed 25-item menu could be deployed in more 18-hole combinations than there are golf courses in the world - past, present, future - it seems like it might not have been the worst idea, especially in places where there were big-time routing restrictions (e.g. housing development courses), or on very flat land.


It's a Ross and not a MacRaynor, but the time I played Brunswick CC in Georgia, I came away wondering how much better off flat-land golf might be if latter-day architects had simply copied BCC's design and exported it to some of the thousands of courses built since, making minor changes to integrate it to different sites as needed.

I think this approach could resonate in particular today, with hundreds of course operators thinking they'd better do some renovations soon. If a middle-of-the-road course owner could simply choose from the menu and bring in a local construction company to build out the pre-fab greens (understanding there are considerations for which green would work on which existing hole, etc.), would that help cut renovation costs? Should someone actually do this?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


There are plenty of architects who have dished out the same limited menu over and over again, to varying degrees of acclaim.


Some critics would even contend that we all do it, if we have done enough courses for people to notice.


There is an architect here in Michigan, who used to build three mounds behind every single green.  One of his associates told me that was his signature and it was a rule for everything they built.




To answer your question, it would not cut costs too much.  In theory, construction companies would just pick up the mantle and cut out the architect entirely, but if successful they would probably pad the construction budget to try and make some of the architect's piece.  It would not be very much more efficient to build a Redan green on every course than just whatever green you wanted to ... especially if you weren't good at tying it into an existing landform, in which case it would take MORE effort to build the Redan than something simpler.


The other problem with the idea is, how do you market it?  Is there really a market for McDonald's style food in golf, where golfers just want the same holes no matter where they show up?  McDonald's success is based on delivering the food more cheaply; I don't think this approach would be much cheaper than what a good architect can do. 


But, by the same token, there are a hell of a lot of courses being built that cost way more than they need to.

[Kalen Braley]

When I was a kid, our family was on a tight budget so trips to McDonalds were both not very often and a real treat when we go to go.  Now that i'm older, (and no longer on a tight budget), I still find trips to McDonalds occur not very often. I think its great this guy still loves his Dominoes, but I'd like to think most of us grow out of that phase.

I think this would be the case with golf courses too but due to most muni golfers being on a limited budget, both in time and money, it doesn't happen much either.

[Jerry Kluger]

Arthur Hills did renovations of 4 or 5 courses in the Washington, DC area and it seemed that nearly every green had 3 sections and nearly every greenside bunker had a flat bottom.  The members seemed to be happy but to me it took much of the character out of the courses and made it quite boring.

[Anthony_Nysse]

There is an architect here in Michigan, who used to build three mounds behind every single green.  One of his associates told me that was his signature and it was a rule for everything they built.

Haha. I think that I know who this is. He also have 3 styles of bunkers and mixes/matches them into spots.

[jeffwarne]

In my experience, architectural interest has little to do with budget-if fact, the busier the firm, the more likely it was mailed in and less thought given and chances taken.


Some of the most repetitive and boring courses on the planet were built by super expensive signatures.
How many forgettable courses were built in Florida during the boom where 7 of 10 par 4's were (depending on your "correct" tee)440, 400, 360 and 320 yards, with 4 par 5's and 4 par 3's all of similar length from each of the "correct" tees.


Dominoes was alive and well from 1985-2005 in the golf business, it's just that they were charging Ruth's Steakhouse prices for their names.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I've thought about what you said in your last post for several years now, specifically why so many courses are 2s and 3s on the DS.  I used to think it was just most guys mailing it in, but maybe its not. 

If GCA is closer to subjective artistry over an exact science, then maybe its just most GCAs don't have it in the them to put something really interesting in the ground, because I don't doubt they have good ideas and intent. And when i compare it to other professions, there are tons of competent lawyers, doctors, sales people, etc....but only a handful of super talented ones who rise above and do exceptional work. Why should golf design be any different?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Do replica courses, like the Ross Memorial Course at Boyne, cost less to build? Do you find them satisfying?

[Tom_Doak]

Do replica courses, like the Ross Memorial Course at Boyne, cost less to build? Do you find them satisfying?

No, and no.


Old Macdonald didn't cost less to build than Pacific Dunes.  It cost somewhat more, because we had to re-shape a larger area of the course to make it be a certain way.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I've thought about what you said in your last post for several years now, specifically why so many courses are 2s and 3s on the DS.  I used to think it was just most guys mailing it in, but maybe its not. 

Kalen,
It was more a question of "why rock the boat" If I'm a lead architect for a busy, leading signature, I'm sure I'm supposed to regurgitate his work, rather than come up with creative ideas of my own from which I gain little and could lose my job.
A busy signature just had no time to get creative, and his staffs generally toed the line.
Developers  wanted to hire an expected brand that willing homeowners could justify buying (still not sure why but I digress) and certainly a developer wasn't looking for something outside the box that didn't sell lots-interesting golf was never the developers objective

[Tom_Doak]

It was more a question of "why rock the boat" If I'm a lead architect for a busy, leading signature, I'm sure I'm supposed to regurgitate his work, rather than come up with creative ideas of my own from which I gain little and could lose my job.
A busy signature just had no time to get creative, and his staffs generally toed the line.
Developers  wanted to hire an expected brand that willing homeowners could justify buying (still not sure why but I digress) and certainly a developer wasn't looking for something outside the box that didn't sell lots-interesting golf was never the developers objective

You can't really blame the "lead associate" for that kind of careful behavior ... he is just taking his cues from the boss, who is signing up too much work and not paying much attention to the outcome. 


Yes, lack of time on the part of the principal did dumb down a lot of courses, but there were also a lot of principals who didn't want to rock the boat themselves.  If clients were buying what they'd built previously, they would just keep building more of until someone told them to stop ... and most of the developers didn't care enough to tell them to do something different.


I've been on jobs where the construction superintendent proudly told me the "name" architect had been there two days, and other jobs built at the same time where he'd been there a lot more.  I think both clients paid the same, but the architect just spent his time on the project where the client wanted to engage him more, and figured the guy who wasn't saying anything was happy with the two visits. 


Any businessman would tell you that makes all the sense in the world, and any artist would tell you that's a bunch of crap.

[Peter Pallotta]

Is it any easier today to be the artist-businessman (rather than the businessman-artist) than it was between 1985-2005? I'd imagine that it would actually be harder now, given how many new courses where being built during those boom years and how few are being built today. On the other hand, maybe the ongoing explosion of social media & niche marketing and the discovery/cultivation of the well-heeled retail golfer mitigates some of that difference and leaves space for the artist to get his due. But then again, maybe it's always been harder (and much rarer) for the artist to take the driver's seat over the businessman -- except for those long ago 'amateurs' who built NGLA and Pine Valley and Myopia.
It's no accident, perhaps, that Mr. Chang waited until *after* he'd become a highly regarded and high-end chef with his own television show before 'admitting' to his love of Dominos, and slumming around there with the rest of us.   

[Ira Fishman]

Aren’t those who will argue that Tom Bendelow was the Tom Monaghan of his day? Some might even argue that in his most active period that Ross was the Mike Ilitch of his day.


Ira


PS The enduring genius of Ross is evidence of Kalen’s point about how rare genius can be.

[Tom_Doak]

Is it any easier today to be the artist-businessman (rather than the businessman-artist) than it was between 1985-2005? I'd imagine that it would actually be harder now, given how many new courses where being built during those boom years and how few are being built today.
   

It's easier today, because nearly everyone has been reduced to the sorts of volume more common to artists . . . one or two courses per year.  There's hardly anybody who is so busy that they have to shortchange the artistic parts of the work.


But, it's perhaps harder to do the business side with an artistic approach.  A lot of clients expect us to get more creative now, with our pricing!

[Mike_Young]

Hmmmm....everybody is saying the same thing but it is the same with golf courses that it is with every other consumer product out there.  Titleist, Clubcar, Coca Cola will gladly forfeit the top 1000 discussed here if they can have a guarantee on the other 15,000.  That's not a slam at those 100 or 1000.  It's a market and the needs of the market are what drive those things.  Housing screwed the golf market badly. 
As for mailing in templates as Tim describes...I know of two signatures and am sure there are more that control which contractors bid their jobs and in doing so I know they have been known to say hey place #7 green from Smack Ass Creek Club on the green site for #4 at Kenny Powers Acres Club. 
Another thing  has created much of the bad junk that was built for the same as what it would cost to do something a little better over the past 50 years.  It is a subtle concerted effort for years to restrict the trade in the market place.  I can show you several bad archies who got better once they got a talented contractor to build a job and he basically told them to "hey I got this" and let it roll. 
But in the end all of this stuff just comes back to The Dominos. McDonalds etc vs. Bones, Gene and Georgettis etc types of places.  I can appreciate and respect the Tom Doaks or Gil Hanses and the product they have generated while not thinking less of my product or my market.  What I have come to not respect is the really bad crap that was put out there and allowed to be justified by "peers"protecting each other and projecting their "expertise" to unknowing committees and clubs and supts with group think. 
AND I'm not saying everything that was done that way is "bad crap".  I'm saying that formula is how so much of it evolved over the last 50 years. 

[Tim Gavrich]

The other problem with the idea is, how do you market it?  Is there really a market for McDonald's style food in golf, where golfers just want the same holes no matter where they show up?  McDonald's success is based on delivering the food more cheaply; I don't think this approach would be much cheaper than what a good architect can do. 


But, by the same token, there are a hell of a lot of courses being built that cost way more than they need to.

Tom,


I think the notion of a bunch of similar (but engaging - this is crucial) courses across the country sounds unpleasant to those of us with the opportunity to travel far and wide, but the vast majority of golf is played near the golfer's home. This proposal is aimed more at the masses than the avid traveler. I haven't had the opportunity to play CommonGround, but I have heard pretty uniformly good things about it. Don't you think the energy that CommonGround instills in its regular players would be worth replicating in other municipalities, even ones that may have more limited budgets?


~


I should have highlighted this better, but the subtext in what David Chang, a very savvy (IMO) voice in food, is saying is that in reality, Domino's is not as bad in absolute terms as what he calls the "culinary snob patrol" would have people believe. He'd probably extend the same generosity, more or less, to McDonald's.


The development that is interesting to me is that McD's and other chain food restaurants are embracing trends that we can pretty much all agree are positive. Broadly, big chains know that consumers are more conscious of what they're eating, and where it's coming from, so they're caring more about the ingredients they use than they used to. The introduction of fresh beef to McDonald's burgers is a big example.


Likewise, the golfing consumer is a bit savvier these days re: what makes a golf course worth playing. With so many boom-era courses due for renovation/restoration/etc., we are at an important juncture. A lot of course operators want to do something, but probably cannot afford either the time or expense of a super-involved project. What can be done to give them the greatest chance at success within their means? Wouldn't something like the menu of expert-approved greens you mentioned be even a bit helpful?

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

While I agree with your comments in the 1st part of your last post, lets not delude ourselves on what Dominoes, McDonalds, or any other fast food chain actually is... low cost/low quality/quick food. The fact that you bragged about McDonalds adding "fresh beef" to its offerings says all we need to know about the current state of the industry.

P.S.  As to the first part, when I lived in Spokane I played with a regular group who had beyond ample means to travel and explore, but never did because they had 15 or so courses within a 20 minute drive to choose from, and it was all they needed. I finally convinced one of them to travel 2.5 hours to play Wine Valley and of course he loved it, but still didn't change his mind otherwise.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


I think the notion of a bunch of similar (but engaging - this is crucial) courses across the country sounds unpleasant to those of us with the opportunity to travel far and wide, but the vast majority of golf is played near the golfer's home. This proposal is aimed more at the masses than the avid traveler. I haven't had the opportunity to play CommonGround, but I have heard pretty uniformly good things about it. Don't you think the energy that CommonGround instills in its regular players would be worth replicating in other municipalities, even ones that may have more limited budgets?


~


I should have highlighted this better, but the subtext in what David Chang, a very savvy (IMO) voice in food, is saying is that in reality, Domino's is not as bad in absolute terms as what he calls the "culinary snob patrol" would have people believe. He'd probably extend the same generosity, more or less, to McDonald's.


The development that is interesting to me is that McD's and other chain food restaurants are embracing trends that we can pretty much all agree are positive. Broadly, big chains know that consumers are more conscious of what they're eating, and where it's coming from, so they're caring more about the ingredients they use than they used to. The introduction of fresh beef to McDonald's burgers is a big example.


Likewise, the golfing consumer is a bit savvier these days re: what makes a golf course worth playing. With so many boom-era courses due for renovation/restoration/etc., we are at an important juncture. A lot of course operators want to do something, but probably cannot afford either the time or expense of a super-involved project. What can be done to give them the greatest chance at success within their means? Wouldn't something like the menu of expert-approved greens you mentioned be even a bit helpful?

Tim:


I don't mean to be a member of the "golf snob patrol" for the purposes of this thread.  For the record, I have five kids and five grandkids now, plus I travel half the time, so I've eaten at McDonald's and Domino's and other convenience restaurants way more than my doctor would suggest.  I respect them for what they are.


That said, I think it would be a stretch to say that they have raised the level of culinary excellence in the world, just by providing a baseline of quality for fast, cheap food.  The standards Kalen alludes to above are a function of the business reality, which is that those restaurants compete on price, not on quality.  You're not looking for quality when you eat there.


I did not go to business school, but my understanding is that the above paragraph is the reality for nearly all businesses, and golf courses are businesses.  Either you're competing on quality -- to be the best course in the local market -- or you're competing on price. 


When I started out as a designer with High Pointe, I thought if I could make a better affordable golf course than the other affordable courses in my area, that would be a road to success, but in fact it's not.  If you're competing on price, you can't charge $10 more than the other guys for something "better".  If you're competing on "quality", then you are held to the same maintenance standards and have to project the same prestige as the Jack Nicklaus course down the street [which is difficult, since it loses money every year as a loss leader for the resort attached to it!].  So you wind up with what we have now in northern Michigan ... two or three courses at the top of the market that can charge what the market will bear, and 75 courses [it used to be 100] which are all killing each other in the race to the bottom on price.


So I don't know about these Domino's golf courses.  They're going to have to deliver quality at the same price as their neighbors, but that's really impossible for a new golf course, whose competitors have all written off the cost of construction long ago -- either by paying it off, or by going through bankruptcy and resetting the cost basis.


That's why the only courses you see being developed from scratch today are high-end courses that try to compete on quality, and charge a lot of money for it.  Lots of posters here complain about it, but that's where we are.

[Ira Fishman]

There are examples in the restaurant business of a brand positioning themselves as higher quality but not top end in quality or price. Shake Shack comes to mind in the burger world and perhaps Stoney River in the steakhouse world. However, it takes quite bit of marketing budget to build the brand across a number of locations something which probably would not be available for mid-market golf courses.


I am curious about the Robert Trent Jones trail. It seems to have a brand that competes on quality and price, but I do not know if the state pension fund subsidizes it or not. I have not played any of the courses but several seem to have a good reputation.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

There are examples in the restaurant business of a brand positioning themselves as higher quality but not top end in quality or price. Shake Shack comes to mind in the burger world and perhaps Stoney River in the steakhouse world. However, it takes quite bit of marketing budget to build the brand across a number of locations something which probably would not be available for mid-market golf courses.

I am curious about the Robert Trent Jones trail. It seems to have a brand that competes on quality and price, but I do not know if the state pension fund subsidizes it or not. I have not played any of the courses but several seem to have a good reputation.

Your examples from the restaurant are new; I wouldn't call them proven successes just yet.  Wait til the next recession, at least.


I am way curious about the Robert Trent Jones Trail myself.  I would love to see the financial numbers on it to understand whether it has been a successful investment or not.  If it really had been, you'd think that more people would have tried to replicate its success; if I knew it had really worked, I would be out there proposing it to some other state.  [Posters from Tennessee could chime in here.]


Retirement Systems of Alabama is still run by Dr. Bronner, who proposed the creation of the trail 25+ years ago, so they must be happy with the return to keep him on; but they also have every reason to give the numbers the best spin possible.  Golf courses are like Hollywood movies or pro sports franchises; how the numbers look seems to depend a lot on who's asking.

[Steve Lang]

TD, Apparently you've never played the TN Golf Trail set of 3 Bear Trace Courses in central/ south eastern part of state...  and I dare say you'd probably not like them much, but they get the job done...

[Sean_A]

I think Tom is largely correct.  In GB&I during the past few decades new openings have been all about competing with the best in at least one if not all three of price (as in high price), quality and service.  That has been true from London to the Highlands to Ireland.  Its even arguable that some of the more modest openings have been competing on quality for micro-areas (some hotel courses fit this model) or unusual for the area (The Dukes in St Andrews).  Adrian Stiff is one of the few archies desiging new courses to compete on price and to date he has done fairly well.  That said, I would be astonished if even at this level an archie would openly go for the idea of a design menu to offer up to potential clients.  Why?  Cuz I don't think clients would buy in.  Why open up a menu to clients when it is already in play to some degree.  Every archie has built something using an existing feature as the inspiration.  I don't see the point in an archie allowing his hands to be tied by a pre-conceived concept when he can simply use the idea then run freely with it as and when he sees fit.  The trick is to hire the right archie for the job, not try to eliminate the archie.  What does a menu offer against experience, on the spot trouble-shooting, explaining concepts to memberships etc etc? 

Happy New Year

[Tom_Doak]

TD, Apparently you've never played the TN Golf Trail set of 3 Bear Trace Courses in central/ south eastern part of state...  and I dare say you'd probably not like them much, but they get the job done...

Steve:  I haven't, and I haven't seen any of the RTJ Trail courses either.  My reference above was to the fact that the TN courses quickly fell on hard times financially, whereas the AL courses are by reputation a financial success.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -

I was struck by the notion of Adrian 'designing new courses to compete on price'.

From all that I've read over the years (and intuited from same), I've come to believe that there is really no such thing.

A good architect couldn't work that way, and I don't think they'd even know how.

If you'd said he was 'designing in & for price sensitive areas and clienteles' I could understand that.

Or if you'd said he was 'working for developers who'd already decided on a competitive price point' I could understand that too.

But I can't imagine (from his posts over the years) that Adrian is designing anything but what he thinks works best as a golf course, and the best golf course possible.   

As some of the very top names in the profession have shown, you don't need a lot of money (or need to plan on charging a lot of money) in order to create terrific golf courses.

That architects aren't likely to turn down larger pay checks for designing them, and that developers aren't ever going to charge less than the very most they can get to play them, has little to do with the actual golf courses themselves.

A good and healthy and prosperous New Year to you too, Sean -


   

[SB]

I am way curious about the Robert Trent Jones Trail myself.  I would love to see the financial numbers on it to understand whether it has been a successful investment or not.  If it really had been, you'd think that more people would have tried to replicate its success; if I knew it had really worked, I would be out there proposing it to some other state.  [Posters from Tennessee could chime in here.]

My understanding (which is now very dated) is that the golf courses have positive cash flow as a whole.  However, they don't necessarily make a good "return on investment" based on the millions that were poured into them.  Their "return" is based on the increased tourism which improves the overall GDP of the state, thereby improving the Fund's other investment returns in hotels, land, etc.  By that measure, they are judged a success.


Tennessee's trail, on the other hand, was supposed to generate it's own ROI.  It not only failed in that, but I think the trail as a whole loses money (also very dated information).