[Joel_Stewart]

https://golfguide.net/coming-soon/

This is not a complete list but it shows the lack of development in California.  Hopefully by the end of the year, the most exciting golf development in California in 50 years will be announced.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Actually, Garland, you made it from Lundin to Leven in nine holes, had a snack if you wanted, and then played nine holes back to where you came from.
...

Yep, brain fart on my part. 

[Tim Leahy]

https://golfguide.net/coming-soon/

This is not a complete list but it shows the lack of development in California.  Hopefully by the end of the year, the most exciting golf development in California in 50 years will be announced.

Can you give us Californians a hint, say what area, or are you talking about TD's project?

[Paul Rudovsky]

David, et al--


This is why we started the "New/Renovated Course Pipeline" project a couple of months ago.  A bunch of us led by Tom Brown and me created a list of projects worldwide based on the criteria outlined in my GCA post of May 3, 2020.  The list now contains over 200 projects and of the six west coast ones listed in the publication cited here, we had 5 (missing Corica Park which we will post this week).  We also have the following additional ongoing and planned projects listed for CA/OR/WA:


Lake Merced (CA) Master Planning
Olympic Club (CA) Master Planning
San Vincente (CA) Construction
San Joaquin (CA) Construction
Callahan Ridge (OR) Construction


Our list can be found at https://fescue.github.io


Please let us know of projects we have missed...this is an open source list meant to be a resource for all...one place to see the pipeline in the works.


Here is a repeat of our May 3 post:


The Fescue Database https://fescue.github.io/[/font][/size][/font][/color][/size]To our knowledge, there is no single place to see a listing of "relatively important” golf courses that are undergoing a renovation or restoration, or a listing of new golf course developments in the “pipeline.”    We (Tom Brown of Los Angeles and I) discussed this and decided to pull together a “committee” to help assemble such a list…and to keep improving the list by providing regular updates in the future.  That was less than three weeks ago, and what started as a very modest list of some 10 courses/potential courses has grown to over 150 courses/potential courses.  The input of the committee members has been fabulous. A couple of members expressed a real desire to stay anonymous…so we have decided to make the committee list anonymous (for as long as that can last in the age of the internet). [/size]It also became very obvious that if this would be helpful to us, there were probably several hundred others like us…many of whom are members of Golf Club Atlas and visitors to GCA’s “Discussion Group”.  We toyed with the thought that such a list might have real market value but concluded that the likelihood of that was about equal to the likelihood of my beating Tom over 18 holes without strokes.  So, we have decided on the next best thing, which is to post it here on “Discussion Group” and make it available to other aficionados worldwide.[/size] [/size]So here it is: [/color]https://fescue.github.io/ [/font]First, allow us to explain what this listing is, what it is not, and provide a few definitions to help you navigate the list:[/font] [/font][/font]1.  Name:  "New/Renovated Course Pipeline" (clearly, neither of us are marketing types)[/font]2.  “Relatively Important” golf courses:  this is a tough definition.  We wanted to make the list of manageable size so in general would like to include:[/font] [/font][/font]—courses that might be considered candidates for the variety of Top 100 lists out there, [/font]—prior and future hosts of major golf tournament events, [/font]—architectural changes to courses originally designed by great architects, [/font]—new courses and renovations led by highly respected architects,[/font]—new courses and renovations featuring new and unusual features which may become important as the game evolves, and[/font]—exploring the work of emerging architects in new geographies that sound like fun[/font] [/font][/font]Everyone is going to have their own definition of “relatively important” and we fully expect this definition to evolve over time…and absolutely want to avoid “food fights” over what is included on and excluded from this list.  The list will never be important enough for that.[/font] [/font][/font]3.  Renovation vs Restoration…neither of us are sure where one definition stops and the other applies…so we are using these terms interchangeably.  That should help reduce food fights.[/font] [/font][/font]4.  Time Limit—we quickly realized that if we included all renovations ever, the list would become unmanageable in size…so we decided to only include courses/renovations with opening dates of January 1, 2019 and later.  Furthermore, as all of us have seen how new developments can die a very slow death, we reserve the right to drop proposals that seem to show a distinct lack of activity after their initial flurry.[/font] [/font][/font]5.  Please look at the format of the spreadsheet ([/color]https://fescue.github.io/ ).  [/font]            3rd column (“Location”) - Click here for link to Google Maps presenting a map of the area near the course (assuming we input the longitude and latitude correctly).  [/font]            4th column - Click here for the Club’s/Course’s website.  [/font]            10th column - Click here for applicable YouTube videos, leaning toward the construction end of content[/font]            11th column - Click here for the Club’s/Course’s website Instagram[/font] [/font][/font]If you have any interesting content on YouTube or Instagram from one of these golf properties, please share with us and we’ll post online.[/font] [/font][/font]6.  Note that we have three “stages” named in the 9th column (“Status”) which should capture the development process.  These stages flow as follows:  Drawing Boards —> Construction —> Open.  Put simply, Drawing Boards includes any Master Planning efforts, and stops when the shovels first hit the ground (“Construction”).  Finally, upon complete of grow in, the course is considered Open when it is available for regular play…typically after a “soft opening” (for example June 2020 for The Sheep Ranch at Bandon).  One trick…the date or year shown in the 5th column is the date of actual or anticipated opening for courses in the Open or Construction phase…BUT it is the date construction is scheduled to start in the Drawing Boards phase (note * and footnote at the bottom).[/font] [/font][/font]7.  This is NOT a new Top 100 listing.  We want to make the selection of which courses get included (and which do not) as “light handed” as possible.  It is really a "candidate list” to keep all of us informed about courses that might be worthy of an initial or return visit.[/font] [/font][/font]8.  MOST IMPORTANTLY, this list will be like a new golf course…unless maintained properly, it will turn to crap.  We are planning quarterly updates which will mean researching to determine the status of these projects (including some that will die in the process especially given likely economic conditions over the coming months), as well as staying on top of new projects.  That means we need input from you folks as well as our “Committee”.  The input would include corrections to current entries, suggestions for others, format and almost anything else.  We certainly do not think the list is perfect in its present form…but hope and really believe it can grow grow into an important resource for all of us.  That will take the participation of many.  Please join the effort.[/font]9. Lastly, we hope this contribution is not seen as tone deaf with the current COVID-19 crisis.  One of the great opportunities of the golfclubatlas community we have found is meeting golf architects, shapers, superintendents, and really everyone in all corners of the game.  We know that some projects won't make it over the finish line, but to each person working on these projects, we hope their project does.Paul Rudovsky (and Thomas V. Brown)[/font][/color]

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak-


Thanks for the response.  Impressive (and likely very expensive), detailed plans for the project.  Were you directed to that specific section of the property?  I don't suppose you are willing to post a sketch of the routing.  The land use map (p. 63) is hard to follow, but I would guess it is a course well under 7k yards and < par 72, right?


I do enjoy Weiskopf's work, more so when he worked with Morrish than solo.  But if I am still playing and travelling when your course is a couple years old, I'll be sure to visit.


Re: Langtry Farms, the plans don't indicate that it will be revived.  Is it the owner's general lack of interest in golf?  Or doesn't it fit well with the resort/residential objectives?  The property would seem to be well-located for destination travel and the golf demographic is probably consistent with the development.  I'd think that the motivation for the second Dismal River course would also apply here, only with better prospects due to its much closer location to population centers.  But what do I know, right?

[Alex Miller]

https://golfguide.net/coming-soon/

This is not a complete list but it shows the lack of development in California.  Hopefully by the end of the year, the most exciting golf development in California in 50 years will be announced.

Can you give us Californians a hint, say what area, or are you talking about TD's project?

There was some controversy in discussing this publicly yet, so we should hold off for the sake of the project right now (I am not involved in any way, just recalling from when it was brought up previously).


Agreed it's potentially very exciting and not on any lists in this thread.

[Joel_Stewart]

https://golfguide.net/coming-soon/

This is not a complete list but it shows the lack of development in California.  Hopefully by the end of the year, the most exciting golf development in California in 50 years will be announced.

Can you give us Californians a hint, say what area, or are you talking about TD's project?

There was some controversy in discussing this publicly yet, so we should hold off for the sake of the project right now (I am not involved in any way, just recalling from when it was brought up previously).


Agreed it's potentially very exciting and not on any lists in this thread.

It's not the Tom Doak project and is not in Northern California.


It's still politically sensitive but hopefully about to go into a 90 day public comment period which will then open the door for all discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak-


Thanks for the response.  Impressive (and likely very expensive), detailed plans for the project.  Were you directed to that specific section of the property?  I don't suppose you are willing to post a sketch of the routing.  The land use map (p. 63) is hard to follow, but I would guess it is a course well under 7k yards and < par 72, right?

I have learned to let my clients post plans when they deem it appropriate.


I think the course was well over 7000 yards in its first iteration, but not now with all the ecological and cultural restrictions.  (They found some broken pottery shards on my beautiful 12th green site, and between that and the intermittent streams, it may have to be 125 yards shorter.)  Par is down to 70, with five short holes and three par-5's.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I find it interesting that no one sees political and social ramifications for the game of golf, when all new builds are exclusively for wealthy people.


Also, that it does not seem to worry anyone that building courses for anyone but the rich is economically not viable - if I understand the general sentiment in this group correctly.

[David_Tepper]

Ulrich -

Of all the projects mentioned on the initial article, only the Maha project could be classified as "exclusively for wealthy people."

The reality is the cost of doing business in California is very high. Acquiring land and running the gauntlet of the approval/permitting process to build a new golf course is expensive. It requires time and money. Earning a return on that investment necessitates charging premium green fees.

DT


   
 

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich -

Of all the projects mentioned on the initial article, only the Maha project could be classified as "exclusively for wealthy people."

 

It is partly a matter of perspective; from the view of someone in Zambia or Mauritius or some of the other countries I've visited for my books, most people in America are rich.


And they're not wrong, when it comes to golf, anyway.  There must be 2000 (?) private clubs in America that charge their members thousands of dollars in annual dues . . . even tens of thousands.  In almost all the rest of the world that's unheard of.


The problem, Ulrich, is that rich people are the only ones paying anyone to build or remodel golf courses these days.  As Mr. Dillinger Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks:  "Because that's where the money is." 


I've done a couple of jobs pro bono, but I can't do that for clients who can't afford the cost of reconstruction.  And I've been complaining here for 20 years that the cost of reconstruction is getting unaffordable because the standards for lining bunkers etc. are way too high.  Unfortunately, I haven't made enough off the rich people yet to pay for all the remodeling of some local course myself.

[JMEvensky]

TD,apologies for being that guy,but Willie Sutton said that about robbing banks.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,apologies for being that guy,but Willie Sutton said that about robbing banks.

No, thanks for the correction.  I was just too lazy to look it up and be sure.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sure, it's completely sensible to do business that way, that wasn't at all the gist of my post. Where else would you do business but where the money is? My point was that I find it worrying that this is the only way to do business these days and I was surprised that everyone else seemingly finds this situation completely normal and a-ok.

If someone does pro bono work that is very laudable, but it wouldn't change the situation in the least (except for that one local course).

When you look at the young generation, these are the people, who will have to play the high-end golf courses built today. So developers are either betting on street protesters turning into old white men or that a silent majority of young white men already exists. Of course there's also the possibility that wealthy will in the future not mean old and white

If you think that my argument sounds too political, then ponder this: how many golf clubs in the world would survive, if all old white men were to suddenly go away? Even if you deny the political or social connection, there's a very strong statistical connection.

[Tom_Doak]

Sure, it's completely sensible to do business that way, that wasn't at all the gist of my post. Where else would you do business but where the money is? My point was that I find it worrying that this is the only way to do business these days and I was surprised that everyone else seemingly finds this situation completely normal and a-ok.

If someone does pro bono work that is very laudable, but it wouldn't change the situation in the least (except for that one local course).

When you look at the young generation, these are the people, who will have to play the high-end golf courses built today. So developers are either betting on street protesters turning into old white men or that a silent majority of young white men already exists. Of course there's also the possibility that wealthy will in the future not mean old and white

If you think that my argument sounds too political, then ponder this: how many golf clubs in the world would survive, if all old white men were to suddenly go away? Even if you deny the political or social connection, there's a very strong statistical connection.

I have no argument with anything you say above. 


It just seems to me that the solutions are political, and not in the realm of golf course architecture . . . unless you are encouraging people here to put their own money where their mouths are, and support making local affordable courses better.


Likewise, golf in general should be much more "inclusive" if we want it to thrive -- not just in racial terms but in all terms.  There have been a few very good articles about that in the past month, but they are still short on suggestions of how to make it so.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Developers are not necessarily betting on the game continuing to grow.  They are betting that


(a)  There will still be a wealthy class who can afford to pay more for a good course, and


(b)  Their course will be "better" than the alternatives, so it will succeed at the expense of others.


It's not that simple, though, because if they succeed and drive the neighbor course into the ground, someone else may buy it at 10% of what it cost originally and cut the price to compete with them.  That's why developers are obsessed with rankings and spending out their a** to make their course "the best".  Ultimately, though, it's why for most, capitalism is a race to the bottom.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It just seems to me that the solutions are political, and not in the realm of golf course architecture . . .

I don't know if you can politically coerce a target situation. It seems to me that even Obama or Trump couldn't do it, although both seemed to have a few very concrete visions. I think the only way to do it is to effect a change of mindsets.

And in that sense a golf course architect, a Tour player, a well-known golf instructor, a reputable greenkeeping consultant, an influential golf journalist can all chip in. And I'm sure many of us are doing it already without running our mouths about it, but I wonder whether that is enough. Golf has this tradition of being a gentleman's sport and the player is expected to exercise restraint and politeness - all of which is great, but it doesn't go well with the type of activism that the younger generation is into. I wonder whether we need to change our minds about that in order to be taken seriously by them and not just thought of as a bunch of stuffy old white men.

There was a time - not so long ago, we all can remember it - where new courses were built for a wider audience and new people got into golf. I was one of those people even, around the turn of the millenium. Tiger Woods had a massive effect, when he broke through, but that effect has dwindled. I remember well what golf felt like back then and what it feels like right now, where I am turning into an old white man myself. We all have watched things deteriorating and saying that we couldn't do anything about it.

In reality perhaps we should admit that we don't want to do anything about it, because things are just fine the way they are.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Great discussion here, and anyone posting in this thread should listen to the Fried Egg where this project is discussed if they haven't already.


The link again: https://thefriedegg.com/fried-egg-podcast/yolk-with-doak-episode-22-confidential-guide-and-the-maha-project/


Does anyone study golf course economics? As in answering questions such as: What is the minimum green fee or initiation/dues are required for a new build project in California/Nebraska/Djibouti/Mongolia? It seems to me every project is simply a spitball thrown at a wall to see if it sticks. Some work spectacularly, some fail miserably. I think there needs to be data gathered on various projects to look at things like: How much was project A expected to cost, and how much did it cost? What was the maintenance budget expected to be vs. how much did it end up? 10 years after project A opened, how much has the maintenance budget been cut (and they are only ever cut indexed to inflation)? Stuff like that. Are there any experts in this field? Any golf course agroeconomists out there?

[David_Tepper]

Ulrich -

As an old white man (hopefully not a stuffy one)  and one who has lived thru various periods of youthful activism, I would caution against projecting too far into the future regarding how the younger generation will grow and mature over time.

I would encourage you to read Don Mahaffey's comments on the "Perfect land for golf" thread. He address some of the issues you have raised on this thread.

Probably should be it's own thread topic - But is the next newsworthy phase of golf creation actually going to be revitalization like what's going on in DC with Michael and Will Et al? A  local approach with a historical focus? I know that may not drive the MK & MPs of the world, and revitalizing the munis of the country may not be as sexy, but its no less appealing to me. Something special about bringing those talents often used in far off places for jet setters back to urban areas if benefactors can be found.


I know in Houston the city golf div manager while still hard at it at MPGC, is also working on reopening some city courses lost to Harvey and revitalizing another that has long been run down. They don't have the perfect sites, and whether the climate is good is arguable, but the season is long, the customers are there, and most importantly it seems the benefactors are too.


It should be noted that, in the original article I referenced to start this thread, one of the projects listed is the renovation of the two municipal Corica Park golf courses in Alameda, CA. Projects like these are a boon to all golfers. We need more like these to happen and to succeed.


DT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()