What qualifies as a success?

[Peter Pallotta]

Architects — if you’re proud of a golf hole (or golf course) you’ve built, is that enough to qualify it as a success in your eyes? If you believe a golf hole/course is the best you could’ve made it and that it fully serves its intended function, does it also need to be praised by others in order for you to call it a success? If so, how many ‘others’ — a majority?

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter,
In my view pride is not enough. Successful work delivers.
It provides a creative environment that brings engagement and joy to many.
It ticks off maintenance and technical requirements.
It does not marginalise. It is inclusive of gender and age.
It leaves players wanting more.
Lyne

[Ally Mcintosh]

On a micro-scale, success in my own eyes is when I look at a hole that we’ve built and don’t want to change any little detail.


Of course, in the wider context Lyne is right as to how success is measured from both inside and outside. But I need to be proud of what we’ve built, in addition to meeting those macro-requirements of inclusivity, enjoyability, sustainability and technical excellence.

[Tom_Doak]

one of tge reasons I started the Renaissance Cup was to get feedback on our new courses from a wide cross section of the golf business.  Over time, I've asked our guests fewer questions and just gauged success by how much fun everyone is having, and by watching the final matches carefully to see if the course is working as we intended.


At the start of my career, I set my own goals for each project.  In the past few years, I've also made a point to ask clients early on what would make the project a success in their eyes.  Some are focused on rankings, some on budget, some on profitability; the most interesting projects are the ones where there is a different goal.

[Adrian_Stiff]

We all will see this very differently. Success to me is measured by sustainability.


Many architects make the mistake that what they design is a monument and legacy. Real world design is about the balance of if it works/is it good, that itself can come in many forms and a success or failure could be down to the man that gave the orders. Sometimes (not golf) you give an architect an instruction and a cost brief and they come back with something that costs five times what you want to spend. I always worked backwards and discussed with the client what he had to spend, if it was still less than the bare minimum then I walked away. My package from late 80s was a lot more than what the European Architects Association wanted me to offer and I never fitted because I was design and build, so I never aligned with them, I was prepared to take 'stakes' in the golf courses too, so it made the whole thing sustainable in those early days. It was a success.


In the UK 86% of the golf courses from 1975 went bust first time around. Often too much was spent and the sums and forecasts never worked out. Second mouse theory kicks in and then it can work. Most of the courses I have done are still with owner 1. One went by the wayside but he did not buy the complete deal from me and cherry picked, once I did the routing he thought that was enough he could do the rest.


But overall, things are more like if others like it decides the success as those people vote with their feet. When I set out I never wanted to build anything not good enough for a county championship. What I am not going to get is a course in the top 100 which is another form of success, to quote caddyshack the world needs ditch diggers too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good timing.  I guess I would say financial success would be high on my list.


I just had the new(ish) management companies of one of my "prototypical" upscale public courses call to meet at lunch.  It was great to hear that the course was still playing 55K plus rounds (most publics in DFW have dropped to the 30K levels, although it is back up after COVID).  They charge $49/$69, above average but not exorbitant.  They have a reasonable maintenance budget, and play in under 4 hours.  They still get private club members scheduling outings there rather than their own home courses, because (well maybe price, I didn't ask details) but the course is viewed as equal to some private clubs.  At 24 years old, they haven't had to add much drainage or replace the irrigation, although they will at some time.


Overall, they are extremely happy with nearly every aspect of the course, and call it the nearly perfect public course design.  Not everyone here would like all of his comments including the pithy, "The bunkers are hard to get into but easy to get out of."


I remember the first owner's design brief - give me a $50 golf course that feels like a $75 golf course, and I'll have all the business I need.  I think I did that!


Like Tom, I always ask my owners/superintendents, "How did I kill you with design?" and the answers are always interesting and incorporated into the next design.  I presume that any feature that proves too difficult for average players or too hard to maintain will eventually be revised.  That does cause some theoretical design questions about what kind of cool features really work, and which don't.


Short version, if you want a timeless golf course, the first requirement is, as Adrian says, is to build one that can be an artistic success and stay in business. 

[Lou_Duran]

Short version, if you want a timeless golf course, the first requirement is, as Adrian says, is to build one that can be an artistic success and stay in business.

As good definition as anything I've seen.


If you are referencing a course south of 121 and west of 75, we were talking about it this morning.  I was a member of its range club 10 years ago when it was doing north of 60k rounds and the driving range was packed to the gills.  It is a course I played with my son circa 1999 when he first crossed the Rubicon shooting par to beat me straight up by a stroke.  I don't remember ever playing it better in many subsequent rounds.  I always thought that the course, given its design and location, would do fine as a private club which would reduce the # rounds and result in far better conditions (the main complaint when I was playing there semi-regularly). 

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you Lyne, gents
I was curious as to how professionals measure success for themselves, ie
how they weigh & balance, to borrow from Ally, the ‘micro’ (inner, subjective-personal) accomplishments with the ‘macro’ (outer, objective-public) ones.
From your responses, as working and productive golf course architects, I can take a guess at how you’d answer that old philosophy question, ie
For career GCAs, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it definitely *does not* make a sound!!
I imagine the great old golden age architects felt/thought much the same way. On the other hand, they probably had fewer people, clients and self-identified ‘experts’ to please back then.

[Ira Fishman]

What is particularly telling and enlightening about this thread is that for more than 95% of us we actually do not need to earn a living by owning, building, shaping, maintaining, or operating a golf course. It therefore is quite easy for us to posit our ideal when we have no responsibility for producing that ideal.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

What is particularly telling and enlightening about this thread is that for more than 95% of us we actually do not need to earn a living by owning, building, shaping, maintaining, or operating a golf course. It therefore is quite easy for us to posit our ideal when we have no responsibility for producing that ideal.

But your voice is important, otherwise most clients and architects would (apparently) happily settle for mediocrity!

[Ira Fishman]

What is particularly telling and enlightening about this thread is that for more than 95% of us we actually do not need to earn a living by owning, building, shaping, maintaining, or operating a golf course. It therefore is quite easy for us to posit our ideal when we have no responsibility for producing that ideal.

But your voice is important, otherwise most clients and architects would (apparently) happily settle for mediocrity!

I appreciate the endorsement. But if you analyze the market for publically accessible courses, it consists of a small number of high end destination/resorts that thrive from a small number of well heeled customers. I have loved the courses in GB&I that I have played but they have been around for a hundred years so our views here are not driving architecture there. My point is simply that most of us are the peanut gallery and not the folks that earn a living in a very challenging business.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I appreciate the endorsement. But if you analyze the market for publically accessible courses, it consists of a small number of high end destination/resorts that thrive from a small number of well heeled customers.

If that were true, then there would be about five golf architects still in business.  Other projects exist, they just don't get much attention here -- maybe because they don't aspire to that.

[Ira Fishman]

I appreciate the endorsement. But if you analyze the market for publically accessible courses, it consists of a small number of high end destination/resorts that thrive from a small number of well heeled customers.

If that were true, then there would be about five golf architects still in business.  Other projects exist, they just don't get much attention here -- maybe because they don't aspire to that.

I wish that were true but the small number of new courses each year speaks to the opposite. Closures far outnumber new courses, particularly for affordable public options. But my point is that many of us "snobs" about architecture on here who are not in the business do not really appreciate what a tough business it is. We (I) just want all of you professionals to build us a Top 100 course at the drop of a hat.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

But your voice is important, otherwise most clients and architects would (apparently) happily settle for mediocrity!

I waited for anyone else to answer, but a bit much to broad brush either the architects who responded here or the profession as a whole, at least IMHO.  Ira's logic tracks for me, and if you believe form follows function and courses for horses, etc., or that one of the big problems of gca from 1985 or so on was too many attempts to build top 100 courses, then every course might be a masterpiece for its particular function, even if not close to a top 100 list, no?

[Steve Lang]

    So like the ol' playin cliche... "its not how, it's how many"  rounds or years or $ in the bank account?? 

[Kalen Braley]

Ira,

Some of us who are also not in the business, don't have the same viewpoints.

I realized 25+ years ago that I enjoyed studying golf courses as much as I enjoyed playing them...and approx 15 years ago that interest eventually led me here to really scratch that itch. At the time I was interested in getting into the business, but I quickly learned how brutally competitive it is and abandoned the idea.

I also think many of us have an idealist mindset towards basically everything, even if/when we already know how complicated it is, and I wouldn't think course architecture be any different, especially given how long a project takes from inception to opening day and the amount of tinkering/tweaking that can happen along the way.

[Ira Fishman]

Kalen,


This forum would be far less interesting if we all shared the same viewpoints. My posts were to emphasize what you said so well. It seems as if it is an extremely difficult business and even more so post-2007/2008. I am not sure that someone like me can understand how much that affects the definition of what is successful on the ground.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

But your voice is important, otherwise most clients and architects would (apparently) happily settle for mediocrity!

I waited for anyone else to answer, but a bit much to broad brush either the architects who responded here or the profession as a whole, at least IMHO.

Jeff:


Didn't mean you so much as the generation of our mentors, many of whom seemed repulsed by the idea of even trying for "greatness".


Of course, many of them justified that with some variation of "form follows function," so you should be wary of sounding too much like them.  I understand that form follows function, I just think there is more than one way to see things, and they settled for the wrong model.  After all, St. Andrews and Carnoustie are municipal courses, too, and they probably don't cost as much to maintain than the average muni built in the past 30 years here in the USA -- even with all those bunkers!


I would agree with you that there are far too many attempts to build a top 100 course with little chance of succeeding.  I do wonder how many of those are based on the client's stated goal vs. the architect's wishes?  I was guilty of the latter once or twice early on [although I didn't spend a lot of extra $ trying], but since then I try to avoid the topic unless the client mentions it directly. Unfortunately, with my clients, as many as half DO mention it, and sometimes I have to explain the math is working against them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Agree that there are many ways to see things, of course.  I don't know that the post WWII gca's picked a model, in the sense Pete Dye picked Scotland, for instance.  I believe, from everything I read, that after the depression and WWII, all design forms looked to create a new, distinctly American model.  The word "streamlining" was used in railroad and jet design, etc., and RB Harris mentioned it in some of his writings.  Perhaps they picked McKenzie circa 1935 vs Mac circa 1925?  Or, perhaps the awards and social media trends had us focusing even more on the difficult and top end courses than before, which could also be viewed as the wrong model. [size=78%] [/size]

It's hard for me to think that entire generation made a mistake.  Yes, lots of them, including my mentors had decided that what golf needed most was more easy and easily accessible courses for the masses taking up the game, sort or recreating the Bendelow models of 50 years before.  But, whose to say they are wrong?  That was their one of many ways of looking at things.


I agree maintenance costs drove a lot of design then, adapting to the machine mowing that was becoming prevalent.  From what I see, it still is today at 80% of courses, and perhaps the 1890-2006 era was more like the Golden Age, in that great design, damn the costs, was a result of the great stock market and economies of the era. 
As to the comparison of maintenance attitudes of GBI vs US, lots went into that, including regionality and of course, the generally more progressive (not always great, but present) attitude here in the US.  So, little doubt it went too far, or, possibly just popular culture always is looking for something new.  I don't really know.


I guess I generally believe most things happened as they almost had to, including Pete coming along to question the model.  It's always easy to pick the flaws of any model, but they did get a lot right.  At least, I'm not the type to throw everything under the bus.....even if that would be a better marketing strategy, LOL.


In the end, maybe its like that Simpson's episode where they conclude the moral of the story is, "It's just a lot of things that happened."

[Lou_Duran]

Of course, many of them justified that with some variation of "form follows function," so you should be wary of sounding too much like them.  I understand that form follows function, I just think there is more than one way to see things, and they settled for the wrong model.  After all, St. Andrews and Carnoustie are municipal courses, too, and they probably don't cost as much to maintain than the average muni built in the past 30 years here in the USA -- even with all those bunkers!

I wonder how many sites in the U.S. have been found in the past 20 years where, like St. Andrews and Carnoustie, the land, construction, and ongoing maintenance costs are supported by the market rate for golf rounds.  Maybe Wild Horse in Nebraska on the public side?  Sand Hills and Dismal River on the private?  I suspect that a sizable number of architects could produce highly memorable courses if they had the soils, ample near-free water supplies for the climate, and minimal regulation and competition for the use of the land.


BTW, what was the budget for the well-received Memorial Park GC renovation?  An article from Houston says $18.5 Million for the completed Phase 1; $30 Million total.  How is success judged at this level of expense vs., the $3.5 Million spent to renovate the city-owned Irving Golf Club?  Customer surveys?  NOI? imputed ROI?  Magazine ratings?  Drive-by comments on gca.com?


By necessity for the vast majority of projects, form has to follow function.  Fortunately, it is the "peanut gallery" outside of these pages which ultimately determines which of those are financially viable/successful.   

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I will answer your question by saying, "a happy client who has an improved and more financially sustainable golf course".  These days, at least on most of the courses I work with, budgets are important, cost management is key, and value for the dollar needs to be maximized.  It is not about building or striving to achieve the best golf course in the area, it is about improving the quality of what is there so the golf course will continue to attract players and remain a viable concern. 

[Tom_Doak]

BTW, what was the budget for the well-received Memorial Park GC renovation?  An article from Houston says $18.5 Million for the completed Phase 1; $30 Million total.  How is success judged at this level of expense vs., the $3.5 Million spent to renovate the city-owned Irving Golf Club?  Customer surveys?  NOI? imputed ROI?  Magazine ratings?  Drive-by comments on gca.com?

Hi Lou:


The money for the Memorial Park renovation was all donated from local companies and private individuals, so I guess that success is judged by whether they are happy with it . . . although they wouldn't be happy if the daily customers were complaining about it. 


The project didn't cost the City of Houston a dime; indeed, they got not just a better golf course out of it, but some new tennis courts and a second deck on the driving range and some other bennies as well.


That $18.5 million number includes a few things that didn't have much at all to do with golf -- for example, moving tennis courts, and building new offices for the tournament direction etc.  The golf part of it was just over $10 million.  And, yeah, that's quite a lot -- more than 90% of my past projects!  We don't usually build a 9-acre lake or do all that sand capping.

[Mike_Young]

Rambling thoughts on success:The absolute bottom line for success of the game itself is to figure how to keep as many 4.25 inch holes in the ground operational as one can.
 I'm not sure that is the goal of the business itself.  $500 drivers and $2 million dollar irrigation systems may be profitable for some segments of the business but not the game.  And the ball?   Isn't it funny how many want a piece of that market..must be very high margin. 
Most golf is a loss leader.  Real Estate developers use it for lot sales and anticipate absorbing it into lot prices.  Hotels and resorts use it to sell food, liquor and rooms.  The munis are usually political items funded at losses by council members or commissioners to pacify voters in their districts and then on top of that there is often corruption in the daily operations.  The Memorial project mentioned above is becoming more f the norm in some places.  Mega munis like the RTJ trail are justified as creating development in weak areas, and that might be true.  The problem is when the loss leader is no longer needed by the owners and you then have a problem. 
British Isles may be what I consider a model for success.  The Keiser products are definitely successes from what I can see.  The stand alone destination courses are definitely successes. 

The 800 courses across the country that have waiting list, can charge initiation fees and are at the top of the food chain are successes. 

The 2500 courses across the country that can't charge initiation, can't increase dues and borrow in order to hopefully attract more members.....well some maybe but rarely...
Often wonder how many of the Tour player signature courses are successful on their own..


The 11,000 that are never mentioned......I think more of those are successful than some may think.