[tlavin]

I think this is great news!  Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society and you have to reward talent.  If this kicks up the fees that other quality architects can charge, so be it.  Everything else is increasing in price, so why shouldn't they make more dough?

This may "raise the price for the rest of us" as somebody mentioned, but only for the "rest of us" that would be comfortable paying the freight for paying the cost of playing such an expensive place.  There is a market for this type of golfer, just look at Sea Island, Pebble Beach and the other high-end resorts.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think this is great news!  Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society and you have to reward talent.  If this kicks up the fees that other quality architects can charge, so be it.  Everything else is increasing in price, so why shouldn't they make more dough?

This may "raise the price for the rest of us" as somebody mentioned, but only for the "rest of us" that would be comfortable paying the freight for paying the cost of playing such an expensive place.  There is a market for this type of golfer, just look at Sea Island, Pebble Beach and the other high-end resorts.

Terry- I think the fees have risen for signature names but I cant see how that relates into the golf architecture as such. You are paying $$$ for Jack's name or some other great golfer, people want to live on the latest Els resort, or a Palmer etc. I dont see anything filtering through to line architects pockets at a normal level. The market at $400 per round green fee is microscopic.

[jeffwarne]

I'm all for capitalism.
Architects should get whatever the market will bear.
Obviously fees like this will only go for vanity private clubs or real estate projects in excess of $100 million.
If the owner feels the name justifies it and the architect can get it, great-they'll both do well.

What would be really great though is the developers of such projects could be convinced that a great ARCHITECT and COURSE were the key to driving property values and prestige, not a celebrity architect's name.
To some degree, with the emergence of Tom Doak (who certainly paid his dues)and others, this is starting to change.

The main side effect of high $$ projects is that once you've got a $100 million project, you become limited to a certain customer and end up going high end total luxury to please the perceived majority(trust me not all billionaires want this). High maintenance items on the course and particularly the Clubhouse seem to make sense in a $100 million $ plan and can fit in such a budget, even if they're not necessary.
Sadly though. the average club guy goes back to his club and insists on the same amenities both on and off the course.
Then the vicious cycle begins.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I'm all for capitalism.
Architects should get whatever the market will bear.
Obviously fees like this will only go for vanity private clubs or real estate projects in excess of $100 million.
If the owner feels the name justifies it and the architect can get it, great-they'll both do well.

What would be really great though is the developers of such projects could be convinced that a great ARCHITECT and COURSE were the key to driving property values and prestige, not a celebrity architect's name.
To some degree, with the emergence of Tom Doak (who certainly paid his dues)and others, this is starting to change.

The main side effect of high $$ projects is that once you've got a $100 million project, you become limited to a certain customer and end up going high end total luxury to please the perceived majority(trust me not all billionaires want this). High maintenance items on the course and particularly the Clubhouse seem to make sense in a $100 million $ plan and can fit in such a budget, even if they're not necessary.
Sadly though. the average club guy goes back to his club and insists on the same amenities both on and off the course.
Then the vicious cycle begins.

99% of golfers have never heard of Tom Doak. All have heard of Jack Nicklaus. A proper architects fee is $500,000 max, any surplus starts to become hype.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne K:

Cape Kidnappers was the wrong course of mine to pick on.  It may be expensive, but there is so little traffic (because of the high price and the VERY long distance that most of his target market is coming from) that the client is most likely losing money on the course ... so I don't see how you can blame him for charging as much as the market will bear.

My reason for choosing this course is that the post by Peter said "business models that presuppose reasonable greens fees" and, although I have never been there, I don't think that is the business model of Cape Kidnappers, assuming that there really was a business model for that course, certainly not one that presupposed reasonable greens fees.  And I am not at all criticizing yourself or Julian Robertson (I quite admire Robinson - he is a great in the investment industry, right up there with Soros and Buffet) - I am just assuming that turning a profit at the course is/was not a priority for him at Cape Kidnappers.  This is similar to a course in my part of the world - Redtail Golf Course.  I truly wish I had the wealth to do the same!

It is kind of like in Apocalypse Now when Kurtz (Brando) says to Willard (Sheen) "Are my methods unsound?" and Kurtz responds "I don't see any method at all, sir".

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

With all due respect, how do you know what my services are worth compared to others, including yourself?  

Do we spend the same amount of time on our projects?
Do we have the same field staff included in our fees?
Have we had the same background and training?

It's difficult to compare architects' fees for these reasons.  On top of that, the client's main concern is how successful his course is perceived to be, which is the driving force behind his calculation of design fee value because it is the driving force behind revenues.

And, if your calculation is correct that the design of a golf course is really worth $500,000, there are many more underpaid architects than overpaid ones.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne K:

Cape Kidnappers was the wrong course of mine to pick on.  It may be expensive, but there is so little traffic (because of the high price and the VERY long distance that most of his target market is coming from) that the client is most likely losing money on the course ... so I don't see how you can blame him for charging as much as the market will bear.

My reason for choosing this course is that the post by Peter said "business models that presuppose reasonable greens fees" and, although I have never been there, I don't think that is the business model of Cape Kidnappers, assuming that there really was a business model for that course, certainly not one that presupposed reasonable greens fees.  And I am not at all criticizing yourself or Julian Robertson (I quite admire Robinson - he is a great in the investment industry, right up there with Soros and Buffet) - I am just assuming that turning a profit at the course is/was not a priority for him at Cape Kidnappers.  This is similar to a course in my part of the world - Redtail Golf Course.  These are playgrounds for very wealthy people, and I don't have a problem with that.  I truly wish I had the wealth to do the same!

It is kind of like in Apocalypse Now when Kurtz (Brando) says to Willard (Sheen) "Are my methods unsound?" and Kurtz responds "I don't see any method at all, sir".

[PThomas]

supply and demand folks, supply and demand

hmmmm, if I could charge $4m instead of $3 and get it
would I??

duh, YES!

[jeffwarne]

Adrian,
You may be right, 99% of golfers may not have heard of Tom Doak.
My hope is that someday potential members and property buyers will evaluate the course based on its' merits, or perhaps who built it, but based on their reputation as an architect, not a player. Definitely not a reality yet, but one can dream.

As far as setting absolute #'s, who are you to set the figure?
$500,000 to design a course in Mullen Nebraska might be more than  reasonable.The whole budget might be $2 million.

$500,000 in the Hamptons might just be the cost of your seasonal rental.and the budget might be $100 million.
What if I paid an architect $1 million and he showed me a way to save 2 million? (or 10 million on a huge project)

let the market dictate fees.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian:

With all due respect, how do you know what my services are worth compared to others, including yourself?  

Do we spend the same amount of time on our projects?
Do we have the same field staff included in our fees?
Have we had the same background and training?

It's difficult to compare architects' fees for these reasons.  On top of that, the client's main concern is how successful his course is perceived to be, which is the driving force behind his calculation of design fee value because it is the driving force behind revenues.

And, if your calculation is correct that the design of a golf course is really worth $500,000, there are many more underpaid architects than overpaid ones.

Tom- You have misunderstood my post or I have not expained myself correctly. The $500,000 was not directed at you. Ofcourse everyone works differently and some fees may include things that others do not and my point is more to give you credit rather than slander you or anyones rates, I am saying great golfer architects will get more because their name sales real estate, in time perhaps you can command the same fees as those names, at this moment I am sure you have enough demand to charge your worth, and in time hopefully that will rise further. My $500K was very much a ball park figure rather to any top architect and not directed at you, I know many are much less and often the initial project size (say a $5M budget) will dictate that they cant afford a top architect.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,
You may be right, 99% of golfers may not have heard of Tom Doak.
My hope is that someday potential members and property buyers will evaluate the course based on its' merits, or perhaps who built it, but based on their reputation as an architect, not a player. Definitely not a reality yet, but one can dream.

As far as setting absolute #'s, who are you to set the figure?
$500,000 to design a course in Mullen Nebraska might be more than  reasonable.The whole budget might be $2 million.

$500,000 in the Hamptons might just be the cost of your seasonal rental.and the budget might be $100 million.
What if I paid an architect $1 million and he showed me a way to save 2 million? (or 10 million on a huge project)

let the market dictate fees.

I agree with you.

[jeffwarne]

Adrian,
That's no fun

[Scott Szabo]

That's too much money.  especially for a "signature" design.

We are pricing the game right out of the pockets of ordinary people.

I think to some extent we have already priced the game right out of the pockets of "ordinary" people.  

Look at the costs to join most of the "better" courses throughout the US - most "ordinary" people couldn't begin to come up with the fees to join.  

Unfortunately, that excludes most ordinary people from having access to many of the true gems.  I understand what you are saying, and agree 100%.

[C. Squier]

That's too much money.  especially for a "signature" design.

We are pricing the game right out of the pockets of ordinary people.

I think to some extent we have already priced the game right out of the pockets of "ordinary" people.  

Look at the costs to join most of the "better" courses throughout the US - most "ordinary" people couldn't begin to come up with the fees to join.  

Unfortunately, that excludes most ordinary people from having access to many of the true gems.  I understand what you are saying, and agree 100%.

Of course the "better" courses cost more.  The "better" cars, "better" restaurants and "better" houses cost more too.  

I show up every day at work, not because I want the world to be a better place, but to make MY world a better place.  I suspect that 99% of the posters here do the same thing.  Work hard, play hard.  Why shouldn't architects do the same thing?  Golf is a business, not charity.

As for "ordinary" people not being able to afford golf, hogwash.  "Ordinary" families make plenty of money to play Pebble Beach.  If you make $50,000, you can afford a $500 round.....if playing Pebble is on the top of your priorities.  If playing Pebble is #45 on your list of yearly priorities, then maybe you can't "afford" it.  But don't blame Pebble, blame your priorities.  

Sorry for the rant, but I'm a capitalist.

CPS

[Kalen Braley]

That must be one of the most hilarios posts I've read on this forum.  If you make $50,000 per year $500 to play Pebble is no big deal?

And what if you are the sole wage earner in your house and support a wife and family of 4?  I can guarantee you that kind of salary will be barely getting by and in the bay area that would be living near the poverty level.

[C. Squier]

That must be one of the most hilarios posts I've read on this forum.  If you make $50,000 per year $500 to play Pebble is no big deal?

And what if you are the sole wage earner in your house and support a wife and family of 4?  I can guarantee you that kind of salary will be barely getting by and in the bay area that would be living near the poverty level.

My point was, if playing great golf courses (expensive) is your goal, people with "ordinary" salaries can do it.  It just takes a readjustment of priorities.  Want to join a club?  That may mean no family vacations, or keeping a car a few more years than planned before getting a new one.  Don't blame the economics of golf just because there are other luxuries in your life that fit in before golf.  

I didn't mean to get into the semantics of regional costs of living.  It was just an example.....please feel free to insert what an "ordinary" middle class family makes in your area.  

Next time, I'll be sure to include graphs and census information to complete my argument.

CPS

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()