Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Joel_Stewart on October 10, 2005, 12:26:57 PM
-
The love affair here in the Bay Area over Harding Park was almost sick in the press and public ignoring the excessive $16 million to rebuild an existing golf course. Furthermore, no one even thought of why did San Francisco use the PGA tour design team as opposed to using a real independent golf architect. Its a long story but the fact is Sandy Tatum was trying to get the Tour Championship to rotate to Harding every three years and gave the PGA a carrot by agreeing to use the PGA design team. At about the same time, the big time people at East Lake negotiated the Tour Championship and Finchem then gave Harding the one time AMEX as a payoff for using the PGA design team. It was big time politics and money and out of the picture was Champions Golf Club (remember them) because Jackie Burke wouldn't play politics.
So my question is, should independant architects consider the PGA tour architects (as well as the USGA) to be threats to their employment?
-
Joel, The thought that comes to my mind was what Doak just said about Keiser focusing on the "retail golfer".
In that arena "real" architects have an open field of competition. Don't they?
What is amazing is how courses (clubs) would fall all over themselves (save for Champions Praise Burke) to hold an event.
Another possible solution to the distance, bifurcation, and course disfigurment issue would be for all tour and usga events be competed on their own venues. Built with the modern, and future ball strikers in mind. Surely both institutions have plenty of money to make that a reality.
-
Joel -
I question at least part of your premise. If the PGA Tour was so dedicated to promoting the work of their staff architects, why have they used multiple outside GCA's on almost all of the TPC courses they have developed across the country? I cannot think of one of these courses that was designed by their in-house staff. If I am mistaken in this regard, please let me know.
As I recall, Tom Doak recently posted here that he has had some preliminary discussions with the PGA about designing at TPC course. I don't see it as a closed shop.
DT
-
My understanding (based on brief discussions) is that the Tour's design staff is there to consult with golf course architects working on Tour courses, about issues unique to hosting a PGA Tour event. This would include not only tee shot length and green speeds, but also things like gallery flow, leaving room for corporate hospitality and infrastructure, and so forth.
I have the impression that all those things we don't normally think about have a bigger impact than appreciated upon the golf values of a typical TPC course.
The Tour is generally not in the golf course design business. Nor are they generally developers -- they partner with developers, but it is up to the developer to hire and pay the golf course architect for the project.
Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event. I don't know the details but it's possible that's something they were comfortable doing themselves; but that is not their usual m.o.
As for the rumors about us designing a TPC course, I did meet with the Tour to express interest in the possibility, but as of today I still haven't spoken with a developer about actually doing one, so the rumors are at least a bit premature.
-
I cannot think of one of these courses that was designed by their in-house staff. If I am mistaken in this regard, please let me know.
I think that was the old days. The last TPC course and without doubt the worst was TPC Valencia in Southern California using the PGA tour architectural services. The same person Chris Gray (I will not call him an architect) was used at Harding Park. Chris Gray is the head of the PGA architectural services and at Valencia they used Mark O'Meara as consultant (another fat payday for a tour player).
I think Doak is now big enough that he could go to the PGA and work a deal if he had a developer who would use the TPC management system and let some PGA player past his prime get some type of paycheck as co-designer.
-
Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event.
And therein lies the problem.
In a more perfect world, couldn't the course have been upgraded for better enjoyment by the public, rather than to challenge the pros?
It's true that the saddest words are "what might have been."
:'(
-
Tom H:
Did they really ruin it for the public? I've only seen the course "before" the changes.
-
David's right: I enjoyed TPC Valencia. I surely wouldn't hold it up as any marvel of design, but I would play it again. But as often happens with courses like this, I am in a very solid minority. It is more hated than loved, that's for sure.
But Dave, you need to speak to my Dad and my brother in law - they both liked it a LOT. You know, the same two who liked Moorpark?
;D ;D
Tom D:
I wouldn't say the course was "ruined" for the public - far from it. You have to remember how truly awful disrepair the course had fallen into before - it is indeed lightyears better now, for one and all.
My wistfulness here, however, stems from what they COULD have done if making the "tough but fair" course the PGA Tour seems to require wasn't the goal. Gib Papazian, among others, listed many specific things they could have done, bringing greens closer to the lakeside; making quirkier, more fun greens; clearing more trees, etc. Hey, I'm no architect and don't have nearly the imagination or skill required to list specifics. That being said, it's not hard to imagine things that could be done. You'd have to see the course yourself as it is today to understand.
But then again I could be all wet about this. ;)
The bottom line is this: just as David M. hasn't talked to anyone who likes TPC Valencia, I haven't talked to anyone outside this board who's played Harding and wants to go back and play again. It's just not that fun and not worth the price.
TH
-
The Tour is generally not in the golf course design business.
Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event.
Tom:
I would watch your back on this, I bet the tour would love to get into the design business in a much bigger way. It would be a profit center for them. Think of combining the design and management into one with the carrot of a tour stop. Maybe they can put a tour player as a touring professional with a few stops per year for the members to feel like they know someone. Its one stop shopping and the tour and its players reep the rewards. Damn the independant architects.
As for Harding, imagine what you could have done for $16 million on an existing golf course. I would almost wager you could have done Harding, Sharp Park and possibly Lincoln for that amount.
-
I've been biting my lip, but can't help it!
Joel: What is your definition of a "real" architect? I presume you mean Golf Course Architect. If so, I'm afraid to tell you that GCA is the most unregulated of all design professions.
Tom: I'm having fun talking Harding with you. Operational issues asside, which no GCA our golf body can control unless an owner, I don't agree with your premise that we changed Harding just for the TOUR event. The routing is the same ( except for 13) , the corridors are the same ( dito). The additional tees were added to catch up with techno. Why not maximize your property. We were upset they used the back tees on #2 for the regular card, bcs those and a few others were only intended for the tournament and are unsafe for regular play.
The great thing about the event, was that the TOUR players got the same treatment at Harding that everyone gets. It is just a relentlessly tough course through tight Cypress and Pine lined corridors. It's always been a course that favors long hitters and straight hitters equally on top of precission iron play to small greens. We restored half the greens, and I've agonized over two years that I should have bumped the percentages up a bit, but the subtle detail work on the greens held up. We say sooo many putts jarred, but also say tons of misreads all week by the worlds best. I tried to pattern a little SFGC into the greens, albeit on a 1/2 % -1% - 2% scalve vs. a 3 - 4% scale.
Babies crying, I'll be back.
-
Joel -
1) Haven't some of the leading golfers of their day been designing golf courses for the past 150 years? Were Old Tom Morris, James Braid and Jack Neville "real architects" or "people who call themselves architects?"
2) As any business grows in scope, it is common to hire staff people full-time to peform jobs that may have been contracted out on a project or consulting basis. Companies hire staff lawyers, accountants, human resource people, etc. rather than farming that work out as they get bigger. Assuming they hire quality people, is there any reason why the PGA Tour should not follow that business model?
I thought this board was a bastion of the free market. If the PGA Tour wants to get into the business of developing, designing and operating golf course to a greater extent - good luck to them.
DT
-
For the really important stuff, congratulations Daddy Les on the new baby girl. That means you got to see two of your creations in full flower this past weekend.
-
David's right: I enjoyed TPC Valencia. I surely wouldn't hold it up as any marvel of design, but I would play it again. But as often happens with courses like this, I am in a very solid minority. It is more hated than loved, that's for sure.
But Dave, you need to speak to my Dad and my brother in law - they both liked it a LOT. You know, the same two who liked Moorpark?
If you dont mind, I'd rather leave your family out of this. A rather sensitive topic, if I recall.
But your version of "the masses"-- those who you think I misunderstand-- well, they arent holding up their end of the bargain by supporting the courses you say the love and want more of. From my perspective all these courses still seem to be struggling.
I am surprised you have such a low opinion for the changes at Harding Park. On t.v. it looks like an uninteresting course with nice views . . . just the kind of course you usually think the masses love. If it was a from scratch project, would you feel the same way about the result?
David:
I was hoping you'd have a sense of humor about this. By mentioning my Dad and brother in law, I was indirectly poking fun at myself. Glad you caught the reference, hope you find the humor in it.
In any case, not that I ever felt you misunderstood anything before, but the only thing you seem to misunderstand now is my take on these things. I have no doubt you have a fine handle on all other things.
You might be interested in what I wrote last week to David Tepper on the subject of Harding. Here's a snippet:
The bottom line is this:
1. We have way way way way too many overpriced CCFADs as it is. As nice as Harding came out, why do we need another?
2. They could have made the course better and yet affordable. They could have made it interesting to play, with less attention to "tough but fair" and more toward FUN and INTERESTING. They failed in both respects.
3. The last thing our area needs is another venue for pro events. What do you call the course across the lake and the several down in Monterey? Do we really need a glut of these?
Take all this into account and I'm sorry my friend, but I fail to see why this is a great day for Bay Area golf. In fact the success of Harding just perpetuates the "all good courses must be 7000+ yards, must be fair for the pros, must cost $100+" mindset that is the RUIN of golf here, and many places elsewhere.
If anything a massive failure at Harding this week would have been a great day for Bay Area golf. The fact the pros are not shooting lights out, the course looks nice, they are praising it... that just means we're gonna get more of this stuff.
And that makes me sad.
Surprised you can't see the logic of this.
Look at it this way: a successful event at RUSTIC CANYON - fun, affordable, doable for all - that would be a great day for golf.
This? The soul of golf continues to shriek.
TH
Cheers. ;D
TH
ps - if full tee sheets and gross profit are how golf courses are to be judged, then Santa Teresa has got to be in the world's top 10. ;)
-
Same routing, same corridors, only half of the greens restored, 16 million dollars.
Am I missing something here?
Apparently you and I both missed out on getting into the green-reconstruction business. For a $1,000,000+ a pop we should all go out and learn how to renovate greens.
-
I've been biting my lip, but can't help it!
Joel: What is your definition of a "real" architect?
A real architect understands and appreciates classic architecture.
A real architect doesn't bulldoze a classic course into oblivion and place containment mounding on the sides of fairways.
A real architect does faithful restorations to classic courses.
A real architect doesn't place a front right bunker on just about every hole.
A real architect understands surface drainage.
A real architect doesn't place dozens of drainage bowls around a classic golf course.
A real architect understands fairway undulations and knows how to shape them.
A real architect doesn't place 40 bunkers on a TPC course and then doesn't see that the course is lacking.
A real architect doesn't hide under the power of the 2nd most powerful golf organization.
A real architect doesn't have the power to dangle a PGA tour event to get jobs.
A real architect is an independent businessman that gets jobs on his own merit.
A real architect understands budgets and doesn't blow 10 to 16 million dollars on a renovation of an existing golf course (not including clubhouse).
Let me know if you want me to continue. Hope your lip doesn't hurt.
-
David:
Cool this is in good humor!
And very good questions.... Yeah, I seem to tolerate those overpriced CCFAD's in my hometown, but berate them more here in my adopted home. Interesting. I guess it's because I don't have to deal with the SoCal versions often - for me they are once a year type visit courses, and in that context are acceptable.
But you make a very good point - I really shouldn't look at them that way.
Because I don't think I - or my beleaguered family group - really would like to play them on a frequent basis.
Well done my friend. I have definitely learned something today.
TH
ps - I don't think I ever repeatedly said anyone was out of touch with the masses... just that when some say NO ONE likes a course, I find people who do. None of this is 100% - that's what I have maintained for a long time. As for which mass is more massive, well... Rustic is making a very powerful statement. ;)
-
Shivas hits on something in another thread when he distinguishes between businessmen and professionals. I'd like to see architects as some sort of combination of artists and professionals, with their clients best interests in mind but also with some sort of higher calling or allegiance to the artistry and potential greatness of gca, instead of just trying to make a buck.
Very well said except the "trying to make a buck" is rarely the payoff so no need to worry about that being the motivating factor that compromises design, at least for some of us.
-
Kelly, I'll take your word for it, and I am sure that most intentions are good. That being said, from a distance some of the projects out their seem like outright scams, especially in the renovation/restoration end of things.
I did qualify my statement by saying for some...Outright scams, outright deceptions, outright incompetance, outright indifference, and outright arrogance definitely exist in the design business in great volumes it can seem, I certainly understand your view, and being judgemental, which I think is a virtue in some respects other than a vice as many want you to believe, I am sometimes astounded by what goes on in the restoration/renovation business. Intentions are good may be true, but I see too much arrogance and indifference.
-
"Outright scams, outright deceptions, outright incompetance, outright indifference, and outright arrogance definitely exist in the design business in great volumes it can seem"..Kelly Blake Moran
I could not agree more. But to look at the problem in another light: the following are to blame for the above and i many ways come before the architect.
#1 Banker-Dont know where to begin on this character and the "creativity" that licensed on pro formas. In many ways they are the architect and who would have ever guessed they could be artistic when drawing up draw releases and contracts!ha
#2 Developer- This group has opened my eyes since I worked for a golf developer on a big budget project. They tend to play whos got the biggest d*ck. But in my case it was what can we give the potential member to make him join and what happens down the road is up to that membership(turf quality, design changes, and construction flaws)
The biggest thing that many dont realize is that if the budget was publicized at 16 million, many times that total ticket price is not spent on the course. I saw first hand the amazing amounts thrown to entertainment, dining, and hotel rooms plus flights. Stupid wastes that would make many IRS agents have a stroke. Plus the more "experts" on the team meant more bonuses etc. Gross numbers. Kinda like if you win the lottery you can bet on the number of "old" friends calling for an advance or handout!ha
Sure the architect got his cut but many times he was the last paid individual and sometimes did not get his payment due to "the draw" not being sufficient. Funny thing is that many times the problem was sugar coated with talk of I guess we have to raise those memberships or sell a few more.ha
To be continued.
-
There has been a fair amount of comment and speculation on this thread and others regarding the alleged $16 million spent to renovate Harding Park. Setting aside the vaguaries of municpal finance and accounting, you all should keep the following in mind:
1) Construction projects of ANY type in San Francisco are VERY expensive. If any public employees were involved as laborers on the project, figure the labor costs were at least 2x-3x times what a private project would spend. (As an aside, if you knew what we were about to spend to renovate our 60 sq.ft. kitchen here, it would boggle your mind. For the time and expense involved, you could probably build a nice 1-bedroom home many places elsewhere in the US.)
2) You should remember that the project involved 27-golf holes, not 18. Both the Harding 18 and the Fleming 9 were redone.
3) A whole lot more was done than just re-building 18 (or even 27) tees and greens. There was extensive tree-trimming and tree-removal as well. Perhaps the most expensive part of the renovation was the contouring of all the fairways and the installation of a comprehensive drainage system to both improve the overall drainage of the course and minimize the water run off into Lake Merced.
-
Dave:
I agree that the politics of doing business in San Francisco like many big cities is out of control. If you read the article Geoff wrote on the numbers its very shakey. Furthermore, nobody has stepped up and accounted for the money and exactly how much did the PGA get for their services?
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=230137¤tPage=2
Here are the estimated figures by Geoff.
According to the GCSAA fact sheet for this week Harding has approximately 113,000 square feet of putting surface. At the typical $5 per square foot for USGA green construction, that's about $565,000. Let's throw in the practice putting green and make it $600,000.
They have about 62,000 sq. feet of bunker sand in 46 character-free bunkers, at $3 per square foot to replace sand, add drainage and install a few new pits, you're looking at $186,000 for the bunkers.
Let's say the tees were laser leveled, sodded, nurtured and blessed by a priest at $3 a square foot. They have approximately 153,000 square feet of tee space, so we're looking at around $460,000 for tees.
That puts us at $1.2 million for your primary material and construction costs. Rather standard these days.
Shoot, let's make it $1.5 million just to be safe.
Now we'll throw in a generous $3.5 million for a new irrigation system, sod, drainage, cart paths, maintenance equipment and extra labor.
Another $500,000 for design shaping and services (too much).
Another $500,000 for tree trimming and removal (too much).
We'll even include a silly-but-likely $500,000 for renovating the par-30 Fleming Course.
Of course there's $1 million in legal fees, lobbying, more labor, kick-backs and any other bureaucratic waste you'd like to throw in.
Then there was $4 million reimbursed to the city in lost green fees.
Total: $11.5 million.
So where did the other $4.5 million go?
-
I just lost a good post, will repsond later!
-
DSL sucks!
-
I will try this post in two parts in efforts not to lose text.
Joel,
I enjoyed your manifesto on "Real Architects." I sympathize in theory but in reality you've eliminated about 95% of practicing architects. I guess that may be your point.
I will say that I feel a real architect stands behind their work, because at the end of the day that's all that matters. Respectfully, I will stand behind our efforts at Harding Park and am proud that the character that defined Harding and Flemming is still very much in the course. When the course re-opened, the public said we didn't do enough changes, which is a great compliment.
As far as my lip, it's doing just fine. Constructive criticism is what makes GCA such a passionite field, and creates the need for the profession. Negative reaction is better than no reaction.
Next: the science of Harding
-
I have said before that I find Geoff's article on the Harding Park renovation to be poorly researched. Consequently, to write an article that insinuates public fraud without proper facts is unprofessional and irresponsible journalism. If your going to draw up a budget, at least find out what the complete program was before posting.
The renovation was a public works project managed by the city of San Francisco, so do the homework.
-
Harding Park Science:
Drainage is at the heart of all issues at Harding Park. The site is essentially an elevated sand bluff surrounded on three sides by Lake Merced. All runoff drains in five watersheds directly across unstable slopes down into the lake which is monitored by several overlapping environmental agencies.
The original site drainage system at Harding was quite simple and somewhat effective. Literally, the site average 1% fall which minimized run-off coefficinents, but made golf in the rainy season unpleasant. Funny, that most of the fairways adjacent to lake slopes were sloped away from the slopes in a very subtle fashion, see #18 & 16. Throw in the tightly planted golf hole corridors of Cypress and Pines, and you are faced with doing internal drainage within the golf holes.
Releasing the water into the lake turned out to be an interesting engineering solution. There are literally thousands of feet of gravel drains that allow captured water to infiltrate before being dicharged into velocity disipators at the edge of wetland filters. As you can see, a little more complicated that simple surface drainage.
Classic Drainage: I am always amazed at how much subsurface drainage is underneath what we call classic surface drained courses. Just read the books and bend some pin flags sometime on old courses to find thousands of feet of clay tile with cinders laid by hand.
Bunkers: We followed the existing bunkering pretty consistently at Harding. Added some FWB's and eliminated a few bunkers. Bunkering is always under the critical eye.
Shaping: Shaping is always a subjective issue. News flash: most modern architects utilize bulldozers for shaping, especially after striping 6" off with scrapers to remove Kikuya.
Back to Harding: I'm most proud that after all the efforts by all who contributed to the renovation, at the end of the day Hardng Park showed up and stole the show. The course played for the best in the world as it has for all of us over the years, a demanding task master. I guarentee you that people are out there this morning going round and round on the Harding and Flemming. I would venture to guess that a few of them will have fun.
-
Les,
Good to hear from you again! And thanks for your description of the inner workings of a golf course redevelopment.
To start with, the newspapers of any stripe will always find a way to make public spending seem fraudulent or wasteful. Hell, thats the national pastime. As another example, I saved the local clippings for the Quarry for a while, while it was being considered. Every week, the paper inflated the cost of the project, from 6, to 9, 10, and even $11 MIL, while the budget never changed.
In the new movie about Ed Murrow, there was pre movie hype about how he ALWAYS had two sources before reporting anything. In the case of Geoff's web site (and to be fair, many, many others) there is nothing but Geoff guessing how the money was spent!
He throws out phrases like "Rather standard these days when the cost of mateirals is anything but, "Too much" on a few occaisions, without knowing what was done, "blessed by a priest " (actually thats kind of funny, but does insinuate wrongdoing without really saying so), "silly-but-likely", and the possibly slanderous "kick-backs and any other bureaucratic waste you'd like to throw in."
At least he avoided using his all time favorite, "bizarre" which is usually used to describe any newish looking bunker he doesn't like. Then, when the gca puts them back the way they were, they are "character free."
I can think of a few items, like the cost of floating bonds from a major bond house, interest for lost revenue going forward in addition to paying the city, should the course not open on time, or be able to hold the tournament and a few other things that might be in the "leftover" funds. For that matter, the cost of working in an inner city area always seems higher, whether union labor, prevailing wages, etc. etc. etc. Even in just construction costs, the cost of trucking sand to the site, with huge trucks going down narrow city streets in traffic doubles. And finding housing for the laborers is a bit more difficult and expensive in a place like SF, vs a rural area. You get the point, but none of that gets considered when writing an op/ed piece, whereas a "real architect" (to bring it back on topic) would know that.
I often find myself asking why Geoff' hasn't backed his opinions up with facts of some type. This piece certainly doesn't live up to the Murrow standard, but maybe opinion pieces don't have to by modern journalistic standards. I do know that I occaisionally get calls to double check certain facts/opinions I have written before they are published, even on internet sites I write for. And yet, internet sites (including this one) are a force in the world today, certainly allowing "opinions" to circulate faster than ever before.
The one thing that hasn't changed with technology is the human mind, which could always jump to conclusions at the speed of DSL!
-
Les:
I'll give you extra credit for your reply and respect that you have replied which is far more than Chris Gray has done. I could counter many of your responses but in the end whats done is done. I am a little surprised that neither you or Jeff Brauer will admit that $16 million (or whatever the exact number is) was an enormous amount of money to redo an existing golf course.
Jeff:
Does anyone at the ASGCA consider the PGA tour design team to be threats to your livelihood? Maybe its just business, but if the USGA and the PGA wanted to control who gets what jobs based on future events, guys like you could be out of a job fairly quick.
-
Joel:
I'll be curious to see Jeff's answer to your post, but really, the PGA Tour is not a large factor in the golf course design business. Yes, they have always controlled tournament site selection, but there are only so many tournaments to go around, and until recently anyway, they only picked the same handful of big names to design their courses that every big-$ developer picks.
And if every project they do is swaddled in millions of dollars of bureaucratic red tape, as you allege, that leaves me and Jeff and others plenty of business. We haven't been starving anyway ... I must have gained 20 pounds in the past five years!
P.S. I think Chris Gray has gone into private practice and is not with the Tour anymore, which Les could confirm or correct.
-
Les,
It would be great if you could provide the scope of the work at Harding Park, as well as what was spent on what. Labor, permitting and material costs and all. It might help dispel some of the criticism and shed some light on further renovations of courses just like it.
I'll be curious to see Jeff's answer to your post
I'm curious too.
-
TN: That might be putting Les on the spot. Some clients consider cost figures privileged information; I know I've offended one or two when I start breaking down what it cost them to build their courses.
On the other hand, it may well be public information in this case, if someone wants to do their homework.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, I find all this obessing about the amount of money spent to renovate/restore Harding some what puzzling. If the SF Mayor's office, the Park & Rec Department and the Board of Supervisors feel that the finances of the project are in order, isn't that all that matters? I do not see where any participants on this board are entitled to an accounting of the project, especially in this public forum. To ask or expect Les Clayton to itemize the expenses and costs of the project here is very unfair to him.
As I said in an earlier post, construction projects of any type in San Francisco are ridicuously expensive. If you gentlemen knew what a famous club is now spending to renovate its downtown clubhouse, it would absolutely boggle your minds.
-
I am sure that some individual members in ASGCA worry about it, just as we worry about any new entity in the biz splitting the pie that much further. On the other hand, I think we officially answered the question when we voted Bobby Weed, then working with the PGA Tour Design services into membership.
David,
I doubt the numbers are a secret, but as Tom says, generally, its bad form for a gca to post too much about it. I have thought of some other things that might raise the price, including cabling the course for television, running electric and utilities to corporate tent sites, and adding other amenties required soley for the tournament. I can also imagine, if it was a standard city contract, with strict clauses, that a contractor might bid more than is typical, (in addition to factors in my first post) as well as the contractor bidding more knowing that many, many, gca types from the tour might stop in at unadvertised schedules to request changes, and the bid may have been a lump sum.
David, what profession are you in? How would you like someone throwing out numbers willy nilly and calling you irresponsible based on those? There may be absolutely nothing wrong with the article from a journalistic point of view, but I am naturally inclined to stick up for the gca. There is the old saying about "walking in a man's shoes before you criticize."
Les was nice enough to show one flaw in Jeff's logic, such as forgetting about the huge required drainage budget altogether. Nothing wrong with either of our responses, either, IMHO.
-
David Tepper,
This in no way is attacking Les in anyway, even though it is commonly known what Chris Gray thinks of Golf Club Atlas. Les has always been one of the good guys we value here, but I do have some questions. After all, given the current modern day situation of government waste, questioning the City and its power would be Good Government at work. Making sure that the process of checks and balances is at work. If not, well then you have the Bush Administration! ;) ;D (Relax Lou)
This was a public project wasn't it?
Shouldn't contractors or design firms be accountable for public projects as such? Personally, I have worked on some HUGE, and I mean HUGE public projects as an electrician. HUGE David, HUGE, and each and every penny, each and every man hour was ultimately accountable to the public.
Some of those jobs (Not to promote my involvment, but to explain further the size and the accountability of those projects)
--Hyperion Waste Treatment Facility in El Segundo for the City of Los Angeles--a $200 Million Capital Project. It lasted two whole years.
--Los Angeles International Airport Runway Light & Signal Project
$55 Million. A project that was scheduled for 1 1/2 years work that we finished in less then 6 months. The overtime money I made from that job paid for my trip to Scotland in 1996! ;)
--Port of Los Angeles Terminal Island Expansion. David, this project was so big that I still don't know what the total cost of expanding the biggest port in the United States--if not the world--totaled out to.
Just those three there, each one of them was accountable for every dollar spent on material and labor. That's the LAW.
I'm also interested in knowing how PGA Tour Design Services even circumvented the bid process in becoming the architect of record--literally the General or in this case, "Prime" contractor? A Prime Contractor is the main contractor who hires all of the trades of the project and oversees their work (In the case of government local, state and federal) I would think the explanation of this would be somewhat easy to figure out--that it was an agreement with the city as a specialty contractor who utilized all of the trades in a PLA or Prevailing Wage situation. I could fully understand this, but is this the story here?
I don't doubt for one second the course is as popular as Les has portrayed it, even the 9 hole Flemming course. But frankly, I think the $16 Million dollar figure seems high considering the average amount it takes to build a brand new, say "Geoff" Brauer course (I'm going to say on the average of somewhere between 9 Million to 11 Million)
Add in the prevailing wages and, yes its more money definitely, especially if subsistence is added in for traveling shapers and such who HAVE to be paid prevailing wage and more then likely had to join the Operators and Engineers to even walk on to the property. I just don't think it's going to add another 2 Million, let alone 5-7 Million. This is where a breakout of what went where and how it goes would be helpful.
Hey, if there was some special filtration system like Les has explained to us, Yes, absolutely it adds up all of it. But even then on most projects like that, they are seperated from the cost of the golf course and moved over to another faction of government like Public Works, who maintains the sewers and other pertinent sections of the job, and in the case of that area of Daly City, near San Francisco--Lake Merced. Another thing is Kikuyu. The cost to eradicate an entire course is probably mind-boggling.
So no, this isn't meant to be mean-spirited in anyway. I think its more of seeing where $16 Million of San Francisco money went, and how it was spent. Nope, nothing wrong with that at all, and I'm sure that it is of the public record too, even if Les can't post it.
If it isn't, well then there is something rotten in Denmark!
-
After all, given the current modern day situation of government waste, questioning the City and its power would be Good Government at work. Making sure that the process of checks and balances is at work. If not, well then you have the Bush Administration! ;) ;D (Relax Lou)
I knew that weasel-eyed little Nazi was involved somehow! I mean Bush, not Lou .
A few questions Tommy:
1) Why do public projects have to pay prevailing wage when the same worker doing the same job imakes half that amount on a private project?
2) Do the taxpayers benefit by such laws?
3) Can the quality of a contractor be surmised based upon whether they favor prevailing wage projects, meaning lower quality, change order oriented contractors like the prevailing wage projects?
-
Tommy N. -
Let me try to be clear about this. In this case I am not questioning the public's right to know. What I am questioning is whether this is the right forum to pursue this matter and if Les Clayton should in in any way feel compelled or obliged to speak to the matter further. For you or I to ask him to possibly compromise his relations with his employer or his employer's client is most unfair.
He has already said the Geoff Shackelford's cost assumptions where way off base. What makes you assume that Shackelford's number are correct?
If you are interested, call the SF Park & Rec Department and see what they have to say. They may have even published a project budget in the public record.
San Francisco is crawling with investigative journalists. If there is a rotten smell in Denmark, it will be sniffed out. Of that, I am sure.
DT
-
Kelly, Kelly, Kelly,
You are trying to put logic into the law.....in my experience, that is a futile excersise!
Most public projects I do have prevailing wage clauses, and I assume that a liberal place like SF probably does, too. For that matter, they may have an extensive "preference" program, whereby the contractor was required to (or was awarded the contract even with a higher bid because of) hire a specific amount of local subcontractors (this may be where tommy gets some of his work on these big projects) and/or local labor.
While this sounds good to the politicians, as they are pushing for local jobs, contractors often roll their eyes, and figure that they must hire the locals AND then figure their own crew will do the real work. It's just the "entitlement" situation as well as working for an out of town contractor you will never see again that spurs so many (not all) to take advantage of the situation. So, imagine how the cost estimate goes up when you figure twice the labor, etc.
(Kelly, I am explaining this to the rest of the crowd, not you specifically, as I am sure you run into this often)
I am sure that every dollar for this project is accountable to the public, but we just haven't looked it up. Its well known in the construction industry that working in CA costs a lot more, because of govt. reggies, so I am just as sure that working in California for the City of SF probably doubles the the cost of a normal golf construction project. Add in a special drainage system, total gassing and grassing to rid yourself of kikuya, and $4M for lost revenues, and I think you probably have about the correct cost, as hard as that is to believe, even to me.
Wasn't this project awarded on bid? I don't think the PGA Tour acts as a prime contractor, but may have had a project management fee equal to that of the gca fee.
-
I have no real position in this other than to compare the cost of renovating Harding ($16M) vs. the cost of redoing the Lake Merced GC clubhouse ($14.5M and growing). At least for $16M they renovated over 100 acres plus built a clubhouse. At Lake Merced we spent that much to rebuild a 33,000 sq ft structure where the envelope didn't change ;D
So who got the better deal on this?
-
David,
I for one didn't imply that no one should question public expenditures. You (and more importantly, the tax payers of SF) are entitled to ask such questions, and it is an important part of the American system.
I am (as always) trying to provide a professional perspective for those here, in the name of education. In this case, I admit I am speculating in favor of the gca, without any real knowledge, just as Geoff is speculating against them. However, I will bet donut to dollars that many of my speculations did put upward pressure on the price. BTW, had the money been spent on other courses, they would have had the same pressures.
All I said was that there are many factors that might make the $16 Million a reasonable number, and that through a typical city competitive bid process, it both documented the price as "correct" for the scope of work involved, and provided the public info you desire.
Unless the gca has a % of construction fee, which means he makes more as the price goes up, he is not making an unethical "good living", and even then, it might be only borderline unethical, since the amount of work does usually go up with the amount of construction work. Two more points:
What is wrong with a gca making a nice living? :) and,
My point to you specifically was that when muckrakers point the gun barrel site at you, it is unpleasant, especially when you know you have done nothing wrong, and you feel like they will keep digging until they find some "evidence" of wrongdoing no matter how minor, because finding wrongdoing is their goal, not finding the truth.
Also, (sorry, this is the third point) while $16Mil might have done wonders for other public courses, this is a unique project to bring a world class event to SF. We can debate the value of that (I live in a town that just voted to build a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys, and have heard both sides) but there is some residual value to SF from the Tour Championship that might not show up on the construction books. They decided it was worth it, and they will pay (if the public decides) by being voted out of office.
Fourth point - Are you sure this is a trend? I see my budgets going down, even in the face of fuel price and plastic price explosions. I think its an example of a unique high profile project that we are afraid is a trend, but is not a real trend....
fifth point (out of two!) - Other than the Donald, and perhaps Fazio, I doubt many architects want "pushed golf construction budgets to new all time highs" as the lead off highlight of their resume.......
Signing off now.....
-
DMoriarty -
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. I very much believe in affordable public golf.
My objections to the direction this thread has gone relate to:
1) Putting Les Clayton on the spot for an accounting of the project. He has no obligation to do so and I question the propriety of asking him to do so.
2) The presumption that Geoff Shackelford's suppositions regarding constructions costs are correct and accurate. When he throws out a figure of $500,000 for tree trimming on the property, how did he arrive at that number? Did he get estimates from other contractors here in the Bay Area? Has he ever been involved with a tree-trimming project similar in size? What other research did he do? Did he talk to anyone actually involved with the project to run his numbers by them to see if they were in the ballpark?
It is hard to imagine a public golf course project that got more scrutiny and held more public hearings during its planning & approval process than the Harding project did over the last 4 years. Any assertion that a fast one was pulled behind closed doors is mistaken.
DT
-
After all, given the current modern day situation of government waste, questioning the City and its power would be Good Government at work. Making sure that the process of checks and balances is at work. If not, well then you have the Bush Administration! ;) ;D (Relax Lou)
I knew that weasel-eyed little Nazi was involved somehow! I mean Bush, not Lou .
A few questions Tommy:
1) Why do public projects have to pay prevailing wage when the same worker doing the same job imakes half that amount on a private project?
2) Do the taxpayers benefit by such laws?
3) Can the quality of a contractor be surmised based upon whether they favor prevailing wage projects, meaning lower quality, change order oriented contractors like the prevailing wage projects?
Kelly, the last thing I wanted to do is make this a political football, even though I added that little tid bit there for fun.
But for me, my thoughts on prevailing wage are 180 degrees polar opposite of yours, no doubt. I have no problem admitting my bias. "GEOFF" Brauer's thoughts of prevailing wage doubling the cost are somewhat off--this has been proven time and time again. Once again, I'm not going to turn this into a political discussion because I dont have the time nor the energy! :)
But to answer your questions:
1.) Quality and experience of person doing the work. The public entity demands quality work by trained people. Would you want an Electrician to design a golf course? (Of course not!);D
2.) Yes, they do, the level of quality of installation is far superior as well as the safety involved, thus better avoiding law suits from on the site work injuries. No job is susceptable from injury, but if you and I are doing Electrical work together, do you think I'm going to trust you working with me if you have no experience? Prevailing Wage work demands qualified craftsmen, and it works quite well in that regard.
3.) Kelly, The quality of a contractor is all based on how thourough they want to be as a contractor. I have worked for many contractors in my life. Some of them good, some of them great, and some of them absolutely horrible. The ones that we're good or great, always finished the job on-time, sometimes even ahead of schedule. When I was transfered to another job site, From LAX to Terminal Island, I went to a job with a Superintendent that literally almost broke a company that has been in business since 1929, because of a figured $1 Million mistake on his part. It happened when he chose not to rely on questions from the field, and then not RFI for a certain configuration of underground conduits going into underground electric vaults that we were installing. A month later, after it was all encased in slurry and concrete The City of Los Angeles DWP informed him that it was wrong and would not pass it for inspection.
The contractor was held responsible and we had to dig it all up and start all over again. The guy was fired and the company has never worked in California again. (I left the company at that time, two weeks later. I was on a plane for Scotland for three weeks and didn't want to go back there, I had enough!)
My point is that its as much as the people doing the job as it is the quality of the contractor. Same contractor, same qualified people, different management of the job. When the job was finished, the City got the job they wanted, done right--twice!
I will also have you know that I have been on many jobs that were to finish up for less qualified contractors that tried to do work that wasn't prevailing wage, because they couldn't get it done.
-
At least for $16M they renovated over 100 acres plus built a clubhouse.
So who got the better deal on this?
Mike:
The $16 million or whatever the number is does not include the clubhouse, which cost an additional $9 million. That money was all private donations, most of it coming from Charles Schwab.
I have no idea who Les is but would wager that since the dollars are buried deep and virtually secreat, believe Les has no idea on the actual amounts spent at Harding.
-
Les works for PGA Tour Design (or possibly construction) services. I think he was the daily on site field guy, at least that was the role he played here in DFW on the TPC Craig Ranch Project.
So, I would assume, even if the bean counting was left to others, that he did know what the project cost and why.
Joel, how do we get back to a very secretive project, when other Californians have said it did have public scrutiny, and by law, I am almost certain it had to? Throwing out those (I presume) unfounded allegations is the type of thing I was describing earlier, and I think that it is grossly unfair to say that without proof.
Just MHO.
-
Joel, how do we get back to a very secretive project, when other Californians have said it did have public scrutiny, and by law, I am almost certain it had to? Throwing out those (I presume) unfounded allegations is the type of thing I was describing earlier, and I think that it is grossly unfair to say that without proof.
Jeff:
Its buried somewhere. The former golf reporter for the SF Chronicle and now a radio anouncer for a big sports radio network named Brian Murphy tried to do some serious investagative reporting on the costs of Harding Park. He basically came up with nothing, except for the $16 million that everyone throws around. During the entire Amex, the press came up with nothing. Sandy Tatum has been silent on the issue. The PGA tour has been silent and the SF park and rec department has been silent. This is old style Willie Brown (the former mayor who was involved in this project) finances.
-
Huckster et al,
Sorry if this is a bit of a reprise of something posted previously on this thread, but time is short at this moment and I don't have time to read through it.
I'm impressed with Les Claytor and his skills, no doubt about it. However, I consider Harding Park to be (here goes the dreaded Ran quote) "A lost opportunity."
Some months (or is it a year?; time has sort of lost meaning to me) ago, I recall nitpicking all the little touches that Chris Gray failed to put into his design. There is no point in rehashing it. What is done is done. The hallucination that he "restored" Harding is ridiculous, given that the front nine has been changed from the *Venturi Era.*
The PGA simply took what they found, moved a couple of greens and a tee - "creating" something no better than what was there if you don't count conditioning. Les Claytor could have done it for 3 million, leaving Nutville (read: San Francisco) enough money to pay for the Gay Pride Parade, contribute to the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA, buy every bum a new car, renovate all 72 bath houses in the Castro and still have enough left for Willie Brown's haberdashery bills at Wilkes Bashford.
But instead, they pissed more than the GNP of most small nations down the drain, leaving Lincoln, Sharp and Golden Gate to sit neglected, oozing puss from the untreated wounds of incompetance and institutionalized stupidity.
The answer to the question of Harding Park is very simple. If any of those idiots had a brain in their heads, they would have taken a look AT THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE INCLUDING THE FLEMING NINE AND DRIVING RANGE AS PART OF AN INTELLIGENT MASTERPLAN.
Then, once you have identified the best places to put golf holes amongst that piecemeal mess that comprises the front of Harding and the Fleming Nine, you can begin.
The back is excellent in terms of routing - but the bones were already there. The interior holes are nothing special. Three is a shitty, uphill par 3. Number 4 is awkward and poorly oriented - starting with the tee boxes.
I'm told it was originally a par 4. The dogleg is idiotic. The green complex has this funky area to the right that gives the appearance of a "side entrance" where players can go around the bunkers and feed the ball onto the green, but slope does nothing to encourage using the contours of the ground to direct the ball onto the putting surface.
Everyone ooooo's and ahhhhhh's about the placement of the tee on #18. Go stand there and see how awkward it looks. If you want to have a classic diagonal carry from the tee, get rid of those stupid scrub pines along the perimeter of the cliff. They look like crap and if the goal is to make PGA Tour guys (who comprise .0000000001% of the play) thread a tee shot, put some bunkers in the fairway landing area and make them think about how much of the corner they want to bite off.
Sorry, I am not impressed with the thought they put into it.
Nor am I impressed with Torrey South, but that is because "Gib is an opinionated twat" (or so I am told) like the rest of those "getalife's" on GCA.
Please. Don't bore me with the idea of giving the public what they want. They have no idea what they want because they have been fed brainless trash for so long they cannot tell a bottle of Ripple from a Renwood Old Vine Zin.
And isn't it interesting that a public entity like S.F. has never coughed up the true cost of that redo. In a city run by race-hustlers, fringe lunatics and slimebags, what a surprise.
-
Gib:
Many thanks. You do tell it like it is. ;D
To David Tepper: you can have Jaime Diaz and any other media shill who waxed poetic about Harding. I'll take Gib.
TH
-
Huckster,
As Uncle Todd Hagen is fond of saying:
"Tis' the dreaded truth defense."
-
Tom H. -
Gib P.'s low regard for the opinion of the common man is a little surpising, shocking even. Here I am, thinking all along that the wisdom of the common man is what makes this country great!
Careful Gib, any more displays of elitism and you may get mistaken for a Harvard classics professor. At the very least, you run a risk of having your membership in the Rush Limbaugh fan club revoked. ;)
Dt
-
David,
How dare you put me in the category of the mindless shills who worship at the shrine of that disingenuous pig, Rush Limbaugh. I am a card carrying Libertarian and take offense at even the hint of you implying that my views are somehow framed by one of those media pukes. I am ashamed for you; sadly, I have been away from this board for so long as to present an easy target for one of you "lockstep liberals.."
My thoughts are an easy target for men and women who *feel* instead of *think.*
Even worse, because I hold conservatives to a higher standard, my distain for the *president* goes far deeper than the loser who married (for convenience) that hideous creature with fat ankles and rode the Ross-Perot -Wave to the White House.
You have no concept the amount of criminality, scum and nefarious intentions endemic to that collection of slime who run the "City By The Bay."
If not for the views, history and location, S.F. would be broke. The "Governator" only looks good because of the FILTH the preceded him, and that he married a *Kennedy* (read: royalty,) gives him a pass
.
I challenge you to find any pair on this board - NAME TWO - who would have done a poorer job of spending public funds to build that golf course.
We spent 10 million on Poplar Creek . . . . . . ask anybody who has played it who would have been dumb enough to "achieve" the same result if the same amount of funds was expended (6 million less) at Harding. We had shit land, power poles, hideous sloughs, and HORRIBLE soil.
Tell your story to the idiot Sosialists. (intentionally missssspelled)
I am sure you will find a sympathetic ear.
P.S. HARVARD? I am a Trojan. We don't subscribe to "East Coast, Pseudo Intellectual Bullshit Dogma." Just the facts, Maam.
PSS: NAME ONE.
-
Jeez Gib, I hope you aren't the only one allowed to engage in a little hyperbole here from time to time! ;)
On the other hand, should a true libertarian be involved with or supporting muni golf in any way, shape or form?
But seriously, if San Mateo/Poplar Creek cost 10 million, it certainly makes the amount spent at Harding slightly more realistic, if no more believeable. Remember, Harding involved 27 holes.
DT
-
DMoriarty -
Now, let's be fair (to me at least!). I haven't set the cost of ANYTHING.
I am the first to admit I know nothing about the golf course construction (or any construction) business. Hell, I am still trying to figure out why it cost over $30,000 and took 12 weeks to renovate a 6'x8' bathroom in our condo here in SF four years ago.
The point I am trying to make is that when I see people on this board throw out figures for what they think it really "should" cost to do this or that project, how come they are not out their bidding to do those projects at those prices? If it was that easy to make money and the profit margins were that large in the golf course construction business, wouldn't more people be doing it instead of writing about?
DT
-
David (M.)
Please. There is nothing absurd about the cost at Poplar Creek. Here is what they started with at Harding:
Sand based soil on the vast majority of the property.
No necessity to purchase/trade for any more land.
An extremely bright construction team.
I'd be willing to bet that millions of that money went into the hip pocket of one of the criminals who run the City.
At Poplar, a land trade had to be arranged with S.M. County, the soil was rock hard clay on dead flat land. Enormous amounts of earth had to be moved to direct the water into a series of drains and eventually towards the South-East corner of the property - into a catch basin adjacent to the Bay.
The clubhouse location had to be moved and the back nine re-routed. Every single aspect of the property had to be changed. The result is excellent - and was accomplished on-budget.
Harding was a sewer, but the bones were there. Poplar Creek (FKA: San Mateo Muni) was held together by an alchemist Superintendent named Dulbag Dubria, who managed to keep straight the 6 different types of greens (push up, USGA spec, sandy core, clay) and 25 different varieties of turf.
When it used to rain, the low spots would fill up with water and the view from the Peninsula Ave. overpass resembled an enormous chain of lakes.
Yes, I am not in favor of using public funds for a recreational facility. However, if it was going to be done, it at least was done right; the people involved were not slithering criminals. They gave shit how money was spent.
I find it particularly obnoxious that S.F. Residents can come down and play Poplar for a modest fee (the only people who get a break are San Mateo City residents), but San Francisco screws everybody to the tune of a C-note - while giving away $35 green fees to S.F. residents.
Provincial swine. All of them.
I stick by my guns. Give Les Claytor 3 million and let him design it himself. It would be better than what they have now.
-
DMoriarty -
No problem here.
When these big numbers of thrown around, I thnk it is really important to separate what is actually being spent to physically change a golf course from the "total cost" of the project.
If a course that does 75,000 rounds a year at $40 per round is closed 18 months for renovation, that is a "cost" (loss of revenue) of $4,500,000. Throw in the lost revenue from cart rentals, pro shop sales, driving range balls, refreshment stand, etc., then the project has "cost" an easy $5,000,000 before one shovel of dirt has been turned.
In addition to possible assessments, most private clubs bill their members the full rate on monthly dues when their course or clubhouse is closed for renovation. Their income stream remains constant. Any day a public course cannot sell its tee times, that revenue is gone for ever.
Just make sure apples are being compared to apples.
DT
-
David,
No insult taken. BTW, San Mateo and Harding are both on the same side of the Bay ;)
That stated, I know how the funds were spent in San Mateo because I served on the Committee for three years. All through the public hearings, arguments, design of the golf course, design of the clubhouse and fee structure.
After we adjourned for the last time, the G.M. and Steve Halsey (our Architect of Record) kept making improvements and modifications all the way up and through construction. I do not agree with all of them, but they watched the budget closely and did a GREAT job.
Maybe not a silk purse from a sow's ear, but at least a well made handbag.
I promise you that if the same group (including me) were involved in the Harding project, it would have been brought in on budget and thought through far more carefully.
Again, Harding is fine for public consumption. Those media pukes have no concept of how much better that golf course could have been because they lack imagination and experience. You cannot imagine NGLA or PV unless you have seen it. Your benchmarks are not high enough to make an accurate evaluation.
Nobody wants to be a killjoy up here. . . . especially those idiots who write golf for the local rags. They are only too happy to get free booze, a decent lunch and a free round of golf in exchange for writing glowing, hyperbole riddled bullshit.
San Francisco has such a hideous history of irresponsible fiduciary policy, that any glimpse of light is treated like a supernova of political brilliance.
I sat through a dozen PUC (Public Utilities Commission) meetings, watching a bunch of arrogant, incompetant fools, intoxicated with their own power, struggle to even ask relevant questions about golf - let alone be charged with making a decision.
Political correctness ruled the day and decisions - the default setting for the hubris infested dirtbags when faced with something they know nothing about - were made for nonsensical or specious reasons.
We don't go for that kind of sh*t down the Peninsula.
-
David T.,
The "true cost" in San Mateo was a bit harder to calculate. At one point, the golf course was closed for the better part of two months because the accumulation of water made the golf course unplayable for several days after a hard rain.
Therefore, it was figured that over the long haul, the loss of revenue during the winter ended up costing more than construction. They do about 90-100 thousand rounds a year. Take away a month or two of revenue every year and it comes out to big jing.