Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Peter Bowman on September 26, 2020, 09:52:37 AM
-
It's difficult to make any serious money owning a golf course these days; it's a risky endeavor where risks may greatly out weight the rewards. I think most can agree this is the norm, and there ARE exceptions to this.
Making a higher profit requires raising revenues and/or reducing expenses (I prefer "and"). So let's talk about how can this be done from a design standpoint that minimizes construction costs and long-term maintenance expenses, but is intriguing and fun enough to allow safe revenues from fair greens fees and memberships.[/color]I have no experiencing in designing and constructing a golf course, and only minimal experience in maintaining a golf course, but here are ideas of precepts that come to my mind in designs and construction. I look forward to being corrected and enlightened[/color]I assume the largest expenses are:[/color]1) design and construction costs[/color]2) maintenance time and equipment[/color]3) payroll costs
[/color]Bowman's BAM Precepts (in no order of importance)
[/u][/b][/color]1) Land that needs minimal earth moving[/color]2) Creative, disciplined architect that uses the land as-is and is willing to forego ideas that could indeed make the course better, but realizes the costs outweigh the benefits[/color]3) design for 9 holes; maybe 12 holes that can be used in rotation for 9 at a time to keep things interesting for golfers. avoid the "standard" 18 hole design
[/color]4) Design for efficient mowing and bunker maintenance
[/color]5) Have a BAM pro shop (shack, really) like Sweetens Cove's[/color]6) Eliminate tee boxes. Make extended fairways with room to vary tee positions in ways that makes the course different multiple times a week. Anything that interrupts mowing and requires shifting of the reel height costs time and that costs money
[/color]7) Create larger but fewer bunkers that can be raked by car with an entry and exit point that don't need cleaning up. Perhaps connect them to waste bunkers where possible[/color]8) Design with fewer bunkers in general. Instead, make use of natural or man-made hazards in topography that require creative shot playing[/color]9) Put greenside bunkers close enough to green for only one mower width. Laterally and beyond other bunkers, leave "eyebrows" that need occasional weed whacking and chemical applications[/color]10) employ more un-mowed long grass at borders of holes to reduce mowing grass not usually in play[/color]11) Roombas for greens. I'm sure there already are or will soon be robotic greens mowers that can mow any wonky green design and do it autonomously. The Super and greenskeepers would simply need to position them on the green and digitally babysit them, while they are doing other repairs and maintenance to the course. [/color](this one is controversial. I understand this will reduce golf course jobs, but at the rates golf courses are closing, it may be necessary to operate at a profit at all).
[/color]12) single row irrigation down the middle of fairways--rough be damned--and enough to cover all greens and approach turf[/color]At this phase in my career investing in/owning a golf course, I am here to learn more than to teach, so I look forward to criticisms and suggestions, as well as compliments in my current understanding of things.[/color]Thanks guys
[/color]
-
find a site where you only need tees and greens
-
If you have the right links land, you can design and build a top notch course for pocket money... By far the biggest expense will be irrigation / water supply for the tees and greens.
Given the grasses you are dealing with, you could then maintain that to a good standard on 2 or 3 full-time green-staff and seasonal help, a couple more if you are going to have full tee-sheets every day of the week.
(Note a lot of generalisations / variables in the above but this conversation will start from many bases.)
-
Paging Don Mahaffey...
http://nuzzogolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2009/12/19-things-you-can-do-to-save-cost-on.html
Other required reading:
Overgrooming Is Overspending - USGA Green Section Recordgsr.lib.msu.edu › ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjK2Y7BiofsAhWIX80KHbKBBswQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgsr.lib.msu.edu%2F1970s%2F1976%2F760310.pdf&usg=AOvVaw30suhLZ6W7S_nN9Fa2G-bp)
I think most architects on here bristle at the idea of designing a course around maintenance practices and would say that it's ass backwards, but for the "BAM" course you speak of it simply must be at the forefront. Happily though, there are is a symbiotic relationship between ease of maintenance and great golf.
Here's a list of things I feel are important:
1) BUNKERS!: Minimal or none. I cannot stress this enough. Everything about bunkers is a maintenance hassle. That being said, they are a critical tool in terms of generating interest and strategy, especially when other features are unavailable. So make them small, well positioned, and not overly intricate and stylized. Do not under any circumstance flash the faces, and do not install pop up irrigation to make their grass faces uniform with other rough areas. Choose sparse dry bunch growing native grasses such as fescues to plant in the faces. These will survive under deficit irrigation, root deeply, and hold the faces together. They will require minimal fertilizer and minimal flymowing/string trimming.
2) Select the biggest goddamn mower you can find to mow each area. For greens, triplexes. For fairways, tow behind gang units supplemented by a five gang lightweight unit to trim out perimeters and approach areas. Walk mowing anything is out of the question. For rough: if you have to mow rough more than once in awhile, you are doing it wrong. This leads into the next one:
3) Rough: Make rough "rough" again. Irrigation: None. Fertilization: None. The rough will go through a cycle. When it rains it will need to be mowed and it will be lush and green. In times of drought it will need to be left alone and will be khaki dormant and wispy. Accept it's natural cycle. Hacking out of it when lush will be the challenge one day, managing hot flyers will be the challenge another. But it will be inconsistent by it's nature.
5) Height of cut (HOC): There are exactly three. Greens height, fairway/tee height, and rough height (only when it needs to be mowed, see above). There are no step cuts, lower walk mowed approaches, etc. etc. Also on HOC for fairways, select the highest tolerable height of cut. In most cases, higher=happier. The lower you mow the more you favor poa annua.
I'll start with that for now.
-
A good place to start would probably be to study simple, low spec courses in various parts of the world. Ones that have existed for decades and are still doing nicely will probably indicate how to be successful, ones that have failed, well I guess they won’t be around to be studied.
Atb
-
Is it possible to only water the greens? Spring valley seems to get away with that.
-
Peter B:
do you know how actor Glenn Ford described the arc of his (and any actor's) career? It has five stages:
1. Who's Glenn Ford?
2. Get me Glenn Ford!
3. Find me a Glenn Ford type.
4. I want a young Glenn Ford!
5. Who's Glenn Ford?
I'm thinking that for your BAM model, the precept would be 'go directly to stage 4' in choosing the architect.
You get some of the craft, all of the bright new ideas, and the same hard work and dedication at a quarter of the price -- and maybe even less than that!
-
Is it possible to only water the greens? Spring valley seems to get away with that.
Depending on the vagaries of your climate, it is advisable to water both greens and tees at BAM, or have massive teeing areas where you can move them all around if not. Traditional type tee boxes will need to be irrigated for recovery, as the wear on tee boxes is the most intense of all golf course turfs, especially par 3s of course. I don't know about Spring Valley, but there's a course I know of in Maine called Abenakee that only does tees and greens. I follow the superintendent on Twitter and it's fun to see him post photos of perfectly green fairways making way for mottled green/khaki fairways, making way for utterly and completely dormant fairways of 100% khaki corresponding solely to weather. Really keeps the poa annua out of a fine fescue stand!
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aHMn1nFj2khKpIaoO-AYVFt4ne5FeQQE16FAdZGDZ5TGuFrlMIKrRAAWk-ntO8hxK7AyPIDfdCt_OcsKC3nCqmIJKggRxybBkvOk5_39cbncZdbhTOkn3_8vqZeL49Bk0DOXjtKuqmlceG0xqMFsnBCcgNTgPrA-b5f5_SHNSmP97fWlrQnmYwYerJ2Od2gCf5tIxu6riE1axXrOjC_HJypcqsJcyQHnVTiO4FaQo3V_xG6gim1ufPmiETr1_z10yxB1J8hN3F4LiCGKRiMLLg8YpVSpp5Map3AIU5qHZt4t67otgCCws4fvV4jljWwKQ85LjIkc5tWGTQw03I0_pYqDHSWNVxJxbshxzhJRgDF9m8CVkqQupl9OZeWsDS-ytANzXyAgx7HsvohTiu0OIEzdLeS9qZvcXJ7KUTbYMKqgd1cqwylbjZdceQW-8Rko2TqH0yPxl-Roz7awND021BWTFRawUAMF9nIYTLLCKQcqyIaClxD1pM0h22pJ6Os85k8S4u8ClyAx7ZW7enpOAr12bqv_sdPxZGSbIbcG_xliVLzqCJb_rb_X9OuxPl7x9R2TaqK0ltsfADKi0iEJsvhQe4i-uZ64c_FwHfgrr0GJldSULBbJexpizECjIExlBRWduOMnuMdtPyVmS1cf9IqJjHJHnnsJivJAApMaKqY74UyTpmMcjgVzgOU1kA=w1616-h964-no?authuser=0)
-
The cost should be broken down further. Cost to build vs cost to maintain. If you don’t project enough of a maintenance budget to address course improvements as the years go by(drainage, tree work, bunkers etc), you will dig yourself into a deferred maintenance hole regardless if you have 10 bunkers or 110.
If you did push-up greens, and center row irrigation, that would save tons of money by itself. There is just so much to this and so many caveats.
-
The cost should be broken down further. Cost to build vs cost to maintain. If you don’t project enough of a maintenance budget to address course improvements as the years go by(drainage, tree work, bunkers etc), you will dig yourself into a deferred maintenance hole regardless if you have 10 bunkers or 110.
If you did push-up greens, and center row irrigation, that would save tons of money by itself. There is just so much to this and so many caveats.
This is (would be if it was a real scenario) definitely factored into consideration. What good is a BAM course that deteriorates due to deferred maintenance within a few year. The costs to rehab it would no longer reside within BAM.
I can’t imagine a course without irrigation at all, let alone for greens only. Here’s a question: if you’re paying to route irrigation to all greens, is the cost to irrigate the fairways not significantly higher f you’re using the same pipelines?
I like to look at things in terms of The Pareto Principle aka 80/20 Rule. For comparison, I asked Whittinsville’s Super about their maintenance budget and it’s at least 5x ours at Hooper. Their conditions are pristine on every square foot of turf. At Hooper, our greens are in excellent shape, our tees have improved greatly, but our fairways and rough are very dry and spotty due to lack or rain. But with that said, I feel at 20% of their budget, we’re able to accomplish 80% of what they have in terms of enjoyable playing conditions
-
Peter,
This thread may be of interest, if I understand your question correctly.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html)
-
I think the basics have been mentioned, except that most courses can cover operational costs, but not debt. Which is of course, the reason so many coursed got built in housing. The developer built the course and almost gave it away. Operations are probably still under $2 Million for a reasonable quality course. 30K rounds at an averages $67 total revenues per golfer, which isn't that much.
Yes, simpler construction that saves a few million off the current $8-9 Mil cost of a new or totally renovated course (plus another $2-3 clubhouse) helps debt, i.e., at about $60 per $1000, saving $2Mil equates to $120K per year less debt cost. Better yet, buy one that has some extra land for real estate and move a few holes over there to offset initial construction cost.
The best current way to make costs work out might be to renovate a tired, but decent course with an existing clubhouse of moderate size. Less permits, less cost (no need to clear trees again, might save some drainage, irrigation, paths, etc.) As one biz consultant says, its hard to make money on more than a $4.5Mil renovation, but some cities continue to do just that.
-
What about artificial turf tees?
-
Peter,
This thread may be of interest, if I understand your question correctly.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html)
Thanks, Bernie. I’ll read it.
@Peter Flory
I’m sure artificial turf tees could save money in the long run but likely at the expense of positive perceptions of the rest of the course if it has an appealing and fun design that brings golfers back again and again.
If I ever built a BAM course, I would pass in any artificial turf areas.
But twhat I would like to see if one has been done: an appealing, fun course with clever and esthetic design that requires only a handful of crew members and only the basics in maint equipment. A place where golfers come for the pure golf experience and less for having a notable clubhouse, etc.
I think a lot of golfers already willingly concede ideal fairway, rough, and bunker conditions as long as they have good greens and a fun track.
Maybe it’d be like the Aldi of golf. Low cost, unpretentious, pure enjoyable golf that’s worth revisiting most weekends
-
I've seen some movement to the idea of artificial tees and greens for that matter. Some of the turfs are that good (well to the average player eye). Haven't actually pulled the trigger on one. Any more artificial turf, and I think the playing surface would get too hot.
-
FWIW the greatest courses in the British isles will use artificial tees often and most never even bat an eyelid at it.
-
I think most golfers would prefer a ratty ass natural grass tee than a lovely artificial grass tee. There are a lot of low budget courses with way too small tees on par 3s for example, where the tee is basically topdressing sand with some grass thrown in. I don't think this ruins it for players if the greens fee is cheap.
I do think for some alternate and all-the-way back tees players would accept artificial turf, especially if it created a super interesting or alternate look on a hole. Like a tee chiseled into a hillside where running a mower/sprayer/etc. up there and trenching irrigation lines in would be a hassle.
-
Thank you for posting Don Mahaffey thoughts earlier! I was going to post same
While not the “ideal” in this scenario likely, I was told Goose Creek in Mira Loma Ca got a great land deal and early in the process brought in Brian Curley and the many of the long term plans and costs were spelled out.
Size of maintenance crew.
Budget.
Minimal clubhouse .
Input on design aspects to limit as much”hand work” as possible.
Pretty much a long term game plan the design had to fit in to as I understood it
To me, they continue to pull it off offering a fun product at a great price (for the region) And they continue to net gain while resisting getting greedy
To me for SoCal. A place that shows how it can be done well
-
Agree with Pat. If you want a club to be successful on the lower end of the budgetary spectrum, you absolutely have to design to the maintenance budget.
Some other great examples are Diamond Springs in MI, in addition to Wolf Point which was discussed in the links I posted earlier.
-
Bring back Robert Bruce Harris! Other than gigantic greens, he built a pretty easy to maintain course.
-
Big greens require more resources for sure, but they also spread out the wear and tear, leading to less maintenance dollars per square foot. Fertility required correlates to the rate of recovery required.
Similarly, big greens can usually be triplexed and boom sprayed, while a small green with quick fall offs into bunkers and such might have to be walk mowed and spray hawked, which will lead to increased labor expense.
So in a sense, big greens might actually save labor, and offset the increased material requirements.
-
Bring back Robert Bruce Harris! Other than gigantic greens, he built a pretty easy to maintain course.
Thanks Jeff, just found my new hero.
-
FWIW the greatest courses in the British isles will use artificial tees often and most never even bat an eyelid at it.
?
Ciao
-
Big greens require more resources for sure, but they also spread out the wear and tear, leading to less maintenance dollars per square foot. Fertility required correlates to the rate of recovery required.
Similarly, big greens can usually be triplexed and boom sprayed, while a small green with quick fall offs into bunkers and such might have to be walk mowed and spray hawked, which will lead to increased labor expense.
So in a sense, big greens might actually save labor, and offset the increased material requirements.
That's one of those things where you have to define "big" for me. I have run the math, and on a single "tilted plane" green, you can get 21 cup spaces in a bit over 4,000 SF. Add a ridge to break drainage, and you might get a minimum of 5750 or so. I often try to design a variety of green sizes from 4 to 8K. Mostly supers look at me askance for any green over 6500 SF as being maintenance problems. That seems to be the widely accepted industry standard as big enough to spread cup spaces out on a normally contoured green. I start there, and often, budgets drive the average down to 6K.
Given my clients trend closer to the BAM mode, its one reason I don't do many "random contours," a la Maxwell Muffins or Doak Dimples(?) "Coore's Crests(?), or even "Diddel bumps" (a phrase which I presume was attributed to that architect's greens, LOL) I understand their design benefits, but when you take out a 10 foot circle (i.e. 5 foot radius allows raising bump 3-4" at reasonable slope) for the actual dimple, and a 10 foot circle outside that where most supers wouldn't set a pin (knowing golfers would bitch) you end up adding 1250 SF to a green, making that 6500 "ideal size" green 7,750 SF to provide the same cup space. And honestly, whenever I have put a knob in the middle of the green, most retail golfers (as well as better ones) bitch. Their idea, which is hard to argue, is that if they hit a good putt, it ought to have a predictable roll, i.e., a chance to go in, rather than random deflections that might not distinguish a good putt from a bad one.
When trying to save money in construction to make green fees reasonably priced, even 1250SF (at $6-10 per SF) is about $10K you don't really need to spend, i.e., random contours are nice, but are then a nice idea HERE? Very often, the answer is no from an owner predicting they will have a hard time of it, if not now, at some future point when the economy is down, etc.
-
Jeff -- all points taken, but I don't see how a four inch mound in a green produces an unpredictable roll. Sure, it means putts break more. But gravity is a constant. They break more all the time.
-
8) :P
Design for riding equipment , hand mowing verboten. Has to drain well, or else maintenance budget goes up so less water is also really good.
Small clubhouse , minimalist irrigation (but with plenty of snap valves around greens)
Have to find energetic staff that works for tips and understands the deal.
Property hopefully drains well, land costs ???
Food service simple with limited choices. Perhaps an outside vendor.
Benevolent dictator in charge
Hard as hell to do this really well as the attention to detail to keep it humming along requires someone who truly loves the game and people....not a part time job unless blessed with incredible staff. I don't know how you can keep the golf course in any kind of shape with two or three people in season unless it's a rudimentary layout. So you may have to find some older part timers to help you early am, maybe trade for some golf. Just needs too much work to keep it clean and neat even if not necessarily green everywhere.
I think over time you can sell the maintenance issues to masses as long as the greens remain pristine (and the surrounds) at present it's easier to do than it was 20 years ago
In our area the high end golf courses are separating themselves by pricing, they simply are charging what they want and tend not to be worried about the fall out which is a surprising twist. However they are really expected to deliver immaculate conditions (wall to wall green ) to their clients. $125-200 guest fees are back and there is very little negotiation to increase volume. Speaks to the net worth of the summer residents here.
-
Jeff -- all points taken, but I don't see how a four inch mound in a green produces an unpredictable roll. Sure, it means putts break more. But gravity is a constant. They break more all the time.
Many golfers object to any change of grade halfway between themselves and the hole, because they can't control the speed of the putt (i.e., constant gentle slope between lie and hole can be accounted for, but when the putt picks up velocity or loses it 1/2 or 2/3 the way from the hole how do they judge for that? Not to mention you hit a portion of that little bump that deflects away (no one remembers if it directs it in the hole, LOL)
And besides golfers opinions, one component of BAM courses is speed of play, which can increase revenues, which always helps.
In other words, when building a BAM, who cares about design nuance?
-
And honestly, whenever I have put a knob in the middle of the green, most retail golfers (as well as better ones) bitch. Their idea, which is hard to argue, is that if they hit a good putt, it ought to have a predictable roll, i.e., a chance to go in, rather than random deflections that might not distinguish a good putt from a bad one.
It's funny, because Mike Keiser is definitely one of those golfers, but somehow he keeps hiring guys who push to include such features! Maybe, deep down, he understands that you can't sell a more practical but also less interesting course for a premium price?
That is the problem with the premise of this thread: the other half of the equation for 99% of courses is revenues. Bare-ass minimum makes perfect sense if we are talking about a course for a private individual [although they tend to want something better!], but otherwise, any new course has got to compete for customers. It would be much more cost-effective to have more heavily contoured greens and slower green speeds, but if golfers don't want to play slower greens, that's not a solution. And neither is a boring golf course.
-
Don Mahaffey, where are you?? You are the person that can anwer this!!!!
-
I think what the golf market is starved for (COVID boom aside) is not more great golf courses, but more great golf course values. As in more opportunities to play not necessarily great golf courses, but merely good to very good courses at fairly cheap prices (I am overdoing it with the italics I'm sorry). I think a place like Diamond Springs is a great value to the people that play there. I think Wolf Point was a great value to its' owner (maintenance budget was very low). I've heard that St. Andrews Beach is a great value as well. When you think of great values, there just aren't that many.
Outsourcing F and B is another great idea. With the popularity of food trucks I think that model could work really well. We have a brewery here locally that always has a taco truck parked outside of it and the two are separate but symbiotic entities. Think about a food truck with a barbecue/smoker going all day. The smell of smoked meat wafts over you as you putt out on 18. You think you are going somewhere else to eat? You ain't.
And I don't think that a minimum of expenditure on construction/maintenance need be boring at all. Especially with a great site. But what about a disadvantaged site? Flat, featureless, etc. How do you make great golf out of a boring piece of land without a huge earthmoving expense? Is Winged Foot a model? How hard would it be to build 18 severe greens like WF? Would it be cost prohibitive?
-
I think what the golf market is starved for (COVID boom aside) is not more great golf courses, but more great golf course values. As in more opportunities to play not necessarily great golf courses, but merely good to very good courses at fairly cheap prices (I am overdoing it with the italics I'm sorry). I think a place like Diamond Springs is a great value to the people that play there. I think Wolf Point was a great value to its' owner (maintenance budget was very low). I've heard that St. Andrews Beach is a great value as well. When you think of great values, there just aren't that many.
Outsourcing F and B is another great idea. With the popularity of food trucks I think that model could work really well. We have a brewery here locally that always has a taco truck parked outside of it and the two are separate but symbiotic entities. Think about a food truck with a barbecue/smoker going all day. The smell of smoked meat wafts over you as you putt out on 18. You think you are going somewhere else to eat? You ain't.
And I don't think that a minimum of expenditure on construction/maintenance need be boring at all. Especially with a great site. But what about a disadvantaged site? Flat, featureless, etc. How do you make great golf out of a boring piece of land without a huge earthmoving expense? Is Winged Foot a model? How hard would it be to build 18 severe greens like WF? Would it be cost prohibitive?
Bingo! There’s plenty of garbage out there that is perfectly priced and overly priced. But, what’s lacking is interesting golf at the right price.
Another caveat to this is that I think the perfect person to actually be able to pull something like this off is a business savvy former or current golf course superintendent. They can manage the grass, and all the clubhouse details as well. Only high salary folks on staff would be a golf pro. F&B should be outsourced if not so small that part timers could manage it. This would save tons on labor. I think this business model fails with just about anyone else.
-
Jeff -- all points taken, but I don't see how a four inch mound in a green produces an unpredictable roll. Sure, it means putts break more. But gravity is a constant. They break more all the time.
Many golfers object to any change of grade halfway between themselves and the hole, because they can't control the speed of the putt (i.e., constant gentle slope between lie and hole can be accounted for, but when the putt picks up velocity or loses it 1/2 or 2/3 the way from the hole how do they judge for that? Not to mention you hit a portion of that little bump that deflects away (no one remembers if it directs it in the hole, LOL)
And besides golfers opinions, one component of BAM courses is speed of play, which can increase revenues, which always helps.
In other words, when building a BAM, who cares about design nuance?
I do! ;D It's actually why I asked the question. I'm curious if there can be an awesome fun design done on a BAM budget. Can we satisfy a BAM course that's analogous to the Cheaper and faster and better; we can usually only have 2 of the three, but not all.Can a great BAM course be built that is praised for its design while being simple to maintain, challenging and fun for golfers everywhere? Can it become a small-scale destination course due to excellent design without the high price tags in greens fees or maintenance?
-
I think what the golf market is starved for (COVID boom aside) is not more great golf courses, but more great golf course values. As in more opportunities to play not necessarily great golf courses, but merely good to very good courses at fairly cheap prices (I am overdoing it with the italics I'm sorry). I think a place like Diamond Springs is a great value to the people that play there. I think Wolf Point was a great value to its' owner (maintenance budget was very low). I've heard that St. Andrews Beach is a great value as well. When you think of great values, there just aren't that many.
Outsourcing F and B is another great idea. With the popularity of food trucks I think that model could work really well. We have a brewery here locally that always has a taco truck parked outside of it and the two are separate but symbiotic entities. Think about a food truck with a barbecue/smoker going all day. The smell of smoked meat wafts over you as you putt out on 18. You think you are going somewhere else to eat? You ain't.
And I don't think that a minimum of expenditure on construction/maintenance need be boring at all. Especially with a great site. But what about a disadvantaged site? Flat, featureless, etc. How do you make great golf out of a boring piece of land without a huge earthmoving expense? Is Winged Foot a model? How hard would it be to build 18 severe greens like WF? Would it be cost prohibitive?
Do you guys not understand how capitalism works ?
The reason there are so few great values in golf is that owners will raise the price if the course is considered a bargain - regardless of how much they spent to build it or to maintain it. St Andrews Beach is a great value because Aussies won't pay more than that for public golf, and unlike the Brits, they don't have a steady stream of overseas visitors who identify it as a bargain. Every course in the UK used to be a bargain, until they found out the price the market would bear; now the only bargains are places that don't fit smoothly into a 7-round itinerary.
-
Good point on the capitalism. if the
-
Good point on the capitalism. If the tee sheet is too booked up then greens and membership fees need to go up. We're experiencing that at Hooper for the first time in decades. The membership committee is only charging $25 more for next year from an already ridiculously low $575; I think it should have been a more aggressive increase.
Perhaps at that point is loses it's BAM status unless the owner pockets the additional revenue instead of putting it into further conditioning improvements.Getting back to having more elaborate green contours.
This is where I'd think even a BAM course shouldn't skimp on. I played Cape Arundel last week and absolutely loved the aggressive greens contours on greens that sit on relatively flat sites. Is the maintenance cost notably higher for highly characterized greens sites than boring sites? I'm guessing yes if thye're walk mowed, no if they can be triplex mowed--or better yet Roomba mowed.
-
And honestly, whenever I have put a knob in the middle of the green, most retail golfers (as well as better ones) bitch. Their idea, which is hard to argue, is that if they hit a good putt, it ought to have a predictable roll, i.e., a chance to go in, rather than random deflections that might not distinguish a good putt from a bad one.
It's funny, because Mike Keiser is definitely one of those golfers, but somehow he keeps hiring guys who push to include such features! Maybe, deep down, he understands that you can't sell a more practical but also less interesting course for a premium price?
That is the problem with the premise of this thread: the other half of the equation for 99% of courses is revenues. Bare-ass minimum makes perfect sense if we are talking about a course for a private individual [although they tend to want something better!], but otherwise, any new course has got to compete for customers. It would be much more cost-effective to have more heavily contoured greens and slower green speeds, but if golfers don't want to play slower greens, that's not a solution. And neither is a boring golf course.
Tom,
Well, I don't think Mike K's destination resort model is really more than a one off example, based on my 38 years in the biz, designing mostly near BAM courses for public agencies and management companies.
As to your revenue comments above and in another post, in the last dozen years at least, capitalism has forced 100X more courses to lower prices than raise them in a race to the pricing bottom to hopefully attract golfers. I actually think there are far too many great values, again, for the last dozen years, but maybe we are finally working our way out of that. Very few have even tried to maintain green fees. My take is, if a course is busy enough to justify a fee rise in this environment, kudos to them!
The biggest part of demand is available golfers and rounds in a 10 mile radius. Basically, if there are 100,000 public rounds available in a metro area, and there are 5 public courses, each should get 20K rounds, although, the best conditioned one might get 25K and the worst one only 15K. At that point, they better think in terms of some kind of improvements, usually anyway.
I have seen no study that suggests that any particular design feature actually drives play (other than the obvious like Pebble Beach, Pac Dunes, etc) on the public side. The strong preferences for great design shared among the 1400 on this board extends maybe slightly more. Which brings me back to the idea that while a random hump (Hill's humps?) maybe be seen as great design (and not all golfers agree) for most of the 10K+ public courses, we have to question whether adding 1000 SF of green construction and maintenance cost to it on a BAM course makes sense as the best hazard type to bring interest, or whether other design features might draw players more.
It may be changing, and there is certainly more interest in design now, but I find from comments by golfers, that most are attracted to the pretty holes, good golfers maybe the tough holes (at 1-2% of total) and another 1% to the unusual holes. I actually think the biggest design attraction is still towards signature and "hot" designers, regardless of whether actual design quality is great (even though it usually is pretty good). As with art, golfers don't really know why they like something, but they know when they like something.
As always, JMHO, but I am sincerely trying to mirror whatever I have seen in the biz of moderately priced public courses.
-
https://golf.com/travel/inside-sand-green-golf-rough-rudimentary-game/ (https://golf.com/travel/inside-sand-green-golf-rough-rudimentary-game/)
Here’s an interesting article and is the ultimate BAM for golf design that’s totally not what I was referring to. I haven’t seen this much in the states but I can see how it might create an interest in golf in underserved areas.
The data tracking on my iPad must have known I’d enjoy this story
-
Coloured writing, even worse green writing. No thanks. Please desist.
Atb
-
Coloured writing, even worse green writing. No thanks. Please desist.
Atb
I didn't read, but I did look at the pictures. For me, some irrigation loops around some tees and some grass greens constructed and you have good golf on those properties IMO. I thought the dormant fairway cuts looked spectacular.
-
I think what the golf market is starved for (COVID boom aside) is not more great golf courses, but more great golf course values. As in more opportunities to play not necessarily great golf courses, but merely good to very good courses at fairly cheap prices (I am overdoing it with the italics I'm sorry). I think a place like Diamond Springs is a great value to the people that play there. I think Wolf Point was a great value to its' owner (maintenance budget was very low). I've heard that St. Andrews Beach is a great value as well. When you think of great values, there just aren't that many.
Outsourcing F and B is another great idea. With the popularity of food trucks I think that model could work really well. We have a brewery here locally that always has a taco truck parked outside of it and the two are separate but symbiotic entities. Think about a food truck with a barbecue/smoker going all day. The smell of smoked meat wafts over you as you putt out on 18. You think you are going somewhere else to eat? You ain't.
And I don't think that a minimum of expenditure on construction/maintenance need be boring at all. Especially with a great site. But what about a disadvantaged site? Flat, featureless, etc. How do you make great golf out of a boring piece of land without a huge earthmoving expense? Is Winged Foot a model? How hard would it be to build 18 severe greens like WF? Would it be cost prohibitive?
Do you guys not understand how capitalism works ?
The reason there are so few great values in golf is that owners will raise the price if the course is considered a bargain - regardless of how much they spent to build it or to maintain it. St Andrews Beach is a great value because Aussies won't pay more than that for public golf, and unlike the Brits, they don't have a steady stream of overseas visitors who identify it as a bargain. Every course in the UK used to be a bargain, until they found out the price the market would bear; now the only bargains are places that don't fit smoothly into a 7-round itinerary.
I hear you Tom. My point is, if the architecture is good, the course can be maintained with a high degree of efficiency, and the superfluous stuff is kept to a minimum, that course can charge less than neighboring courses that are not such cleverly designed systems. Revenues - expenses = profit. Revenue maximization is just one avenue. Cost minimization is another. Yes, I do understand capitalism. COVID in a sense has brought to light that you can cut staff and maintenance dollars and still have a good golf experience. I have seen it first hand at my club. We are operating on about half staff, and to my mind, half staff is probably right-sized.
-
Peter:
Having played some of those sand courses in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I would not really recommend anyone drive out of their way to experience sand golf unless your desperate for a game.
As much as these are the types of places that grow the game and keep people in it who are not the average golfer. Its always been hard to see the appeal beyond the local market. It is why all BAM solutions are more site and use specific than other golf courses that I have seen or played. As they have to run on volunteerism and with some minor community fund raising if needed to keep going. This is not a bad thing its just a fact of running a course that due to choices made to keep cost low has a lower outside draw than an average course would. If that is the type of model your looking for there are lots of great examples. but the best ones work more due to locality than them by any means being text book examples. As they all use what they have around them to build golf with at least 1 caveat that makes golf interesting there but reduces outside play. As BAM course by their definition are bare ass minimum, the rules of what define a golf course become shady. For me its a golf course as long as its more than 3 holes with defined starting and finishing rules. I have left this definition so open due to me playing, or seeing many a course that was no more than a well contoured sandy field run through with a gang unit 2 twice a week with 9 holes cut into it (no real tees, no real greens). If all players accept that golf is about getting a small ball to and object over broken ground these courses are the closest we get to the roots of the game outside of the links. The major trade off being the fact that it sort of doesn't feel like golf sometimes even in the best examples of true bare minimum golf there is always something that makes you wish they would spend the money to fix the caveat. Anyways
All this is to say BAM golf is great because it keeps the game alive in different ways, but am I seeking to play more than one true BAM a year not really. Although it depending where I am, if I see the right ground movement and plant cover, I can be persuaded to play almost anywhere.
-
I enjoyed the golf.com article about sand green courses in Canada - now that's BAM.
And it made me think of all the really BAM courses I have seen, almost none of them in America:
Mulranny, or Brora or Westward Ho!, with grazed fairways
All of the country courses in NZ with irrigation only at the greens
The open air clubhouse at Makuyu Club in Kenya
Almost none of these courses have any bunkers OR a reliable water supply. The only difference between them and the sand green courses is having enough members / income to maintain greens.
** Adding: another fine BAM course is Cleeve Cloud, with its grazed fairways and common land . . . but it is also in danger of closing right now, because not many modern golfers are accepting of the true BAM approach.
-
"Mulranny, or Brora or Westward Ho!, with grazed fairways"
Tom D. -
I don't know when you were last at Brora, but the presentation/maintenance of the course has come a long way over the past 15 years. BAM no longer applies.
DT
-
Same for Westward Ho! It's no longer a rustic course.
Ciao
-
Have both Brora and Westward Ho! increased their team and maintenance budget? Or have they just got better at doing a lot on a little?
Mulranny definitely still applies.
-
This is kind of a simplistic answer, but how about an extra par-three? More Par 70s instead of 72s.
Less space. Less fairway acreage.
Doesn't necessarily make the course easier - I know if I need a birdie, I'd rather have a 510 yard par-five over a 210 yard par-three. Easier holes for ladies and juniors though, assuming you aren't making them hit over water.
Do munis really need four par-fives?
-
Courses grazed by sheep, kangaroos probably as well, don't half keep costs down but also produce lovely turf to play from and goats are great for eating scrub and vegetation. This approach with fences around the putting surfaces is spot-on for BAM ... except where big hungry critters exist that want kill and eat the four-legged nibbling members of the maintenance crew.
Equipment roll-back ought to aid BAM as well, but maybe best not to go there within this thread. :)
Small clubhouses as well.
atb
-
The problem I've seen when we talk about low cost golf is the huge mistake made by assuming that means simple golf, or golf without nuance as has been described on a few posts above. When you build a flat green with no real character, what is the only thing you can do to make it interesting at all? Make it fast; and their goes your BAM operating maintenance costs. Its the emphasis on conditioning and the related maintenance costs that make so many course operating models unsustainable. If you want a low operating budget, you need a course that golfers will enjoy that isn't expensive to care for...take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf.
And....it helps if you can build on sand or land that has enough interest to not require a lot of big earth moves...shaping in place is not expensive (contrary to what many in the biz say, there are legions of young shapers that would love the opportunity to be turned loose and who knows you might even build something a little different).
A cheap water source, close to utilities and roads, some sort of labor pool.
And another contrarian belief, you don't an alphabet soup of consultants to tell you what to do. Find yourself the best version of an Old Tom you can and then go for it. We live in an era of CYA and liability avoidance...golf course creation isn't nearly as complicated as so many in our business have made it out to be. Find a leader who will take responsibility for the golf course creation, then let him/her coordinate it all while working to keep overhead, fees and labor at an absolute minimum.
It helps a lot if you're not in a hurry too. I don't believe you ever make the $$$ back spent rushing to open, but that's another contrarian view too.
-
Regarding "no nuance" in greens, its not really binary, i.e., many random muffins vs. dead flat.
When keeping green size to a minimum to distribute wear, on a BAM course, the entire green can be gently rolling from 1.5 to maybe 3.5% slope, which would all be cup space (save the top of any dividing ridge between swales) and for most golfers, be plenty interesting to putt. Some of those slopes might be used to roll a ball down to a pin, backspin off the back, etc. for approach shot interest. Are some of you saying you don't think a gently rolling green can have character? I disagree!
Given those would be interesting greens to most golfers, it just doesn't make much sense to me to have a lot of internal contours that waste potential cup space and increase necessary green size, on a BAM course as the best and most cost efficient way to make a course interesting.
Ditto some off green stuff, like sand bunkers, where the BAM method might be to build them to make the course interesting, but limit yourself to 20-25, always as a hazard (i.e., no random or visual only bunkers) and design them to be as maintenance friendly as possible. Lately, I have been replacing many sand bunkers with grass bunkers, and other grass features with more regularity, in part because when I started playing golf in the 1960's, there were a lot of those, mostly former bunkers that got too expensive to maintain.
-
Have both Brora and Westward Ho! increased their team and maintenance budget? Or have they just got better at doing a lot on a little?
Mulranny definitely still applies.
Mulranny is the first course that comes to my mind when this kind of topic is raised. And not just for the BAM element either ... lots more to admire about Mulranny too including a terrific selection of wonderful, highly contoured green sites.
Thanks Tom D for initially highlighting it and Ally for encouraging 2016 Buda-ites to visit and play the course.
See - [size=78%]https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63585.msg1529366.html#msg1529366 (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63585.msg1529366.html#msg1529366)[/size]
Atb
-
Jeff,
While I agree that in some cases the green surface you describe might be interesting, it’s really hard to build a functioning green like that with local materials. I’m convinced that some of the most interesting greens Perry Maxwell built were as much about functioning surface drainage as strategy as he was working in mud on many of his courses. He had to find a way for those greens to be viable pre-USGA recommendations.
As soon as you design a green that must function primarily on infiltration and internal drainage, you’ve added tremendous cost to any project. And while I know that is now the standard, greens can be built with local materials in many cases if the builders and maintainers take on an attitude of “how do we make this work”.
Heavy play, very heavy soils, maybe it can’t be done, but in a lot of cases it can work but you have to find clients and turf managers willing to look at it differently.
-
Another thing is using your staff creatively. There's really no reason that a cart guy or and f and b guy can't help with golf course setup for an hour or two first thing in the morning. Similarly, there is no reason for a maintenance guy to not help with carts/shop/f and b in the afternoons when the course is packed. There are so many wasted labor hours when you look at customer-facing roles when it's slow (people sitting around waiting for golfers to show up) or maintenance workers looking for things to do when the course is slammed.
If you use an all hands on deck AM maintenance model you can steamroll course setup, and get by with way less regular maintenance employees. In the theoretical BAM model, there are no silos. Everyone does everything.
-
Jeff,
While I agree that in some cases the green surface you describe might be interesting, it’s really hard to build a functioning green like that with local materials. I’m convinced that some of the most interesting greens Perry Maxwell built were as much about functioning surface drainage as strategy as he was working in mud on many of his courses. He had to find a way for those greens to be viable pre-USGA recommendations.
As soon as you design a green that must function primarily on infiltration and internal drainage, you’ve added tremendous cost to any project. And while I know that is now the standard, greens can be built with local materials in many cases if the builders and maintainers take on an attitude of “how do we make this work”.
Heavy play, very heavy soils, maybe it can’t be done, but in a lot of cases it can work but you have to find clients and turf managers willing to look at it differently.
Don,
I agree in principle. Tillie was another guy where someone wrote, "You can tell a Tillie green......it drains!" While the average slope has gone down 0.5-1% per decade as greens get faster, I believe 2-3.5% greens surface drain adequately. I have resisted the temptation some designers have to go to 1.5% with even some dead level areas that rely more on internal drainage. I have gone down to perhaps 1.75% of a few green fronts.
Recently, in playing some of my old designs, I noted a few that had drainage problems at the edges where swales exit. It wasn't so much the green slope, as it was somehow the perimeter had built up a quarter inch or so over the years, either with a new sod ring installed just a little high or some other reason. If I ever get to build another set of greens, I will look more carefully just outside the green surface, in the collar/apron, to make sure that drains at least 3% right off the green edge to help counteract problems 20 years down the line. Live and learn, I guess, even at my age.
-
Recently, in playing some of my old designs, I noted a few that had drainage problems at the edges where swales exit. It wasn't so much the green slope, as it was somehow the perimeter had built up a quarter inch or so over the years, either with a new sod ring installed just a little high or some other reason. If I ever get to build another set of greens, I will look more carefully just outside the green surface, in the collar/apron, to make sure that drains at least 3% right off the green edge to help counteract problems 20 years down the line. Live and learn, I guess, even at my age.
Jeff:
That ring is buildup from topdressing sand being dragged around the green and flung out to the edges, multiple times per year. We find it on a lot of the classic courses that went to aggressive topdressing programs beginning in the 1980's. But, yes, it is more likely to cause drainage problems (instead of irregular bounces on chip shots) where the drainage goes off the green slower.
-
Courses grazed by sheep, kangaroos probably as well, don't half keep costs down but also produce lovely turf to play from and goats are great for eating scrub and vegetation. This approach with fences around the putting surfaces is spot-on for BAM ... except where big hungry critters exist that want kill and eat the four-legged nibbling members of the maintenance crew.
Equipment roll-back ought to aid BAM as well, but maybe best not to go there within this thread. :)
Small clubhouses as well.
atb
I always thought it’d be cool to have sheep and goats on a BAM course too.
-
Another thing is using your staff creatively. There's really no reason that a cart guy or and f and b guy can't help with golf course setup for an hour or two first thing in the morning. Similarly, there is no reason for a maintenance guy to not help with carts/shop/f and b in the afternoons when the course is packed. There are so many wasted labor hours when you look at customer-facing roles when it's slow (people sitting around waiting for golfers to show up) or maintenance workers looking for things to do when the course is slammed.
If you use an all hands on deck AM maintenance model you can steamroll course setup, and get by with way less regular maintenance employees. In the theoretical BAM model, there are no silos. Everyone does everything.
Exactly. We do the same in my dental office. Assistants help up front, front desk helps the clinical area. Hygienists pull teeth (just kidding, but they can numb my patients).
Perhaps this is why I figure there are ways to make a great BAM course with no frills clubhouse and an awesome and passionate team helping out.
-
Jeff,
While I agree that in some cases the green surface you describe might be interesting, it’s really hard to build a functioning green like that with local materials. I’m convinced that some of the most interesting greens Perry Maxwell built were as much about functioning surface drainage as strategy as he was working in mud on many of his courses. He had to find a way for those greens to be viable pre-USGA recommendations.
As soon as you design a green that must function primarily on infiltration and internal drainage, you’ve added tremendous cost to any project. And while I know that is now the standard, greens can be built with local materials in many cases if the builders and maintainers take on an attitude of “how do we make this work”.
Heavy play, very heavy soils, maybe it can’t be done, but in a lot of cases it can work but you have to find clients and turf managers willing to look at it differently.
I think that you're right re: Perry Maxwell. He supposedly designed many if not most of the greens on the MacKenzie planned Ohio State University Scarlet Course (1938). From first-person accounts, the push-up greens were built on the clay material dug out from the creek that bisects the property to create the irrigation lake. All but #17 which Weiskopf modified circa 1970 were originals up until the Nicklaus renovation around 2005.
The greens generally had considerable back to front slope. In my seven years there, I've seen them in very poor condition to acceptable for tournament play (including the NCAA Div. 1 finals). They typically surfaced drained fast, and could be extremely firm. Once, after a torrential half-hour summer rain followed by direct sun and high heat and humidity, the low points burned out and it took months to regenerate the grass (some areas were re-sodded, as I recall).
As to the thread's thesis, we've hashed this out here numerous times. Speaking primarily from a U.S. perspective- there seem to be a fair number of these "BAM" facilities in the UK- the conundrum is finding affordable land near golf population centers that can support the capitalization and operations of such a facility. Texas is known to be a relatively low-cost state and the new PGA courses being built north of Dallas are on land priced at $160k per acre.
Irrigation is a necessity in many parts of the country and that too is very expensive ($500k-$1.5+ Million) plus the cost of water if it has to be purchased. And those dreaded carts which golfers seem to require don't glide on dirt, so add another $500k-$1.5+ Million for paths. I guess you can gouge some pits and find local sand, but that too typically relegates the course to the dollars per round/trunk slammer segment with the attendant effects on revenues and the bottom line.
Labor is the highest operating component- not sure that sheep and cattle would do well here, then add chemicals, insurance, regulatory costs, replacement reserves, taxes, etc. and "BAM" becomes a highly relative term.
-
I was a cart guy but they taught me how to change cups. I would do the two practice greens every Sunday.
I also did stuff like replenish the on course water coolers.
-
I was a cart guy but they taught me how to change cups. I would do the two practice greens every Sunday.
I also did stuff like replenish the on course water coolers.
Don't mean to put you out of business, but a course doesn't need a cart guy if there are no carts (only a couple for medical reasons, but no paths).
And artificial turf tees are not cheaper than grass tees in the long run, unless your talking about the old pitch-n-putt ones imbedded in some dirt.
-
As a real BAM example, I would argue for Orgill Park, a Press Maxwell course in Memphis, TN. No bunkers. Little watering. No frills. $16 dollars USD for a very easy walk.
[/size]Sheep Ranch at Bandon has a lot of BAM features. No bunkers. Mowing heights of fairway, green and rough -- plus double greens. My 15 handicap friends ranked Sheep Ranch No. 1. It's what they wanted: beautiful, approachable, scoreable (unless the wind was up).
[size=78%] [/size][/font]
-
Some will take this a self promotion...sorry...this is to show what can be done with a $225,000 maintenance budget..it is a true BAM....am amazed how many millennial types have taken to this type of golf..http://www.editionduo.com/publication/?m=2525&i=671734&p=44&fbclid=IwAR1s9ZY5vbOWCdlClotbhxKFti4tXH22a83UmzPu7yyk27JSjbBFcNLj2Lk
-
The Fields is a lot of golf for a little price. A great time was had there in 2014 (the Dixie Cup, right?). What is the status of the Young course south of Athens? Another wonderful course.
-
Some will take this a self promotion...sorry...this is to show what can be done with a $225,000 maintenance budget..it is a true BAM....am amazed how many millennial types have taken to this type of golf..http://www.editionduo.com/publication/?m=2525&i=671734&p=44&fbclid=IwAR1s9ZY5vbOWCdlClotbhxKFti4tXH22a83UmzPu7yyk27JSjbBFcNLj2Lk (http://www.editionduo.com/publication/?m=2525&i=671734&p=44&fbclid=IwAR1s9ZY5vbOWCdlClotbhxKFti4tXH22a83UmzPu7yyk27JSjbBFcNLj2Lk)
Place looks awesome Mike. Similar story to Sweetens in a sense. I like the focus around the greens and letting the fairways be a little raw. What do the fairways look like during a drought? Do they go fully dormant? Do you paint the greens in the winter and just leave the fairways dormant?
$225,000 is an impressive number if you can have decent conditions. Is this consistent over time?
-
Some will take this a self promotion...sorry...this is to show what can be done with a $225,000 maintenance budget..it is a true BAM....am amazed how many millennial types have taken to this type of golf..http://www.editionduo.com/publication/?m=2525&i=671734&p=44&fbclid=IwAR1s9ZY5vbOWCdlClotbhxKFti4tXH22a83UmzPu7yyk27JSjbBFcNLj2Lk (http://www.editionduo.com/publication/?m=2525&i=671734&p=44&fbclid=IwAR1s9ZY5vbOWCdlClotbhxKFti4tXH22a83UmzPu7yyk27JSjbBFcNLj2Lk)
Place looks awesome Mike. Similar story to Sweetens in a sense. I like the focus around the greens and letting the fairways be a little raw. What do the fairways look like during a drought? Do they go fully dormant? Do you paint the greens in the winter and just leave the fairways dormant?
$225,000 is an impressive number if you can have decent conditions. Is this consistent over time?
Fairways are just firmer during a drought but they are fine...we havent painted the greens the last few years...conditions are good...