Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mark_Fine on August 20, 2021, 05:00:21 PM
-
We have all seen what can be done with the high profile big budget renovation projects. But what have you guys seen done that has yielded significant improvement on a small frugal budget? We talk about the direction of GCA. This is where a difference can be made for the 99% of golfers that don't get to play Merion, Winged Foot and ... every day!
-
;D
We built the 16th hole at Greate Bay for 40k +- in 1999. New irrigation , tees, green etc etc. Short par 3 so not a whole lot of expensive stuff to do but it matches up pretty good with the original course and helped us remove the existing 2nd hole that was pretty absurd.
I wish we had pictures of the one that we blew up ! yikes :-[ ....it allowed us to make the 2nd hole almost identical to the original so a good change for the club
-
Heavy sigh.
No doubt the fads have been different, but frankly the arms race has escalated, not subsided.
Sure we don't have 1980's chocolate drop mounds, but the $$ arms race surely continues, with a well known historic club recently hosting a highly successful National Championship, yet still deeming it the best approach to spend another 20 million to keep the gravy train running.
As a good friend in the business often says, the more money you spend for golf, the less grass they give you to hit off.
More is less I guess...
The good news is that there are so many places that are still pure and fun by virtue of their lack of discovery.
I hesitate to speak or write of them, as so many of my favorites have gotten less attractive, not more.
I got an email from one of my favorite places in golf today-ironically from a marketing person.
the news was not good-if you're a golfer.......better I guess if you're an owner.
I'll just play somewhere else.
-
Jeffersonville is an excellent case study. I don’t know the numbers but it continues to improve and remain truly affordable golf.
-
We have all seen what can be done with the high profile big budget renovation projects. But what have you guys seen done that has yielded significant improvement on a small frugal budget? We talk about the direction of GCA. This is where a difference can be made for the 99% of golfers that don't get to play Merion, Winged Foot and ... every day!
Unfortunately, what you speak of, for statistical purposes, probably doesn’t exist. I’m sure you can find an examples here and there where someone built a new tee, or removed a few trees, but at the end of the day you need money and a quality seasoned crew. I think there are many examples of guys who have saved dollars on a fertilizer budget and produced quality results, but shoe-string budget courses just do not have the time, equipment, or personnel to tackle much else than to keep golfers happy.
-
We have all seen what can be done with the high profile big budget renovation projects. But what have you guys seen done that has yielded significant improvement on a small frugal budget? We talk about the direction of GCA. This is where a difference can be made for the 99% of golfers that don't get to play Merion, Winged Foot and ... every day!
Unfortunately, what you speak of, for statistical purposes, probably doesn’t exist. I’m sure you can find an examples here and there where someone built a new tee, or removed a few trees, but at the end of the day you need money and a quality seasoned crew. I think there are many examples of guys who have saved dollars on a fertilizer budget and produced quality results, but shoe-string budget courses just do not have the time, equipment, or personnel to tackle much else than to keep golfers happy.
Time delayed work is the norm in the UK. Very few clubs can afford big splashy projects which get sorted in a year.
Ciao
-
We have all seen what can be done with the high profile big budget renovation projects. But what have you guys seen done that has yielded significant improvement on a small frugal budget? We talk about the direction of GCA. This is where a difference can be made for the 99% of golfers that don't get to play Merion, Winged Foot and ... every day!
Unfortunately, what you speak of, for statistical purposes, probably doesn’t exist. I’m sure you can find an examples here and there where someone built a new tee, or removed a few trees, but at the end of the day you need money and a quality seasoned crew. I think there are many examples of guys who have saved dollars on a fertilizer budget and produced quality results, but shoe-string budget courses just do not have the time, equipment, or personnel to tackle much else than to keep golfers happy.
Time delayed work is the norm in the UK. Very few clubs can afford big splashy projects which get sorted in a year.
Ciao
Correct Sean…. There is no real point bringing GB&I courses in to this conversation because the idea of “low budget” here vs the US is worlds apart.
-
For another dose of my real world, here is how municipal (and some others) budgets are prepared:
Year 1 - Do a master plan, which provides low, medium, and high budget projections based on critical minimum, reasonable high priority and full reconstruction plans. The owner picks the low budget, but has a total renovation in mind, not making the connection between spending and work scope.
Year 2 - Owner calls to see if there was any downward wiggle room on the low budget. We grudgingly comply, substituting other greens methods (down to push ups) less than full irrigation, etc.
Year 3 to 5 - Owner finally gets funding, doesn't account for 5 years of inflation, which in this case, adds at least 25% to the year one budgets, given how construction prices have spiked up. Owner also throws design fees, some new maintenance equipment and a few other things in what was supposed to be the golf course construction budget, reducing the budget about 10% more in real dollars.
Year 6 - Owner changes golf course architects, to find one who will tell them that their budget is okay.
Year 7 - Construction bidding starts, owner is aghast at how much things cost and is livid at everyone involved, except, of course, himself. Most of the time, the project gets downsized, or occasionally, the owner finds more money. Either way, he gives a bad reference to everyone involved.
The funny thing (not) is that over almost 40 years in the biz, that same mistake is still made far too often. We can kind of understand it because they might only do a golf course project once in their life, and somehow, they really don't think of anything that isn't sticks and bricks as real construction, somehow thinking golf courses are natural and not in need of real construction.
You would think someone would learn from experience......
-
Is it even possible to do frugal these days with the cost of materials and labor?
We rebuilt the 17th at LedgeRock over the last two winters and saved somewhere in the region of $50-60,000 by doing as much as we could inhouse but it still cost a nice chunk of change.
-
Is it even possible to do frugal these days with the cost of materials and labor?
We rebuilt the 17th at LedgeRock over the last two winters and saved somewhere in the region of $50-60,000 by doing as much as we could inhouse but it still cost a nice chunk of change.
Frugal and cheap are two different things. Frugal makes the most of resources available while cheap cuts costs without regard to anything else. You went about it frugally, I would say.
-
Isn’t the question who is using seed or plugs instead of sod and who is not using a bunker liner?
-
Isn’t the question who is using seed or plugs instead of sod and who is not using a bunker liner?
Partly, yes.
-
Is it even possible to do frugal these days with the cost of materials and labor?
We rebuilt the 17th at LedgeRock over the last two winters and saved somewhere in the region of $50-60,000 by doing as much as we could inhouse but it still cost a nice chunk of change.
I do think that there is real money to be saved in DIY projects right now . . . or in just putting off work for a little while.
I don't know if every town in America is experiencing the same housing boom as Traverse City, but it's certainly not the only place. Materials costs be damned, people want their new house or renovation, and they want it now, and there are only so many reliable builders out there. So those builders' prices have gone WAY up. Instead of bidding for 20% profit, they're going to ask for 30%, or more, and that is a % of all the inflated materials costs. And then the best subcontractors are doing the same thing, so you'll pay the general 30% of the sub's 30%, too.
Why would the golf construction business be any different?
-
Tom,
It's not.
Probably the best prices now would be to find an associate of someone good who is just starting out and wanting to take their first (or very early) project at a competitive price, and of course, before they have built up any overhead, etc. You know, kind of like when we started back in the 1980's.
-
Is it even possible to do frugal these days with the cost of materials and labor?We rebuilt the 17th at LedgeRock over the last two winters and saved somewhere in the region of $50-60,000 by doing as much as we could inhouse but it still cost a nice chunk of change.
Frugal and cheap are two different things. Frugal makes the most of resources available while cheap cuts costs without regard to anything else. You went about it frugally, I would say.
great point! And since I didn't cut any corners that we'd regret later, it was definitely frugal. I've seen cheap plenty of times in my travels and there's a big difference!
Is it even possible to do frugal these days with the cost of materials and labor?
We rebuilt the 17th at LedgeRock over the last two winters and saved somewhere in the region of $50-60,000 by doing as much as we could inhouse but it still cost a nice chunk of change.
I do think that there is real money to be saved in DIY projects right now . . . or in just putting off work for a little while.
I don't know if every town in America is experiencing the same housing boom as Traverse City, but it's certainly not the only place. Materials costs be damned, people want their new house or renovation, and they want it now, and there are only so many reliable builders out there. So those builders' prices have gone WAY up. Instead of bidding for 20% profit, they're going to ask for 30%, or more, and that is a % of all the inflated materials costs. And then the best subcontractors are doing the same thing, so you'll pay the general 30% of the sub's 30%, too.
Why would the golf construction business be any different?
We were lucky we have a good relationship with the contractor and we had the flexibility to work around each others schedules which helped a lot and kept their costs in place (ie the honored their numbers from a few years prior).
I'd agree that if it was a more major project, that holding off for a few years might see prices go down if the golf market crashes again or if all the renos are done and the contractors are looking for work. Worst case, that money will gain interest over that time too!
-
John,
I think they do exist but we just don't hear much about them because they projects don't make the magazine articles and front covers. I am a bit biased but what we accomplished at Bethlehem with a "mid six figure budget" (and prevailing wages because it was a municipal course) is pretty impressive:
- We took down hundreds of trees to open up vistas, improve agronomics, enhance playability, and remove clutter.
- Installed new drainage on a third of the golf holes (the course is a catch basin for the surrounding community and was a soggy mess for days after heavy rains and something had to be done).
- All 40 bunkers on the course were either completely rebuilt, reshaped, relocated and/or removed (we ended up with only 29)
- All 18 greens were touched in some way (primarily around the edges) where we lifted green sod, removed years of sand build up and/or restored false fronts/roll offs/pull ups as I call them with the average green expanding about 1000 square feet. On many of the green sites we removed and/or added mounding tying it in with the other features.
- Completed all new grassing lines on every golf hole from tee to green
- Added/rebuilt/modified several tees.
- Eliminated some cart paths and added others where necessary
I just had Jim Sherma out there to see it. He is a long time player at Bethlehem and can attest to the transformation of the golf course from where it was.
I just saw all the multimillion dollar Golf Inc. Renovation of the Year winners and was thinking, they should have a category for what can be done with a fraction of that like a half million or so.
-
John,
I think they do exist but we just don't hear much about them because they projects don't make the magazine articles and front covers. I am a bit biased but what we accomplished at Bethlehem with a "mid six figure budget" (and prevailing wages because it was a municipal course) is pretty impressive:
- We took down hundreds of trees to open up vistas, improve agronomics, enhance playability, and remove clutter.
- Installed new drainage on a third of the golf holes (the course is a catch basin for the surrounding community and was a soggy mess for days after heavy rains and something had to be done).
- All 40 bunkers on the course were either completely rebuilt, reshaped, relocated and/or removed (we ended up with only 29)
- All 18 greens were touched in some way (primarily around the edges) where we lifted green sod, removed years of sand build up and/or restored false fronts/roll offs/pull ups as I call them with the average green expanding about 1000 square feet. On many of the green sites we removed and/or added mounding tying it in with the other features.
- Completed all new grassing lines on every golf hole from tee to green
- Added/rebuilt/modified several tees.
- Eliminated some cart paths and added others where necessary
I just had Jim Sherma out there to see it. He is a long time player at Bethlehem and can attest to the transformation of the golf course from where it was.
I just saw all the multimillion dollar Golf Inc. Renovation of the Year winners and was thinking, they should have a category for what can be done with a fraction of that like a half million or so.
A mid 6 figure budget course is a way above average budget. You might feel it it is low, but I can assure you that it is not the case. A budget of approx 585k puts you in the top 25+% of all US golf courses.
-
John,
I think they do exist but we just don't hear much about them because they projects don't make the magazine articles and front covers. I am a bit biased but what we accomplished at Bethlehem with a "mid six figure budget" (and prevailing wages because it was a municipal course) is pretty impressive:
I just saw all the multimillion dollar Golf Inc. Renovation of the Year winners and was thinking, they should have a category for what can be done with a fraction of that like a half million or so.
::)
But, seriously, if you want to win a Golf Inc. award, you just need to advertise with them more, and/or include more of their favored consultants and contractors in your project(s). But then you might also get less accomplished for the club's $$.
-
How is the current world and local supply and demand for materials, equipment etc etc effecting golf construction/renovation/restoration etc projects availability and price wise?
Atb
-
John,
You might be right. Most of my projects are in that six figure range with the biggest ones getting north of a million. I haven’t studied the average numbers but when I see these 7 and 8 figure renovation projects I just shake my head and say WOW! How do they spend that kind of money?? So to clarify what is not a big budget, I guess I was thinking about major projects that standout with budgets well under a million dollars.
Tom,
You are probably right about what it takes to win. But it would be good for the game (maybe not for the magazine) if they or someone else put emphasis on what can be accomplished on much smaller budgets.
-
So those builders' prices have gone WAY up. Instead of bidding for 20% profit, they're going to ask for 30%, or more, and that is a % of all the inflated materials costs. And then the best subcontractors are doing the same thing, so you'll pay the general 30% of the sub's 30%, too.
Knowing how to work the above is the difference between frugal and cheap. And frugal often means erasing a lot of consultants and then those consultants describe you as cheap. Things like Golf Inc are just there so that consultants can convince consultants they need them..And then convince clubs they need them. ;D
-
Mike makes a good point about consultants. On some projects they are needed but in my last few we didn’t use any except for an agronomist that I work with from time to time when we have major turf issues. We did our own irrigation and drainage plans and we didn’t bring in an arborist. We did use a specialist for the cart paths that were required. We also did our own project management of the construction. When budgets are tight you have to manage the best you can.
-
I’m
as more wary of a specialist thinking they’re qualified to do everything as I am consultants….
-
Has it ever really changed?
Looking at clubs located near large metro areas, even in the golden years, those course were fully featured from the start, with the architects spending a lot of time on site. As you move away from those areas, a course would get 1-2 days, even by a Ross or Tilly and then get left to the local guys to complete over time. Sometimes, this period could last for decades. (may even still be going on today)
It can be done frugally as long as you don't mind a few of things:
1. Time - Do you have to get all the work done in a short amount of time to appease members/panels/rankings/guests? If not, create a master plan that uses time as a resource. Have a roadmap and plan that uses your in-house staff for labor wherever possible. Don't waste time on trucking in perfect sod when you can strip it from somewhere on the course. Stop with hauling AUGUSTA SAND. (I do confess, that mountain source is close to my course so it's cheaper than other types)
2. Reputation - Do you have to spend to maintain a certain reputation? If you've never had it to start with, then who cares? There are MANY good archs around the country that fly under the radar because they would rather create than market. They are probably better for your course and club because they will listen and work with you over time. Nothing more aggravating than to have someone who won't listen while the whole time you're catching flak from the members and you haven't an answer. Put it this way, would you rather have an attorney with a billboard and charges for it? Or, one that listens and gets you a settlement that seems fair?
3: Be yourself. Are you a membership/club that has a reputation for DIY? Go with it just don't plant a tree for every contribution. ;D
-
Good advice Brian. Long range Master Plans are called that for a reason. Most clubs we work with do things in stages as they can afford them.
Joe,
I agree with you. The old saying about successful people surrounding themselves with good people who think differently then they do is very sound. I try to do that whenever possible. I remember on one project that I was interviewing for, the head of the grounds committee asked me what kind of shrubs they should plant behind the 18th tee. I said my expertise is on the golf architecture. I recommend you hire a landscape architect for that job. He smiled. A week later I was hired and no more questions were asked about shrubbery ;D
-
I would say the Golf, Inc thing is pure hogwash for most renovations, but in truth, I know of some drainage, forward tee, tree clearing, and maybe one new green projects where the owner insists on applying for the award. I agree with Mark that the magazine would do us all a service if they added a low budget/critical fix only/practical, or whatever, category recognizing those who spend more wisely. Not all total redos are unwise, mind you, but the days of rebuild it extravagantly and they will come, seem to be on the wane, based on my experience. A 6 year old NGF study shows that total rebuilding and rebranding does raise revenues the most, in about 90% of the cases, but in all cases, lower cost, targeted renovations raise revenue less, but provide a greater ROI, which is probably the goal in most renovations.
I also agree with the idea that many projects are over feed with consultants of various kinds. I get it in a way, as things have become specialized everywhere, but in others I don't. When I started, I did my own irrigation plans, but I found irrigation consultants were both cheap and up to date as the nature of irrigation materials (i.e., controllers and sprinklers) changed every year and I wasn't keeping up as I should. I still do small irrigation plans if we are rebuilding laterals around greens and tees, but I don't mess with mainlines any more. I do often review my irrigation consultants plans, sometimes because my training was to shorten mainlines to save cost, while most of them now seem to prefer to run a large mainline aside every hole, when in reality, that sub branch or loop really only needs 4-6" to cover 2 holes, not 8-12" as if carrying half the holes on the golf course, but cost control doesn't seem to be an issue as much as it once was.
Also, turf consultants were usually not a thing, and now most projects have both, and sometimes many more. It makes some sense with gca's working across the globe, and in most cases, not willing to take the advice of the seed salesman as their only source of grass knowledge, LOL>
A few well publicized lawsuits regarding greens forced many gca's into farming out the greens mix testing, and writing clauses in our agreements that we do not recommend greens mix, although I believe the impact of those lawsuits was probably overblown. Some testing labs really seem to ratchet up negative consequences as their marketing tools, which doesn't help.
In a way, and I am part of the trend, since the 1980's, I joke that gca's have more pages of contract telling the owners what we don't do, as opposed to telling them what we will do for them on a project, LOL.
But, I will step off the soapbox now.....
-
Jeff,
All good points and thoughts as usual. I do wish the lower end projects would get more exposure if only for the reason to demonstrate to other clubs/courses what can be accomplished with small well used budgets.
-
Mark,
As near as I can tell, and in general, courses that pick their 2-4 biggest problems and renovate those tend to get the best ROI results. And those tend to be irrigation systems, greens turf, sand bunkers, and level/larger/better turf/better organized tees, with, in some cases, renovating the soil below the greens and tees included. If Golf Inc., added an ROI component to the judging system, I think that would make more partial renovations winners.
I recall having a discussion on renovations with, of all people, Tom Marzolf, where he said Fazio was mostly in favor of long term renovations, because that is what is best for most clients, and many GCA's favor blowing it up because that is what is best for the architect in terms of fee, publicity, recognition, etc. While there are some advantages in many cases of blowing it all up, I do think most of Tom's statement carries some weight.
As always, your results may vary, as they say in the TV ads for Rx. At least, no one has gotten explosive diarrhea from a golf course renovation. ;)
-
I had the pleasure of playing Bethlehem with mark last week. My history with the course goes back to growing up and then playing High School golf there in the late 1970's through the early 1980's.
I believe that the course was relatively original when I started playing there allowing for sand splash (significant as most of the bunkers were flash faced tight up to edges of the greens with only a couple feel of fringe between the green surface and the bunker edge) and top-dressing build up.
During the 19990's (I think this was the timing at lease, I was no longer playing regularly at Bethlehem) all of the greenside bunkers had their lips folded over and grassed. After this work the course really started to feel dated and under-maintained. Green shrinkage also became very noticeable once the green edges were divorced from the sharp bunker lips.
Mark's work significantly refreshed the course returning it to one of the better public options out there. It was always a good routing with a good set of greens. The work definitely added more interest to the greens and they felt like they played smaller due to more roll-offs with steeper slopes. Since the course plays shorter due to modern equipment and lower fairway heights this is reasonable if not appropriate. There is more variety around the greens in terms of the various recovery shots that get asked for. The two new fairway bunkers add to the course both strategically and aesthetically. There are a couple of spots that I would have done differently but they are minor. All in all the work was not significant to the point that the course is significantly changed from what was there. However, it plays better and he cleaned up a lot of the disinvestment and aging that had played out over time.
Playing with Mark was both informative and a treat (he can get it around the course and then some). Some of the build-up numbers (top-dressing plus sand splash) that he mentioned were insane. Hopefully he will chime in and discuss this, both in terms of the absolute amount of build up as well as how the greens changed from a playing perspective as a result of it.
-
I recall having a discussion on renovations with, of all people, Tom Marzolf, where he said Fazio was mostly in favor of long term renovations, because that is what is best for most clients, and many GCA's favor blowing it up because that is what is best for the architect in terms of fee, publicity, recognition, etc. While there are some advantages in many cases of blowing it all up, I do think most of Tom's statement carries some weight.
Yes, but big clubs can wind up spending even more in the long term, if they keep bringing an architect back to make renovations year after year.
-
As I recall, they charged a pretty big master plan fee, which included some drawings for each area. In theory, they didn't have to come back, but probably will, since their name is on it.
In general, I tell clients that long term cost more than single year project. If the one year renovation will cost $5Mil, then each of smaller phases of $1 Million are probably more like $1.2M, after losing some scale efficiencies. Then, you have an average of 5 years inflation at 3.25% or so, meaning that $5 Mil turns into over closer to $8 Million total.
But, the smaller projects might be able to be paid in cash rather than loans, and the course remains in play, etc.
-
Jim,
Thanks for chiming in. It was fun to go around Bethlehem with someone like you who knew and understood what was there beforehand. As you correctly stated, we changed a lot but not to the point where most golfers who play there on a regular basis would feel they don't know it any more. That was never the intention. It was more of a major refresh :D As you learned walking around the course with me, there were a ton of factors that impacted what ended up getting built and not built. You win some battles and lose others. Cost and follow on maintenance expenses definitely impact the final design. Most golfers will never know or understand that but so be it. At the end of the day the golf course still has to stand on its own despite the challenges to get it to that point.
I didn't want to just focus on one course on this thread but I used it to point out an example of what could be done with what I think is a smaller budget (definitely one much less than a million dollars). Was hoping to see a list of other similar renovation projects in the same cost range.