Will capitalism allow great architecture to remain cheap?

[John Kavanaugh]

Wild Horse, e.g., is a muni, isn't it?  That alone makes it hard to talk in the same breath with "capitalism", and skews any price comparisons with privately-owned courses like Ballyneal and Sand Hills.  Even skipping over that, I always see Ballyneal and Sand Hills rated higher than Wild Horse, architecturally speaking.  So if architecture was the only thing that determines price (it isn't), and WH was not publicly owned, it would still make sense that BN and SH would cost more.  

Jim,

I'm not sure where you get your ratings but Wild Horse is 22 and Ballyneal is 43 in the latest Golfweek Modern Best.  http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/modern/  I have never seen value in the Raters Handbook even though I am sure a walk in the park is more enjoyable with lighter pockets.

[Jim Nugent]

Wild Horse, e.g., is a muni, isn't it?  That alone makes it hard to talk in the same breath with "capitalism", and skews any price comparisons with privately-owned courses like Ballyneal and Sand Hills.  Even skipping over that, I always see Ballyneal and Sand Hills rated higher than Wild Horse, architecturally speaking.  So if architecture was the only thing that determines price (it isn't), and WH was not publicly owned, it would still make sense that BN and SH would cost more.  

Jim,

I'm not sure where you get your ratings but Wild Horse is 22 and Ballyneal is 43 in the latest Golfweek Modern Best.  http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/modern/  I have never seen value in the Raters Handbook even though I am sure a walk in the park is more enjoyable with lighter pockets.

John, I would be interested to see how the people here on GCA who have played both courses rate them.  My guess is Ballyneal comes out ahead by a good amount.  

(Actually I see you've raised that very question on another thread.  So we can keep tabs, a little bit anyway.)  

Another guess: those Golfweek rankings are a function of time.  Give Ballyneal another year or three, and it will rank higher than WH.  Sand Hills, e.g., ranks far above WH, and I often see BN favorably compared to SH.  

I was wrong in calling Wild Horse a muni, as it seems to be privately owned, but open to the public.  How much play to they get from out-of-towners/staters?  Your suggestion that they charge outsiders higher greens fees could well come to pass.  

[Doug Ralston]

Tim Pitner;

Please let me know what you think of The Harvester in comparison to Wild Horse. It will be hard to put what you hear on this site aside and make a comparison without such influence. But I have a friend who took a month long trip last year, and wrote up his impressions of 19 good courses he played among his activities on the trip. At the end he ranked them from his own impressions. The Harvester got his top rating. Wild Horse got his lowest.

http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Golf%20Packages.html

Everyone sees different things in golf courses. He freely admits to his own biases in his judgements. On the other hand, his lifetime of experience playing around the Country gives him some fun insights.

I would love to see yours.

Doug

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a gca, I have a different take on the original question:

Hell yeah capitalism has kept golf course architecture cheap!

Thanks to a bazillion competitors, I can't charge nearly what I should be charging......

John seems to be referring to the cost of golf, not the cost of golf architecture.  That cost is most affected by land costs, interest rates, subsidies from other entities (housing developer, etc) and of course, overall demand in a particluar locale.  

While construction cost does affect what is charged, as we have discussed before, it ends up being about a third of the project cost.  Turning a $4M course into a $3M course through "minimalism" then only reduces the cost that they "have to charge" by 8-10% at most, i.e., from $40 to $36.

[SB]

To follow up on what Jeff is saying, and even start another thread, it is my experience that the quality of the architecture quality of golf, public or private, is only a small piece of the cost of said golf.  

Location is the most important determiner, followed by reputation/snob appeal, with architecture lucky if it makes third.

[Mike_Young]

Steve,
You hit the nail with SNOB APPEAL......most Americans are told what they like by the marketing machines.....the actual golf and architecture are still a good deal....the extras are the killer  IMO

[John Kavanaugh]

Steve,
You hit the nail with SNOB APPEAL......most Americans are told what they like by the marketing machines.....the actual golf and architecture are still a good deal....the extras are the killer  IMO

Snob appeal only works in the hit and run world of the very few.  I see the largest percentage of golfers playing the best course they like that they can afford.  Surprise..It is the architecture that they either like or not..not ratings or flat screens.

A perfect example would be the Doak and the Liddy in Evansville, In.  Quail Crossing is obviously better architecture then Cambridge and is thus able to charge a few buck more.  Cambridge has the fancier club house and cost much more to build.  Cambridge would love to charge more but they just can't and I doubt ever will.  I don't think a single public course in Evansville charges a green fee based on land cost, location or bells and whistles.  They charge what it takes to get people on the course.

[SB]

Golf courses in the middle of nowhere will never be a good economic model, period.  

I think the experiment known as Bandon Resort would suggest otherwise.  And if you don't think its remote, just take a trip out there.

Tough yes, but never say never...

Kalen,

Bandon and Pacific Dunes are ranked #2 & #5 in the country.  Nothing normal applies with that sort of ranking.  The list of good courses in the middle of nowhere that have gone bankrupt is much longer than the list of successes.

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, The good courses may have failed, but, do you know of any great courses that have? And since I believe the answer is No, illustrates just how important building an intelligent thoughtful design really is.

[Doug Ralston]

Adam;

I do not know where the differentiation is between 'good' and 'great' courses. Keith Foster [Harvester among others] built The Tennessean in a rather out of the way place. It does not get enough play to keep up the conditioning. But it is still ranked #1 public in TN by many. It IS a sensational layout. And I fear it will eventually fail. Sad  .

Doug

[Kalen Braley]

Golf courses in the middle of nowhere will never be a good economic model, period.  

I think the experiment known as Bandon Resort would suggest otherwise.  And if you don't think its remote, just take a trip out there.

Tough yes, but never say never...

Kalen,

Bandon and Pacific Dunes are ranked #2 & #5 in the country.  Nothing normal applies with that sort of ranking.  The list of good courses in the middle of nowhere that have gone bankrupt is much longer than the list of successes.

Fair enough,

But I was mostly commenting on your reference to "never" and "period", which last time I checked did indeed mean never and end of story.    

Regardless of how abnormal it supposedly is..

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, My sense is that great courses are where people will go way out of their way to get to, no matter how far. Good courses they won't be as inclined to make repeat visits. In this market every business needs the repeats.

[Bill Gayne]

There's several courses by great architects and even some great courses that have ceased to exist due to capitalist desires winning over golf interests. Refer to Dan Wexler's books for specific examples.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim Pitner;

Please let me know what you think of The Harvester in comparison to Wild Horse. It will be hard to put what you hear on this site aside and make a comparison without such influence. But I have a friend who took a month long trip last year, and wrote up his impressions of 19 good courses he played among his activities on the trip. At the end he ranked them from his own impressions. The Harvester got his top rating. Wild Horse got his lowest.

http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Golf%20Packages.html

Everyone sees different things in golf courses. He freely admits to his own biases in his judgements. On the other hand, his lifetime of experience playing around the Country gives him some fun insights.

I would love to see yours.

Doug

Doug,

Overall, I preferred Wild Horse to The Harvester.  They're very different--Wild Horse is very linksy (although the fairways were a little too soft) and The Harvester is more of a traditional parkland course with rolling hills and some hay-like rough.  I have a preference for walkable courses and centerline bunkers so these factors work in Wild Horse's favor for me.  The Harvester is mostly cartball.  The Harvester does have some very good short par 4s, some diagonal hazards/features and interesting green contours that distinguish it from your run-of-the-mill, modern course.  I would say 6-4 or 7-3 in favor of Wild Horse.