[Tom_Doak]

My understanding (which is now very dated) is that the golf courses have positive cash flow as a whole.  However, they don't necessarily make a good "return on investment" based on the millions that were poured into them.  Their "return" is based on the increased tourism which improves the overall GDP of the state, thereby improving the Fund's other investment returns in hotels, land, etc.  By that measure, they are judged a success.


Tennessee's trail, on the other hand, was supposed to generate it's own ROI.  It not only failed in that, but I think the trail as a whole loses money (also very dated information).

Thanks for the response.  That's kind of what I figured.


If the RTJ Trail has positive but limited returns, you could make the case that its construction was good for the people of Alabama generally in providing jobs, and that as a fringe benefit it provides places for retired workers to play golf.


The Mosaic Company had a bit of that motivation as well when they built Streamsong.  Eventually they will run out of phosphate to mine in that part of Florida, but the resort offers the potential of jobs and recreation for their employees once the mining operation is gone.

[Mike_Young]

TD describes the "pricing competition golf" perfectly.  Golf Now has as much to do with the race to the bottom as anything.  The guy looking for price could care less about your clubhouse and if you can figure how to operate at around $750,000 then you can make money in that business.  But as TD says you got to buy them right. 


RTJ Trail is not a money maker from what I am told.  But they were built with the intention of bringing industry and growth to the areas.  The Opelika course has told us a couple of times that if the Kia plant were not there they would have almost no weekday play etc.  I remember when the dude put it all together with Dr. Bronner it was like a 125 million dollar deal.  Word was it was the second worse deal teacher retirement invested in that year with the other being some NYC office building with asbestos.  That entire deal sucked.  Read Jim Hanson's book on RTJ and he will explain more...

[Derek_Duncan]

My understanding (which is now very dated) is that the golf courses have positive cash flow as a whole.  However, they don't necessarily make a good "return on investment" based on the millions that were poured into them.  Their "return" is based on the increased tourism which improves the overall GDP of the state, thereby improving the Fund's other investment returns in hotels, land, etc.  By that measure, they are judged a success.

This is my understanding as well. The Trail has typically earned a profit of between 2% and 5% per year, and that goes right back into the courses. So they make money, but they don't add to the profitability of the retirement system's portfolio.

They have had an immeasurable impact on the reputation of the state, which was abysmal as late as the 1980's, and as stated have contributed to Alabama being able to attract a number of major industries for relocation.



But the Trail is not a model that can be easily replicated. The initial investment in land and construction was such a small portion of the retirement system's overall assets as to be almost insignificant. There's no real need for them to perform financially above where they currently are. It was essentially a marketing maneuver at little more than the relative cost of a marketing budget.

[Jonathan Mallard]

The Mosaic Company had a bit of that motivation as well when they built Streamsong.  Eventually they will run out of phosphate to mine in that part of Florida, but the resort offers the potential of jobs and recreation for their employees once the mining operation is gone.

Just curious - is that amenity explicitly established for said employees/retirees as part of their compensation package?

[Jeff_Brauer]

IIRC, the Jones Trail really was in the fast food mode, as many, if not all of them started at the same time and RTJ had to implement some system to get the designs submitted on time for the contractors.  My memory could be faulty, and for that matter, they might have only had to rush the first few designs to get started and supply the others later and with much less pressure.  Who knows, maybe the site work and driving ranges were done first to give them more time to design.


I would guess most architects tend to re-use 30-45 green concepts, and maybe 15-25 fw concepts, adapting them each time.  I doubt many "force" designs on a site where they don't fit.  Rather, they look at the site and figure which green is the best starting point for design. A typical example being finding a reverse slope site, and immediately pulling a Redan out of the file as a starting point.  it's that,  a Ross reverse (12 at WBYC or 14 at Oakland Hills) or perhaps reducing the back to front slope from the normal 2%, or flattening to 0% and draining cross ways to fit the ground.  Even so, filling in the details always makes them slightly different in path location, bunker depth, drainage and what not.

[Tom_Doak]

Just curious - is that amenity explicitly established for said employees/retirees as part of their compensation package?

I honestly have no idea.  It may have just been a talking point for them.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
I've noticed in the past that architects seem quite sensitive to any suggestion that they might be 'repeating themselves', that (as per your post) they 're-use' the same 2 dozen favourite fairway-tropes and green-conceits. But I've never understood this sensitivity; I think it misunderstands what it means to be an artist or creative craftsman.
I've used this analogy before, and I think it's valid:
in my mind, there is no more creative/artistic craftsman than the improvising jazz musician. And the two most dominant and influential jazz musicians of the 20th century were Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker. But the thing is, anyone who likes/knows jazz even a little can identify a solo by Armstrong or Parker in 3 notes -- because they 'repeated themselves' ALL THE TIME.
Favourite notes and riffs and phrasings etc, repeated over and over again in various musical 'settings' and tempos -- and yet, far from this limiting them as artists or diminishing their work, their immediately identifiable styles actually 'defined' them and 'established' the work as the finest examples of improvised American music in all of history.
In short: there's nothing at all wrong with an architect 'repeating himself' in his work - though he may want to guard against repeating someone else's work!
Peter
A peaceful and nourishing new year to you all

[Jeff_Brauer]

 Peter,

Of course, “Always original design!” is the marketing mantra, and some sincerely try to do something different every time out.  But, it really doesn’t happen.  Ron Whitten found 73 examples of the same Ross par 3 when going through the Tufts archives.  GD killed an article of his pointing out similar repeats on Fazio holes.  So, it’s a long term and ongoing situation.  I almost said problem…..but argument’s sake, let’s ask why?
First, to your music examples, I am not a music expert (not even sure I could tell you what I liked, LOL) but you mention three notes.  I have been told that there are literally thousands of our best loved songs constructed around the same three chords.  That’s when I stopped worrying as much about variety in my own work, just because some said you can’t be creative if you impose too many rules on yourself.
In another, perhaps more relevant music example, I saw Fleetwood Mac a few years ago.  They introduced “Tusk” by saying the record company told them to make each album different, but when they heard how different Tusk was, they preferred FM to pound out the exact same formula until it stopped selling records.
In some ways, golf course design isn’t much different.  You certainly take a bigger chance on an entirely new idea or style over a more proven one.  Yeah, if people like it, it’s a big personal winner, but if the critics howl, which is far more common, then it can affect your career forever. 

I guess it depends on your design philosophy.  A few actually do pride themselves on being different every time out, using the land to create a truly unique green, sometimes even leaving every little bump (even though when I find those in TX, they are mostly old piles of garbage not suitable for use)  I suppose the "acid test" for those architects would be to turn down a million dollar design fee to do a replica course of their own best holes!

Others, believing “form follows function” and whose design mantra is more designing for golfers/shots/strategies other than “using nature” in all but the most general way - i.e., if the land angles right, the green will angle right.  If it’s a broad slope the green can be wider, if steeper, a narrow green is the best fit, the question becomes,

“Hmm, I have designed literally a hundred long par 4’s, with similar conditions and somewhere along the way, have tweaked my design thoughts into a broad preference.  If I have solved this problem before, and seen it in action to be proven satisfactory, what is my motivation to reinvent the wheel?”- I know it works if I broadly copy a previous successful design but it’s probably less than 50-50% a new one will work as well.  If, as often happens, a particular problem happens often (as in fleshing out the design for a particular hole type) there isn’t much wrong with starting with a tried and true solution and evolving from there.

Of course, I always reconsider main features like enlarging green size if this shot is longer than the last time I used that type of green, soften or add to the basic green angle, perhaps steeper contour if uphill to make it visible, if downwind, we might lengthen the green, cross wind, we might widen it, if a long shot we might use a simpler green shape, shorter perhaps more exaggerated shape to create a Sunday Pin, etc.  As mentioned before, to avoid a direct copy, I would substitute grass for sand hazard, or split one hazard into 2 or 3 as the land suggests, etc.

Have you ever noticed football coaches take less and less risk as time goes on?  It’s probably because trick plays work (for the Eagles, to win a Super Bowl) but over time, they realize trick plays (and 4^th and long conversions) probably fail 70% of the time.

Same deal in architecture.  My first day of work at Killian and Nugent they let me sketch out a concept for a par 3, to make me feel part of the office.  I put in a forced water carry.  They took it right back out, saying they tried it a few times, the women couldn’t play it, they were criticized, and they never did one again.  That said, after many years, and seeing Pete Dye’s island green, it is quite natural to start questioning your own self imposed rules again.  But, over that time did women start playing any more consistently?  What situation would make it okay to design a forced carry most golfers couldn’t make?  In the case of TPC, it was a desire to be tour worthy and gain fame with a modern design.

Being different just to be different has some appeal, and can help initial marketing for the client.  However, the most “sincere”, best design solves that particular problem and the form should come out as it needs to, which should be unique, not be suggested by some outside priority of “being different.”  There are more apple shaped greens and footprint shaped bunkers out there than truly great new ideas when that is the priority.

As to re-using other’s ideas, we do that, too.  What was the point of TD or Pete Dye going to Scotland if not to flesh out the best ideas and use them?  Sometimes, the question becomes one of how close to copy.  If you decide on a Biarritz, do you make a rectangular green similar to Raynor, with a 90 deg. Swale, or do you round off the green, change the swale angle, give it more form, etc. to make it unique to you?  It might depend on the market, with the straight out copy perhaps standing out more than a “concealed” copy with changes and every architect would make a different decision there.

Anyway, just some random thoughts from New Year Day, mostly to be argumentative.  Cheers!

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

Your last comment made me recall this.  The 4 chord hit songs!! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Jeff - a good and enjoyable read/post.
One of the reasons I kind of like my musical analogy is because a "different song/tune" is a decent enough parallel to a "different site/land"
Architects work on different land/site each & every time out, just as Armstrong or Parker played over hundreds of different tunes & chord progressions.
But whether it was the up-tempo (and text-book chord/harmonic progression) of "I've Got Rhythm"; or the slow (with elaborate and unusual harmonies for the time and a difficult 'bridge') "Body and Soul"; or the mid tempo "How High the Moon" (that Parker re-envisioned in the bop idiom as "Ornithology")...it doesn't matter: you can still tell it's Parker in 5-10 seconds.
Lots of reasons why, but I suppose them all come together to form a "style" that is unmistakably his...every time out.
Anyway, for another time, over a few drinks....but not in Utah!
Best
   

[Jeff_Brauer]

I stand corrected, its the same 4 chords!


Peter, look forward to it.  Think I have a few things coming up in Utah.  Any chance the reason UT leads the way in reducing the legal limit is that a large portion of their influential population doesn't drink anyway?

[Kalen Braley]

I stand corrected, its the same 4 chords!

Peter, look forward to it.  Think I have a few things coming up in Utah.  Any chance the reason UT leads the way in reducing the legal limit is that a large portion of their influential population doesn't drink anyway?

Jeff,

I wouldn't doubt that.  2/3rds of the legislature and the governor all belong to a certain religious organization...

P.S.  If those "things" bring you to Northern Utah drop me a line.  I can show you all the best drinking holes and be your DD...its the least I could do! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

If by north, you mean around Salt Lake, chances are pretty good.  Will remember the invite!

[Kalen Braley]

If by north, you mean around Salt Lake, chances are pretty good.  Will remember the invite!

Yes indeed.

I live 5 minutes from downtown and 15 from the airport, I wouldn't mind playing chauffeur if that suits you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()