The influence of money on architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not buying the notion that the several 1000 acre parcel of property that SHGC is within is any less productive or undesirable than any other grazing land around there.

Then, you're calling Dick Youngscap a liar

It has the Dismal river asset through it.

The land adjacent to both banks of the Dismal River is miniscule when compared to the entire parcel.

And, the land gets VERY steep as it approaches the Dismal River.

It could support the same number of animal units as any other large parcel in that area.

That's not what Dick Youngscap indicated

(I heard about 12-15 acres on average/per unit).  It really depends on the amount of rain in a season or through many seasons.  

I doubt that the rainfall on the site at Sand Hills differs from the rainfall throughout that area.

Besides, if the fuel thing keeps up, the switch grass value, or growing fiberous material to produce ethanol may surpass the beef industry someday.

That's an awfully big [size=16x]IF[/size]
And, Ethanol wasn't a consideration when Dick bought the land.

Someone posted a "for sale" of a big property also on the Dismal River, just down from SHGC.  They weren't exactly giving it away!  

Of course not.
First Youngscap buys it cheaply, then Nicklaus comes in and buys more land.  Did you think the price was going to go down as it became more popular ?

If my memory serves, it was something like 1200 an acre.   They don't sell little ranchettes in those parts.  You buy a square mile section at minimum  (640 acres) and that is considered tiny.

Your memory is not serving you  
And, he bought alot more land than that, and then leased some of it back to interested parties.

As to the question you posed, Pat;  I think money was an object in an ironic way at Sand Hill GC.  It took a guy with quite a bit of it to buy the remote land, cheap or not.  Then, it took very little (compared with many golf course development costs) to build it.  Then, it takes a comparatively larger amount per hole or per day open to maintain it, if you throw in all the ancillary club, lodge operational costs.  It isn't exactly a typical situation.  So, money as an object to effect architecture is sort of a reverse or counterintuitive set fo considerations there.  Little money to build it = minimalist yet clever architecture;  but plenty to keep it going.  

Nature doesn't support Sand Hills, members and guests do.

To suggest that operating the golf course costs money is not exactly rediscovering the wheel or Rocket Science 101.

We know that EVERY course has operating expenses, but, they're not solely dependent upon the architecture. They're a given and offset by memberships and play.

My question centers on the creation, not the maintainance of golf courses, and how money affects the architecture, not the laundry bills for the linens.

Please call The Sarge and have him help you out on this one.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I'm not calling DY a liar.  Why put a pejorative in my mouth when all I am noting is that DY doesn't fit the generational cattleman model (as far as I know) and why cast him in the status of a red letter authority?  If I were buying land out there, I'd listen to DY,  but I'd listen closer to a generational cattleman ahead of him.  

All I'm saying is that DY is a very smart man, who made a big success of golf course development and club ownership back at Firethorn, and is a respected architect, and used his already acquired wealth to create a unique and special circumstance golf club in the middle of no where.  He could "afford" to take the chance.  He had the vision, and the comfort level to do so.  The inverse money to golf architecture relationship, in this case is odd or ironic, I think.  Money was an object to do this, and thereby create the enormous impact on golf course architecture, and what people thought about this sort of adventure.  Money was an object to influence architecture to a positive way, in that case.  Even though oddly, the course construction costs were comparatively low.  The risk was high.  

Then... more wealthy guys came along with the same basic model.  Buy oddball, nowheresville land because you can afford the risk, build for relatively cheap and charge a crap load for the play.  So, Keiser buys and develops Bandon.  The Dismal owners and O'Neils take a second and third bite of the same apple.  Architecture in all those cases needed money as an object!

I didn't see that other thread running current with this one  until now... about the Veblen effect.  But, that all plays into this equation of money effecting architecture as well.

More oddly, I think that the big money it took to take the risk at Sand Hills GC is a juxtaposition to Wild Horse.  The two courses are talked about all the time in the same breath.  Yet, they are very different in terms of the "money as an object" effect on architecture.  

Which course do you think by virtue of "money as an object" has the greater influence on Golf Course Architecture ideals?  My answer is Wild Horse.  It took much less money to construct, took more construction work to build, and became the more unexpectedly great design model to influence other courses, IMHO.  

Sand Hills was more of a surprise and a shift in conceptual ideals that took money and risk.  Wild Horse was a frugal model for community action and lower shared finacial risk, and proof that big name GCA's were not necessary to produce a quality course of great design merit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

You can't compare a private venture to a public venture.

And, each course caters to an entirely different clientele.

It takes money to craft any club, even when the developers have owned the land for generations.

That's not the jist of this thead.
As I said, Nature develop golf clubs.

The issue, which, without The Sarge's help, you can't grasp, is, How money affects the architecture.

If you had a site where golf was "in the ground" would the design and architecture differ if you were willing to pay 15,000,000 for the golf course verus 5,000,000 ?

Does the infusion of money eliminate the need/desire to consider the natural land.

Does money foster less rather than more design and architectural imagination ?

Ergo, can anybody with sufficient funds design a reasonably good golf course ?

Please feel free to call The Sarge, collect.  

[RJ_Daley]

The issue, which, without The Sarge's help, you can't grasp, is, How money affects the architecture.

If you had a site where golf was "in the ground" would the design and architecture differ if you were willing to pay 15,000,000 for the golf course verus 5,000,000 ?

Does the infusion of money eliminate the need/desire to consider the natural land.

Does money foster less rather than more design and architectural imagination ?

Ergo, can anybody with sufficient funds design a reasonably good golf course ?

Please feel free to call The Sarge, collect.

Sarge says to all of that:  "Tell that maggot, It depends"!  

I say: it will take a Philadelphia lawyer, and Harvard Professor to answer, because a simple fool like me couldn't even think up such a convoluted question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

"Convoluted", that's an interesting word.

Just think of that powder blue shirt with the crazy design that The Sarge wore, and you'll come to an understanding of the word, "convoluted".

In terms of Sand Hills and Wild Horse.

How different would they have been if the driving force behind both developments told Fazio and Nicklaus that they were willing to spend 12,000,000 to design and build the golf course.

But, here's my real question.

If a developer told an architect that he wanted a world class golf course (whatever that means) and that he had budget of 12,000,000 and that whatever was left over after construction, they'd split 50-50, I wonder how much they'd spend and how creative the architect would be.

Would C&C and the boys have pocketed around 5,000,000 at each project ?

[RJ_Daley]

I didn't promptly answer because I was out for the 3rd time today shovelling slush and snow!!!  

But, now you raise a very interesting scenario, Pat.  And, do you know (and I think you do) that there is a project out there that is amost exactly the numbers you are using, that is kaput.  

The Prairie Sands project, north of Sutherland, was a grandiose waste of time and money, and something of a confidence game that played out whereby a very similar course and development  -which as I knew it- was a cross between Sutton Bay facility and Dismal River.  They had a name professional player/design team lined up.  They had a corporate retreat, bird hunting, equestrian center, 18 to 36 hole course, with club house projected at about 7million for club house and 7 million for the first 18.  It was on great land.  A monkey could have brought in a great course for less than 3 million.  But, the whole thing was a house of cards.  And, the more money they 'proposed' to throw at it, the more goofy and "convoluted" the scheme got.  So, there is a place where the nature was in the ground, and all the proposed money and grand golf design was wasted and a disaster.  

And, if you think that shirt of his makes you crazy, you should play with us regularly.  He wears it about 2 out of 3 times we play, along with his pants/belt belt line getting higher each round, still proudly displaying that Marine Corps - Mustang belt buckle of his!  

You tell him though, cause he can still kick my ass.

[Adam Sherer]

Money = "golf course design"

Lack of money = St. Andrews, Ol' Tom morris, Allan Robertson, the Featherie, Donald Ross, Dr. McKenzie, the gutta-percha, the redan, etc


What happens in golf design with too much money = Tiger Woods Design, Nicklaus Design, Palmer Design, Mickelson Design, DL3 Design, Player Design, etc.


The real question is = What is GCA without "architects"?

New thread = "What is golf course design without designers..............If present day 'Doak's' were modern representative of 'Ol Tom's'?"
             

[Phil McDade]

Old Tom Morris ventured far afield from the Auld Grey Toon to design interesting golf courses -- goodness knows how long it took him to get from St. Andrews to Machrihanish in his day; it felt like forever and a day to me a few years ago. Heck, he ventured to the Outer Hebrides for a course. Did he do this all for charity? One presumes he was paid...

[Adam Sherer]

How much?  

5 quid?

He made more for "keeping the green," or as club maker, or as pro than as "designer"

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

What differentiated the Prairie Sands project from Sand Hills, Wild Horse and others ?

You state that golf was inherent in the ground, yet, the project failed.

I suspect it begins at the top.

I wonder what would have happened if either Mike Keiser, Dick Youngscap, Mike Pascucci, Ken Bakst or Roger Hansen were involved.   I suspect that good to great golf courses are the fulfillment of the dreams of visionary GOLFERS, lovers of the game, people who understand golf and golfers, and not developers distantly connected or unconnected to the game.

Wild Horse, Sand Hills, Sebonack, Hidden Creek and Friar's Head are golf courses, golf clubs, first and foremost.

They are not all things to all people.

In the ultimate, you can only build what golfers can afford to play, and if you spend enormous amounts of money on non-golf related activities, I don't see the sustainability of the golf course.

If, the developer said, I have 7,000,000 for a golf course.
Build me a good to great course, and any money you spend under 7,000,000 we'll split, 50-50, I'll bet  you'd get a far better product on that site, than just forking over all of the
7,000,000.

Sometimes money stifles or anesthetizes the imagination

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, Dick's Applegate example failed because of a con man not the amount of money needed.

 Having a benevolent leader who watches every penny, has the right vision, and takes advantage of a great site, is obviously rare.
I;ve heard horror stories of one minamilist design (in earth moving) that cost a bundle because everything had to be done multiple times because it wasn't done right in the first place.

That's one problem with having too much money available. Like the saying goes, A fool and his money are fortunate to be put together in the first place

[Lloyd_Cole]

If, the developer said, I have 7,000,000 for a golf course.
Build me a good to great course, and any money you spend under 7,000,000 we'll split, 50-50, I'll bet  you'd get a far better product on that site, than just forking over all of the
7,000,000.

Sometimes money stifles or anesthetizes the imagination

Not to mention it's ability to corrupt all but the finest of souls.

Pat, your idea reminds me of a story I heard about the rebuilding of LA after the last big earthquake. Construction companies made their bids and let's say the accepted one was for $XXX and the proposed time frame to complete the work was 6 months. Some smart cookie with the city then said - we'll give you an $XX bonus for every day you bring it in ahead of schedule. Well, you can imagine how quickly the job was completed... in less than 50% of the quote.