Why not consider cost when evaluating design?

« **on:** September 29, 2004, 06:35:11 PM »

One of the taboos around here seems to be the consideration of cost when considering the quality of the design. I dont get it. Shouldn't some notion of efficiency or value apply even in golf course architecture?

I avoid bad courses but am annoyed by 10 million dollar bad courses.

« **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:38:11 PM »

David,

Are you asking about the cost of the design fees or the construction fees?

Does the "you get what you pay for" syndrome effect the perception of the type of course you will get based on the designer?

Mike

Ps: Sorry to ask a question without a reply to your question.

« **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:44:15 PM »

Mike,

I think the two are often related but was referring to the cost of the course, not the fees.

I think the "you get what you pay for" syndrome greatly effects course evaluations . . . or in the case of the raters perhaps I should call it the "you get what others pay for" syndrome.

« **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2004, 06:48:01 PM »

David,

I don't get what cost has to do with it....does cost of dirt moved or dirt in its natural state make your ball bounce any different. In the last couple of years I played Olympic and Pinehurst #2.....how should I use cost to evaluate the achitecture of either course....or how would I possibly know what the cost was...I paid nothing to play Olympic and close to $1,100 to play 36 at Pinehurst including room. To be fair...including room at San Fran the cost at Olympic may have been higher....but who gives a damn and how did it affect the bounce of my ball..

« **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:00:43 PM »

John

This is easy to understand.

Some courses have small budget. They "could" have done a lot more but did not because they could not afford it.

Some courses spare ZERO expense and the final product still turns out poor.

Some courses spend little and turn out phenomenal. (Sand Hills, Pac Dunes)

Of course it is difficult to understand how this relates to Pinehurst and Olympic because dollar values have changed, they are a 100 years old, blah blah blah.

But I think David is referring to new constructions.

« **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:03:25 PM »

Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on September 29, 2004, 06:48:01 PM

David,

I don't get what cost has to do with it....does cost of dirt moved or dirt in its natural state make your ball bounce any different. In the last couple of years I played Olympic and Pinehurst #2.....how should I use cost to evaluate the achitecture of either course....or how would I possibly know what the cost was...I paid nothing to play Olympic and close to $1,100 to play 36 at Pinehurst including room. To be fair...including room at San Fran the cost at Olympic may have been higher....but who gives a damn and how did it affect the bounce of my ball..

John, you have a point, especially with the old courses . . . but it seems to me that there may be in inverse correlation between the quality of newer courses and the cost of creating them. I dont know enough about the finances of the older ones to speculate, except to note that one of the most expensive (the Lido) wasnt around that long.

For example, I have heard tell that the absolute worst course I have played in the past year (TPC at Valencia, Chris Gray Architect) cost around 10 million dollars to build (including litigation/zoning). [If someone knows this number is wrong, please correct me.]

« **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:04:18 PM »

David,
I haven't noticed this subject being taboo around here. Could you give an example? The only cost I consider is the green fee I have to pay, and whether I felt the round was worth the cost. Most of the course development costs are usually in the land acquisition aren't they? Or are you talking about maintenance costs, with some courses having unnecessary features that don't add to the course? I'm confused as always.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:07:29 PM »

And David, while you are at it...would you have enjoyed TPCV more if it cost 2 million to build or less if it had cost 20 million to build..

« **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:08:43 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on September 29, 2004, 06:35:11 PM

I avoid bad courses but am annoyed by 10 million dollar bad courses.

I think it is a valid point, and I have talked on here before about "Yield" in terms of how the architect "Yielded" a good course from a bad or average piece of land. My best example is Tall Grass

However, I don't think Nicklaus/Doak should be penalized for the $40 cost of their Southampton property. In order to evaluate cost, I believe that you have to take out the cost of the land from the equation. Comparing the cost of land in Southampton and The Sand Hills is apples and oranges, yet the land has some similar characteristics. Thus cost of construction is more relevant as a measure. The biggest piece is moving dirt which may be a function of what the architect is trying to create or it could be driven by environmental issues. Thus, no matter what, it will be difficult to compare.

« **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:15:45 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on September 29, 2004, 07:03:25 PM

I dont know enough about the finances of the older ones to speculate, except to note that one of the most expensive (the Lido) wasnt around that long.

Not relevant IMHO. Lido's land on LI became too valuable especially with a huge clubhouse that was very expensive to maintain. Fishers had a "mysterious" fire of their White Elephant clubhouse as it was too costly to maintain. You have to separate the golf course from the golf club.

Yale was the most expensive to build and survives because of cheap donated land and small clubhouse.

« **Reply #10 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:20:21 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on September 29, 2004, 06:35:11 PM

Shouldn't some notion of efficiency or value apply even in golf course architecture?

David, Should you qualify your analysis? One for the merits of the design, on the criterion you may or may not adhere to religiously.

, Or, to the project. The first is all about the gca, the second, more business. no?

« **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2004, 07:21:38 PM »

Dave Moriarty,

Are you excluding acquisition and remediation costs ?

Aren't costs intricately intertwined with acquisition and remediation, two factors that can be incredibly different on a site specific basis ?

Are the acquisition costs the same for Sebonack as they were for Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes ?

Will the remediation costs be the same for Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and Sebonack, or Old Marsh, or the Medalist.

It's almost impossible to compare budgets because of accounting differences in each project, and the variables that each project is confronted with.

Just look at Tillinghasts construction problems/cost at Alpine,
CBM's at Yale and Lido, and then compare them to Sand Hills, Bandon and Pacific Dunes, and you can see that budget comparisons are irrelevant unless you understand the totality of the project, from A to Z.

If the Talmadge family contributed the land as part of the development package, how would you compare "costs to complete" Friar's Head to Sebonack, where Mike Pascucci had to plunk down about 45,000,000 just to acquire the land ?

It's a Hippopotamus comparison.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 29, 2004, 08:06:47 PM »

I think the construction cost is a measurement of the architect or developer not the course.
Good course - low cost - two points for the archie and developer.
cheers

« **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2004, 08:28:57 PM »

Mike Nuzzo,

Quote from: Mike_Nuzzo on September 29, 2004, 08:06:47 PM

I think the construction cost is a measurement of the architect or developer not the course.

So you don't think that construction costs might be a function of the site, remediation or permiting for the golf course ?

That's an interesting perspective.[/color]

Good course - low cost - two points for the archie and developer.

So how would you classify the golf course and architect at YALE ?

How about the architect and golf course at LIDO ?

It's not as simple as you would lead others to believe, especially with today's restrictions on land and land usage.[/color]

« **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2004, 10:19:44 PM »

Pat,
You're correct.
Because a course on a particular location would require millions of environmental clean-up or permitting doesn't make it a bad course. The pre-design work may have more to do with the course being a good one, than the design itself.

I was referring to cost as it pertains to the quality of a course. I was trying to express an effiency of design in response to David's original question. If an architect and developer can extract a good course for a modest price, that would be excellent work by both and it doesn't make the course any better. It makes it more affoardable, and thats better for some.

I think if CB could have designed a course equal to the Lido on a different site for less $, it would have been a better achievement...for him...and for me.

Cheers

« **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2004, 10:30:05 PM »

The other point to consider is that most of the $$ numbers thrown around here are pure guesstimates or rumors put around by various persons for reasons unknown. Very few people know the true cost of constuction except for the owner. Developers often inflate or deflate numbers to make a particular point.

« **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2004, 10:48:28 PM »

Mike,

Quote from: Mike_Nuzzo on September 29, 2004, 10:19:44 PM

Pat,
You're correct.
Because a course on a particular location would require millions of environmental clean-up or permitting doesn't make it a bad course. The pre-design work may have more to do with the course being a good one, than the design itself.

I was referring to cost as it pertains to the quality of a course. I was trying to express an effiency of design in response to David's original question. If an architect and developer can extract a good course for a modest price, that would be excellent work by both and it doesn't make the course any better. It makes it more affoardable, and thats better for some.

I would think that the ultimate user would have to be factored in in order to evaluate, "cost efficiency".

If it was a public golf course I would imagine it would have different drives, versus a golf course designed as a high end residential community, hence efficiency can't be confined to
"cost to construct" outlays, hence comparisons between courses with diverse uses may be invalid.

I don't know many developers that want to waste money.

Steve Wynn's grand project, Shadow Creek, shouldn't be looked at, in terms of good design, from a dollar outlay point of view. He spent record sums to develop a specific project, a unique golf course, and in that end, he succeeded in obtaining his goals, despite its high cost.

So the motive of the developer, in conjunction with the understanding of the architect he partners with, and their ability to reach that collective goal determines the relative value of the golf course, not the absolute dollars spent.
[/color]

I think if CB could have designed a course equal to the Lido on a different site for less $, it would have been a better achievement...for him...and for me.

That's totally untrue.
CBM developed that course as a market specific site.

Had he built it elsewhere it might not have had any members or users, and I'm fairly certain that the original developers had no interest in developing it elsewhere.

Did Mike Pascucci, Ken Bakst or Mike Keiser have any interest in developing their respective golf courses on the land fill site in Bayonne ??

Historically, markets determine sites.
Today, some unique individuals modify that dictum.

One must drill where there is oil, not water, unless you're in the desert. [/color]

« **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2004, 10:52:33 PM »

Brett beat me to that last point ... I know the numbers for a lot of projects, but the figures that are publicly quoted are often misleading. Developers and members lie high or lie low, depending on whether they are trying to impress you with how much they could afford to spend, or how smart they were to save $.

It's difficult to compare budgets, even when you take the land cost out of the equation, because not all sites are created equal. For example, Pacific Dunes cost less than Bandon Dunes, but the biggest single factor was that we didn't have to clear nearly as much gorse.

In reality, the cost of earthmoving on many projects is a relatively small percentage of the budget ... the difference between moving a lot of earth and practically none is usually less than half a million dollars, for the earthmoving itself. But when the greater earthmoving necessitates more drainage and more irrigation and more revegetation, that's when budgets grow.

« **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:06:13 PM »

Pat,
You're correct again.

I'd like to modify my last statement...

I think if CB could have designed a course equal to the Lido on a different site, in the same market, for less $, it would have been a better achievement...for him...or at least for me.

Cheers

P.S.
Go Yanks!

« **Reply #19 on:** September 30, 2004, 01:25:14 AM »

Sebonac is a hot topic lately.
No matter how minimalist Doak's lack of dirt moving, there's no way that project is south of $10M when considering land and who's involved. Given the opportunity, I think I might enjoy evaluating that final product. Bakst is another good one to mention w/ Friar's.

Personally, I think cost is irrelevant towards evaluating design.
If Shackelford could have skipped the cart path construction at RC, would it really matter to how the course plays and feels?

« **Reply #20 on:** September 30, 2004, 07:54:48 AM »

I think it is common for developers to rellease costs as a marketing tool...in most cases making sure it cost more than the one down the street...
And I do think construction cost should be taken into consideration in evaluating a design. But just construction cost. Good land cost less to construct than bad....and when one has mediocre land with low construction budget....then it definitely has to be a factor in design evaluation...
But while most on here will disagree...fact is for most people.....the maintenance budget dictates how they evaluate a course much more than one would think......

« **Reply #21 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:03:35 AM »

When evaluating a course I don't know and don't care what it cost to design, build, maintain, or join. I am only interested in the finished product.

« **Reply #22 on:** September 30, 2004, 10:42:43 AM »

Mike Nuzzo,

I wonder if CBM's accomplishment at Lido didn't signal to other architects and developers that undesirable sites can become good sites for a golf course with the infusion of money.

Logically, an undesirable site should have lower acquisition costs, leaving more funds available for remediation and/or construction.

Was CBM's Lido the bellwhether for high cost, high reclamation design ?

Thomas Brown,

Why do you say that ?

Set aside 1.5 million for an irrigation system, why do you feel that it will cost 8.5 to build the golf course on that piece of property ?

« **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2004, 12:33:11 PM »

Many good questions. Unfortunately I dont have many good answers.
I am not suggesting an absolute rule or a specific formula for considering cost. Rather, I am suggesting that perhaps cost should be one of the many factors considered. It just doesnt make sense to me to exclude it outright.

. . . I was not including land aquisition, but I suppose that one could include aquisition and remediation costs, depending on the circumstances.

Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on September 29, 2004, 06:48:01 PM

I don't get what cost has to do with it....does cost of dirt moved or dirt in its natural state make your ball bounce any different.

The cost of dirt moved well may make your ball bounce differently. In my limited experience, I've come to believe that a world class sight is an absolute prerequisite for a world class course. The more one must hammer land into shape, the less chance the finished product has of attaining brilliance.

Quote from: ed_getka on September 29, 2004, 07:04:18 PM

David,
I haven't noticed this subject being taboo around here. Could you give an example? The only cost I consider is the green fee I have to pay, and whether I felt the round was worth the cost.

Ed, I am not sure that everyone would agree that one should even consider the green fee. As I recall, I got in more than a little bit of hot water around here by suggesting that those on the green fee gravy train might change their views if they were treated as paying customers.

Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on September 29, 2004, 07:07:29 PM

And David, while you are at it...would you have enjoyed TPCV more if it cost 2 million to build or less if it had cost 20 million to build..

First I should emphasize that I really have know idea how much the Valencia project cost, or what the figure included. So it could have cost two million or twenty. I would dislike the course at any price, but my level of annoyance and frustration would increase as the price increased.
Expensive and wasteful courses on bad land are bad for golf. They should be discouraged rather than encouraged.

Quote from: Thomas_Brown on September 30, 2004, 01:25:14 AM

Personally, I think cost is irrelevant towards evaluating design.
If Shackelford could have skipped the cart path construction at RC, would it really matter to how the course plays and feels?

I sometimes wonder if you and I play the same Rustic Canyon . . . .

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 30, 2004, 10:42:43 AM

I wonder if CBM's accomplishment at Lido didn't signal to other architects and developers that undesirable sites can become good sites for a golf course with the infusion of money. . . .
Was CBM's Lido the bellwhether for high cost, high reclamation design ?

Hmmmm . . . this would make the Lido more similar to many modern designs as compared to classic designs. What a novel idea . . . .

« **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2004, 07:10:24 PM »

Dave Moriarty,

Are not Yale and Lido precursors to Shadow Creek ?

News:

DMoriarty

Mike Benham

DMoriarty

JakaB

Michael Dugger

DMoriarty

ed_getka

JakaB

Mike_Sweeney

Mike_Sweeney

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Nuzzo

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Nuzzo

moth

Patrick_Mucci

Tom_Doak

Mike Nuzzo

Thomas_Brown

Mike_Young

jim_lewis

Patrick_Mucci

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci