I had a discussion once where a developer told me that having an architect as a partner was absolutely the worst thing that could happen.  He was speaking of an experience with a building architect/partner who insisted on granite pavers and other niceities that did NOTHING to increase the value of the project.

Does that apply to golf course architecture?

Or - and I don't recall this topic ever broached here, but I could be wrong - would you make a good partner in a golf course development based on your architectural views?

Perhaps the question is best answered by the golf course owners and possibly superintendents that frequent this site, but based on an honest self examination, do you think your views of architecture might change if architectural decisions were made that affected money coming out of your pocket - assuming you were in a project to make a living or investment return?

More specifically, do you think you would re-think your theoretical committment to such things as:

Wild green contours?
Deep bunker grass a la Mike Young's thread?
Containments Mounding?
Random Bunkering?
Wild Grasses bordering fw or requiring a forced carrry?
Wide FW (and their maintenance costs)?

Be honest, based on your frugality or life views in other areas of life. While its easy to tell others what to do with their money and project, what would happen when your money was on the line.

Just asking, again following through on my New Years resolution to be more like Barney!

Obviously I have no experience of owning a course, and certainly none of being an entrepreneur.  However, years ago I inherited enough money (a modest sum) to consider moving house from a small semi-detached property to a small detached property, which would have followed received wisdom about moving house.  We could have borrowed more to increase our investment.  But we didn't.  We stayed put and used the inheritance to pay off the overdraft and mortgage and slightly to extend the house.  It was generally felt that we had made the wrong decision, financially.   But we had made the right decision for ourselves.  We liked where we lived, we liked our neighbours, we liked our garden.   We had to have our property revalued for insurance recently and our investment in this house had certainly not made as great an increase as it would have done had we moved and followed conventional wisdom.  

What has this got to do with GCA?  Why do you own your golf club?  If you are in it to make money you do whatever is necessary to attract members/visitors and you have to provide them with what you want.  So, if you were an architect in the UK you would be expected to provide water holes, island greens, fountains looking like jelly-fish, and, of course, USGA specification greens.  You would have to provide the clientele with a touch of Florida (or at least Portugal).  But it doesn't stop there.  You have to supply the helicopter pads, balneotherapy and beauty clinics for wife, riding school for the daughter, off-road driving for son, falconry and pheasant shooting for husband when he has tired of golf in his buggy.  Don't forget to call everything a suite, not a room - the Hogan Suite, the Player Suite and so on.  And, of course, if it has the Nicklaus name-tag you can charge whatever you like for membership or green fees.  

However, while the owner of my nearest such establishment (De Vere Hotels) is probably making a fortune out of its wealthy professional footballer members, the lavish company days and endless nail clinics and hair salons, if I were a golf course owner it would probably still be a muddy field in winter with inadequate drainage, water-logged bunkers and I'd sit in my caravan all day in the hope of just a few idiots foolish enough to pay the £8 green fee to play my nine holes with their temporary greens and rubber mats for tees.  Rather like our house and garden, except we don't charge for entry.

Mike,

Same to you.

I havent' been to Bandon.  However, like the mention of a luxury hotel, there is no question that a few high end properties in golf work well.  But do you think all properties could be developed that way?  Is your course in flat, no water view Houston being developed that way?  

I think there are more relevant examples than Bandon which is a special, special case.  

Do I think all properties could be developed that way?

Jeff,

If you mean the following aspects: very low construction costs, wild greens, deep bunkers, wide fairways.... (how I would briefly describe Bandon)

I'd say yes.  In stead of just giving a dreamers response - mine, which is an unequovical yes - I thougt of a real world example - Bandon.  

And the same is true of my project on the gulf coast, except it really isn't a fair comparrison as there won't be any need for income for a long time.

Are you sure the developer is correct in saying the granite pavers added zero value?  Some customers are very attuned to details.

To your first question:
Ken Dye was a partner at Paa-Ko.

Some owners would have to compromise - they can get their money back quicker if players can enjoy the course and still finish in 4 hours. A private course may not have the same requirements and they can go with the bells and whistles and build 36 holes to cover the players who used to play on 18 holes.
The answer is "Is there an income question?" or is it Dream Golf?    After a few years many dream courses may have to slowly become financial concerns, and review what is slowing down play or keeping the 95% of the golfers from playing their course.

I would imagine it depends largely on the chemistry between the two. If both have the same general goals and are willing to see the others point of view, then why shouldn't it work?

Jeff,

You may recall our work (with John C, primarily) some 12 years ago on the site (Tirra Verde) that I competed on with the city.  The primary objective was to provide a high quality playing experience for a premium of only $5 to $10 over the munis in the area.  An important part of the strategy was to find an affordable site in a growing area that would allow for the efficient design, construction, and maintenance of the course in an effort to be the low-cost producer in that market (and be able to withstand competitive pressures).

John's initial routing suggested that we could build such a course on the site's sandy-loam soil.  The plan did not involve all the creek crossings and expensive bridges, probably not as many bunkers initially (and perhaps not as deep or off grade as those on the course that was eventually built there), the rock work along the creeks, or the fiascos with the clubhouse.

My thinking was to go in with a solid routing using the rolling terrain, prevailing winds, and natural drainage, whille spending much of the budget on interesting green complexes, irrigation, additional drainage, and those dreaded cart paths.  Over time, more bunkers and features, perhaps a few tees could be added as cash flow allowed.  I had seen this done at Hillcrest GC in Findlay, Ohio back in the 1960-70s and the course became a huge success.   We had no illusions of ever making the "Top 100" lists; only of having a course that could hold its own in competitions and people enjoyed playing often.

It would be interesting to hear what John McDonald (Dallas National) and Kenny Bakst (Friar's Head) would have to say on this subject.  I've talked to John a few times and theirs would be a totally different take, I am sure.

The topic is right in my wheelhouse.  We look at all projects on what they will return for the equity invested and the amount of Net Operating Income (NOI) we believe it can generate.  The question, IMHO, should be divded in to two parts as the economics are different.

Public Golf (privately owned- municipal courses serve a slightly different purpose of supplying open space and recreation to the many, in addtion to trying to turn a profit)

Public golf facilities operated by private investors are run to make a return on their investors dollars...this is done by maximizing golf course revenue(greens fees, cart fees, pro shop profit - profit on food and beverage items are at best 10%)...this is achieved by moving the greatest number of players thru the course as efficiently as possible without compromising the players experience or turf conditions...here in the Northeast for a high end daily fee 31,500 rounds will be the maximum you could truly expect to push through without turf conditions beginning to deteriorate....if you are on the low end of daily fee, you max out your rounds andkeep the grass cut, your customer just wants to get out and play.  The course should be designed and set up to achieve the goal of moving players thru at the greatest speed with the best design possible to achieve this goal.....this would preclude opening with a short par 5 (back-up on the 1st tee)  a par 3 second hole (back-up), blind shots which slow play and long par 3's over water which also slow play.

Private Facilities

Here you need to have some draw to attract members (equity or non-equity) to join, pay initiation fees and annual dues to recoup your equity and construction debt to build the course and clubhouse.    The quality of the couse, turf conditions and clubhouse design are important....but one other thing plays into who joins, especially at the higher price points.....who else is a member....is the membership just a bunch of wealthy people or are the good people whom you would like to associate with?

That is just the point. While some customers are attuned to details, I bet its about 2%.  

Just exactly what kinda details are you referring to Jeff???

Jeff,
Some things just can't be counted. How do you add up the values of detail?
I've read enough of your stuff to know you take a very analytical approach. That works fine for most profit driven projects, but not for the special ones that include dreams and immeasurable risk.

Don,
As a supt I am sure you have seen some of the "dream" projects.  I know I have.  You know the kind where the owner says money is not a problem.  And it may not be but so many of those guys become tired of their "sandbox" after a few years of throwing money in it.  I know you must have heard the saying....If they tell you money is not the issue, then money is the issue......
I have seen a lot of these guys that become disenchanted with the dream quickly.......if someone is not in the $100,000,000 net worth range then they have no business building a not for profit golf project....feeding a golf project $1million or so a year takes a lot of capital and most will just sell it for the loss and let the next guy play with it....JMO
Happy New Year.
Mike

My opinion would be the same if I was the owner or architect or both. Things in 99% of cases have to be commercial and things go wrong when you steer off that commercial path, naturally you will learn as you go along and patterns will change. Bruce Katonas post was pretty on the money to me.

Jeff
I'm very practical both in my approach to construction and maintenance, I think Nuzzo would confirm this. But, I also feel that sometimes we may do something that may not be on the right side of the cost benefit equation but still adds value to the project.

I've been an owner, and a GM, and I know what it's like to try and keep the doors open in tough times. I learned you just can't be 100% driven by what your customers want in regards to your golf course. You need to be in tune with customer expectations, but you need to do what's right for your golf course whether 2% notice the details or not.  

Can you imagine what our golf courses would look like if every owner and architect took Bruce Katona’s approach to public golf? What if the best routing was a par 5 opener? Do you never, ever do that because it doesn’t fit the model? I think you need to consider all the formulas, but more then that you need to build the best golf course possible and you can count me in as one who believes this standardization approach to golf has not helped the growth of the game. Our players already have enough ideas about how golf courses are supposed to be based on what they see on TV and read in the golf rags. Golf courses are not supposed to all be alike and all these formulas about sequencing of opening holes, pinnable space, and on and on are important, but it’s the art, not the science that excite people, whether they know it or not. There are times when breaking the rules make sense.

The questionwas asked "Would Your Opinion Change as an Owner" and my views (in black and white) were posted above.  That said, here are two examples; one where the "rules are broken for the good of the layout and one where the layout and rules work together well.  

Branton Woods breaks the rules.  #1 is a fairly long par 4 where our customer is required to hit a lofted faiway metal or hybrid into the green for his/her approach.  #2 is a 3 shot par 5 with hazard stakes down the right side...These are two of the more difficult holes on the course and are holes 1 & 2. This flies against the principals of maximizing revenue opined earlier. The simple anwser would be to reverse the nine's to get customers out quicker, but the resulting #18 (current #9) is a good 9th hole (fairly short par 4), but not a great finishing hole.

Twisted Dune (which was designed by Archie Struthers) opens with a short par 4, transitions into a long par 4 and then a long par 3... there is little backup because hole #1 is a good starting hole, # 2 spaces people out as it is a true 2-21/2 shot par 4 and the par 3 is long but reachable in one shot from the daily tees.  This routing gets folks out and around and avoids any real delays in play.