"Not working out" is a bit strong.  It's inevitable when you redesign any course that some guys will say they preferred the previous version, but if there are new golfers who like it better, it's a wash.  Still, as with all renovations, you start with 18 holes and wind up with 18, and any improvement is strictly a matter of opinion -- which is why I prefer doing new courses.

I do wonder why the operating budget is $3.2 million, though.

RG:

I understand your point of view.  However, surely the town had some say in what they asked Nicklaus to build, didn't they?

And if the course was so good before then why did they change it at all?  That wasn't Nicklaus' call too, was it?

RG:

I understand your point of view.  However, surely the town had some say in what they asked Nicklaus to build, didn't they?

And if the course was so good before then why did they change it at all?  That wasn't Nicklaus' call too, was it?

The old course was flat and unchallenging to a skilled golfer. A redo was in order. But the decision to go to an architect used to building golf courses as adjuncts to expensive homes and courses targeted for private jet owners was, IMO, unwise because this muni got exactly what Nicklaus is used to designing.

>>It also sounds like a vocal minority that is complaining, and that this minority consists of a percentage of the retirees out there. The article doesn't mention whether all retirees hate it or some like it. Are there any similarities among those complaining? How do high handicappers split on the issue?<<

Well, if clearing out the retirees who used to enjoy a four hour round of golf a couple times a week was the intent, NPB and JN have succeeded. Most probably cleared out any beginners as well.

Now NPB can raise the membership fees to make up the shortfall in rounds. If they get the fees high enough, perhaps all of the "average" golfers can be fun off.

Then NPB can put in a helicopter pad for the high rollers.

I played North Palm Beach 3 times and have made a few posts, subsequently I have spoken to a couple of dozen members of my home club, Admirals Cove, and others from neighboring clubs, and I can tell you that no one likes the course.

First off, the 4 hour round turned into the 4.5 hour round is true only if you tee off early. If you tee off at 11 am, you can add 30 to 60 minutes to the 4.5 hours.

Nicklaus did a good job with the bunkering. Whoever the shaper was, he was excellent.

Nicklaus did a lousy job with the greens. I would guess that he gave his staff architect his head and he was trying to do what Coore and Crenshaw do so wel with their greens and bump them up. What came out however is way too severe to the point of sillyness.

And I'm talking about sillyness with the stimpmeter running at 8, if you would take them up to 10, you could spend another hour on the course. Many putts from inside 10 feet are just not makeable and you're trying to just 2 putt. That makes no sense.

From 30 feet, with 6 breaks, it's anyone's guessing game.

My guess is they will redo the greens and the course will become a success.

As I said before, some of the holes are real good, but some of the holes look like they ran out of budget, so in the end, alot more money is going to have to be spent to finish off this course.

Cary:

I've had two people tell me they loved the course, one of them a prominent golf writer, the other a guy who worked for Jack years ago.  I haven't seen it myself, but it is not universally disliked.

If they could really get six breaks into a thirty-foot putt, I'm jealous, but I think you are exaggerating the truth.

Craig Dolch has posted a sidebar that addresses some of what we're talking about.  It offers info on Nicklaus's remit and says the issues really are larger than the redesign.
Click here.

For example, how the course can best deal with the drought: one way is to reduce the number of rounds.

RG, yes down 20,000 rounds -- but it did 70,000 rounds before! To get four-hour rounds at that figure I would imagine demands a type of architecture wholly unlike what they have now.  Interesting greens, for example.

It makes sense that if the greens are tougher, rounds would take longer to play, even at 50,000 rounds per year.

(And how can they not make money doing even 50,000?! Sounds like they're doing the right thing in considering outside management.)

Cary, to your point: clearly there are not enough courses when one course does 70,000 rounds annually.

Will never happen, but in an ideal world they'd have a "Torrey Pines" solution, with two distinctly different 18 holers.

I liked the course, especially the greens.  This makes me definitely want to come back -- I'll shift my play over from Everglades!

Mark

Well, Dolch is now certain to continue to get his invitation to the annual Jack Nicklaus set down with the golf writers at JN's home.

Screw those muni players anyway, particularly the retirees.

"Not working out" is a bit strong.  It's inevitable when you redesign any course that some guys will say they preferred the previous version, but if there are new golfers who like it better, it's a wash.  Still, as with all renovations, you start with 18 holes and wind up with 18, and any improvement is strictly a matter of opinion -- which is why I prefer doing new courses.

I do wonder why the operating budget is $3.2 million, though.

I don't understand how they could have an operating budget of $3.2 million either.

They have a small modest pro shop but they do a big lunch business, so perhaps they are losing money on the food. Maybe they should do a land lease and let someone build a restaurant there, open to the public as well as the golfers with access on US 1, tear down the existing clubhouse and reduce their operating budget to next to nothing.

70,000 rounds seems excessive.

That's 192 golfers per day, 365 days a year.

I'd be interested to know how much of the 3.6 million in expenses for running NPBM is attributable to the green budget.

Tom Doak,

You're correct, Jack Nicklaus didn't drive up one day and state that he was redesigning the golf course.

My question is, did the municipality solicit and bid the business with various architects ?  Or, was Jack the designated architect from the get go ?

It would seem to be a matter of being careful in what you wish for.

Evidently the municipality didn't understand their market.
At 70,000 rounds per year, why change anything ?

Let me ask the following.

If they were doing 70,000 rounds per year wouldn't you say that that's a highly successful operation ?

If they had a highly successful operation, why was there a need to change it ?

If they were going to change it, wouldn't you think that they'd just fine tune it, rather than making wholesale changes ?

What were they hoping to accomplish ?
What were their goals ?
Who was the driving force behind the project at the Municipal level ?

Did they want 90,000 rounds per year ?

Or, as Bob Keller stated, did they just want to throw out the old (Ross) and hang with the new (Nicklaus)

At 70,000 rounds per year, what were they hoping to accomplish by dramatically altering the golf course ?

No way the averaged 192 golfers per day in the summer

N Palm Beach Muni was I believe a Raynor design originally.  George Bahto and Gil Hanse put in a plan to redo the course in keeping with the Raynor theme.  I saw the plans and they looked really good.

The town choose to stay with the "local architect" Jack Nicklaus which was not surprising but I imagine George was excited at the prospect of spreading the Raynor gospel to a public venue.  I doubt that the Bahto plans would have had easy bunkers and greens either so the locals might have also complained.

I know that my local town course where I had been a member for over 10 years dumbed down all the Emmet features to speed up play and allow the Seniors to get through a round without too much trouble.  Even still, when the Sr. dues for town residents went up there was always a huge turnout at the local town meetings to complain.  Poor Seniors would play 6 or 7 days a week at about $3 a round and complain.  It's universal