New Jersey National is the worst in the east.  I am embarrased to even claim to be a native of the Garden State after shelling out my $50 (reduced fee because of bad conditioning).  How can the USGA even have their hq nearby?  The place is not even worthy of being a goat ranch.  The staff was lazy and rude.

John V. brings up the point that we certainly need them and therefore is there a rewal niche for an architect to try to occupy?Who is the architect that is the "best" at building such courses? I understand there are plenty who make a great living charging 100K per course and just keep moving. But who has the knack of quickly (but with some meat to it) building these courses?As for Gary's question, I am of no help down here in Australia - I am out of the loop with such US courses.

Tom you bring up a good point.  When the OGA opened their course, they were critisized by a number of other owners for not charging enough and under-cutting their business.  The guy who runs the place keeps wanting to raise the rates because the place is full.  Others on the board keep trying to keep the price down to keep it affordable.  If it was privately owned, it would probably be $50 or $60.

Recently, Brian Curley and Lee Schmidt opened a golf course here in the Southern California area called Goose Creek which I have sung the praises about at the other website.With green fees set at $57.00 on weekends, $47.00 without a cart and weekday rates of $35.00/$25.00 it can't get much better then that.  All of this on a par 70 layout that is what I would call strategic design for the public masses.  I have finally found golfing heaven in the land of mediocrity.But......... It only takes the strategic minds of a few assistant pros to destroy all of this.  They have been getting on the case of the owners and the director of golf to raise rates because most think that the course can handle $75.00 green fees with no problem. The course has been such a success that they are currently in discussion to add another 18 holes on land that is perfect for golf right along the Santa Ana riverbed.  Sadly, they are getting to the owners as now they forbid walking till after 11:30 on weekends on a course that is such a breath of fresh air with green to tee walks of less then twenty yards on every hole.When someone finally got it done right, it only takes a few of the PGA's finest to want to ruin it all.

Tom,It seems to me that there is an opportunity to introduce or re-introduce affordable golf to the inner cities of America.With Tiger Wood's great success has come an  increased emphasis on introducing the game to the under privileged of our cities. The USGA and other organizations and foundations have started programs for that expressed purpose. I'm not sure how successful they have been, it sometimes appears that the closest these kids get to the game is a driving range.If these groups could be brought together, Woods(hopefully IMG would not look at it as potential money maker), USGA, NGF, misc. foundations and Corporate funding, I believe a 'chain' of affordable inner city golf courses could be built.No doubt it would be a challenge to find sights; city dumps, abandoned industrial areas, burned out neighborhoods, flood planes, etc. would be far from ideal but with your creativity and a reasonable budget, you would be up to the challenge.Most projects would probably have to be 9-holers, which I think would actually be a benefit (less acreage needed, cost of maintenence and ease of businesmen playing a quick 9).I think it would be important for experienced golfers, who maybe work in the city to also play. And a caddy program would be essential to the success of the project, because caddying is still the most effective way to learn and appreciate the game. Like all caddy programs there would be a day or two of free golf and the money earned would help pay for clubs and green fees.There are probably many other obstacles that I have failed to think of, but greenbelts in our inner cities and the lessons that the game would teach, sounds very appealing to me. And maybe you could design the next Royal Worlington & Newmarket or should I say Royal Worlington & New Watts.

If the greens fee is low, then the course will (virtually need to) be packed (unless it is a Wild Horse in Nowheresville built at miniminal expense). The quality of the experience will be tempered - may be a little but may be a lot.That lost sense of exaltation when you "feel" you have a course to yourself is a feature that is rapidly being lost in all but the most remote outposts. This is a great, great shame that future generations will miss out on.Grandpa Morrissett

I have been away this week in Southern Pines (Pinehurst), NC at a meeting (tough duty!) but am glad to see this topic evolving.  Public courses built with private funds must by necessity push the daily fee to the maximum market price in order to accelerate the return on the projects investment.  With the current economic boom, real estate is extremely expensive and construction costs are high.  Unless you build a course in the the middle of nowhere (ie Crump 'n Fox in Bernardston, Mass)the numbers just don't work.  As such, developers bring in a high profile architect to build a "field of dreams" to attract the golf tourist.  The result is the $150 greens fee with a staff of fresh faced assistant pros catering to your every need.  (Doesn't that wear on you after a while.  They are so polite, I'd like to smack them sometimes!)The key, in my opinion, is to develop "investors" who are willing to build good courses at as low a cost as possible and be shown that they can get a good or better return on their investment than the expensive development model discussed above. Investors could be private developers, the PGA or towns and municipalities.  Private investors could afford to do this by working with towns and municipalities to acquire land at very attractive prices.  The town could get a piece of future profit in return.  Towns and cities own a great deal of land that is slated for development or conservation use. If there was an economic model that showed them there was a way to receive a small profit and deliver a valuable service to the community, this could ignite more affordable golf course development.  The town could help the developer keep construction costs down by offering town equipment and personnel for land clearing, stumping, some drainage work...  The developer quid pro quo is to offer low daily fees to the local community and charge more for outside guests.This has been done in some communities, but it just hasn't taken off.  I don't think there is a model of how to do this.The USGA and PGA could also play a roll here in offering assistance for development (publications, free consulting...).  These organizations could also offer economic assistance (loans?) or grants to qualified community/developer applicants.  It makes me sick to see the money that The Country Club made on the Rider Cup - like they need it!  Some of this windfall could be made available to support these types of programs.  The PGA could even be the developing and managing agent in working with towns.  I think we have enough private TPC courses, how about some CPC (Community Players Clubs).As a by product, this could be a great program for young aspiring architects to showcase their talents and launch a career.  The PGA could subsidize some of the architect fees.  (Wait a minute, I'm starting to lose my mind here, this is the PGA I'm talking about!)Does anyone know of programs like these? Comments.

Best new public course course:

Lakota Canyon: absolutely terrific

Tom Dunne;

Is that the new course by Rick Jacobson?  Or is that something else?  I seem to recall the word Patriot in the name.

Who designed this one?

Jay Cox,

That's a low bar to hurdle, but I admit it's better than say, Maple Moor. If I'm not mistaken, the Hudson Hills site has been host to a number of ill fated courses for more than half a century...it's kinda like the Pizza Hut that becomes a bank, then a church, then a bail bondsman's, etc. I certainly wouldn't blame Mungeam for what happened there, I just think the land is ill-suited for golf.

PS: HH is twice as much as any other course in the county system....

Tom Dunne:

Good call on Hudson Hills. The site is poorly conceived as a golf course. I mean how many silly forced lay-up par-5's must one play during the round. I mean all four feature the same pattern -- the worst culprit -- easily the inane 15th hole!

Mark Mungeam usually has a creative eye for publicly owned facilities -- see Charleston Springs in Monmouth County (NJ) as an example -- ditto his work at High Bridge Hills also in the Garden State.

Hudson Hills has AT BEST a few holes of note -- the long par-4's at the 4th and 12th are solid holes -- especially the approach shot to the 12th. Overall -- the site simply tied the hands of Mungeam and the result is mixed bag of sometimes good and more than like bad holes all thrown together in one package.

The sad part is that Westchester County could do so much more with the existing courses it has. Likely, I'm smoking some heavy duty weed to believe that will happen though.

On the best public course side -- I have to say that Cary's choice for Lakota Canyon Ranch in Rifle, CO by Jim Engh makes for a good choice. I'll have to give some thought to a few others that have opened within the last 12 months.

Mr. Keller:  Thanks for that suggestion.  Actually, I have put up some of my own money, by deferring my fees on a couple of jobs; now if about a hundred people here would match me dollar-for-dollar, we'd have a public-course revolution on our hands!

This thread started in 1999, and I was intrigued to read the speculations of Kye Goalby from way back then.  I guess he should get off the dozer and replace Jeanne Dixon!