Of course it can -- if its owner is determined to keep it that way.

Dan, that's probably not a business-minded owner.

It is pretty easy for me - a man of no money - gripe about how those with very deep pockets should build great golf courses, maintain them well, and have low green fees.  Oh, I left out while keeping rounds under 4:20.

Hey, you and everyone else is free to be that owner.

Knock yourself out.

Tim,
   That Doak project in Denver could be a good case study for this topic.  Are the fees going to stay in line with the current fees?

Cheers,
Brad

Quote from: Dan Kelly™ on October 17, 2007, 12:28:47 PM

Of course it can -- if its owner is determined to keep it that way.

Dan, that's probably not a business-minded owner.

It is pretty easy for me - a man of no money - gripe about how those with very deep pockets should build great golf courses, maintain them well, and have low green fees.  Oh, I left out while keeping rounds under 4:20.

Hey, you and everyone else is free to be that owner.

Knock yourself out.

I understand all of that, John (and Tom D.), and am not griping! Merely answering the question that was asked.

And believe me: If I had very deep pockets, building a great golf course and keeping green fees as low as possible (so that you'd knock yourself out to get there) would be Number 1 on my list of goals.

I would not be a philanthropist about it, as apparently Mr. Rawls was down in Texas -- but I would not expect the course to make my pockets even deeper.

Dan:

Thanks for your response.  I'd do the same if I had millions in the bank.  Perhaps, someday.

However, if that is the only business model that allows somebody to build an affordable great golf course, it should not be surprising that there aren't many of them.

JC Jones:  A "Tom Doak trail" in Michigan??  Now THAT's funny.  All we'd have to do is pass another state income tax increase to pay for it!

...
Why not a Tom Doak trail in Michigan?

Speaking of, I played High Pointe 2 weeks ago for $30.  I hadnt played it in 6+ years and I was absolutely delighted the entire way around the course, at least for the first 17 holes....

Never the less, that is as good as it gets in my book.

I think you answered your own question. It is my impression from reading this site that Michigan has better golf than Iowa already. Some of it quite reasonable. Besides, TD doesn't want to pay more taxes in Michigan. Let's face it, he is no Bill Gates.  

That's why there is a separate list for "best affordable courses".  It could also be entitled "Top courses which are good, but not good enough to command top dollar".

What's the best course in the world where the highest visitor / guest fee is less than US $100?  I'll vote for Barnbougle Dunes.

So Barnbougle isn't good enough to command top dollar?

As you well know - quality of the golf course and the price it commands are often not related.

The best two courses I have played where the green fee is less than $100 are St Enodoc (£50) and Silloth (£37)

Some courses I would consider great with peak rates under $100:

Harvester, Rhodes, Ia
The Quarry - MN
Big Fish, Hayward, WI
Wild Horse - NE

Jason,

I was going to nominate my own Quarry and also the nearby Wilderness.  Quarry is rated by GD as 19th best public in the country, but is out of the top 100, so it may be a near great at a $75-89 greens fee.  Ditto the Wilderness.

I think the most likely "philanthropists" that could build a very good course and keep rates low would be Govt. agencies like the IRRB, who built GR to increase the local tax base and spur development or the Native American Casinos, who want to fill hotel rooms and can afford to write off some of the golf costs, while spending enough to create something nice.

Quote from: JC Jones on October 17, 2007, 12:45:04 PM

...
Why not a Tom Doak trail in Michigan?

Speaking of, I played High Pointe 2 weeks ago for $30.  I hadnt played it in 6+ years and I was absolutely delighted the entire way around the course, at least for the first 17 holes....

Never the less, that is as good as it gets in my book.

I think you answered your own question. It is my impression from reading this site that Michigan has better golf than Iowa already. Some of it quite reasonable. Besides, TD doesn't want to pay more taxes in Michigan. Let's face it, he is no Bill Gates.  

TD pays Michigan income taxes regardless of where he builds his courses.  Not too mention, I'm sick of seeing Hills/Nicklaus/etc. courses popping up in this state.  We should be supporting our local archies, especially if they are some of the best in the world....  (I cant wait for JK to call me a butt boy after that comment)

I played the Coore-Crenshaw "Warren Course" at Notre Dame last weekend, and hope to post some pics this week that will demonstrate it's a pretty solid entry at $49 to walk on the weekend

Do you guys seriously think that a typical blue collar person is going to pay over $40 for a round of golf (we're talking fly-over country $$s, not coastal $$s here)?  Gimme a break.

Cheers,
Brad

La Purisima Golf Club-Lompoc, CA   60 m-th, 78 f-su to walk, 18 for a cart anytime
I would put Rustic Canyon down too, along with Rancho Park in LA.
It comes down to supply and demand, unless a municipality keeps the rates down near a big city or the course is out of the way they would have to be fools to not raise rates to meet demand. Torrey Pines and Harding Park visitor rates over $100 allow them to charge locals the low rates.
I think Bandon is a new phenominon, the great course in the middle of nowhere that can charge $200+ based on publicity from golf magazines and internet exposure through top 100 lists. In today's information age, there will be less and less hidden gems that are affordable.

Wild Horse in NE
Links of ND in ND
Bully Pulpit in ND
The Quarry in MN
The Wilderness in MN
Riverdale Dunes in CO

All are public and under $100; I'm just not sure if they are in the same class as Bethpage Black and Pasatiempo