The Next Big Thing

[Jeff_Brauer]

If we conveniently divide architectural history into decades, shameless moving some key events from one decade to another for convenienc, tidiness, and simplicity, we find that most decades have been dominated by a handful of architects and a major theme. My basic postulate is:

20's - Golden Age
30 -40's - No Course Age (for unrelated reasons)
50's - Lengthen and Enlarge Age of RTJ
60's - Design for Maintenance Age
70's - Neo Scottish Age of Pete Dye
80's - Neo Funky Age of Rees Jones/Nicklaus and just about everyone else
90's - Neo Traditional Age of Tom Fazio, where no expense is spared to provide a modern version of a traditional look.
00's - Neo Golden Age - well, probably too early to tell, but a crowd pleaser here, to be sure!

So, looking forward a decade, and seeing that many decades really look back to look forward, what is the next big trend?

Wishful thinking - continue the Neo Golden?

Neo 30'-40's - Few courses being  built due to oversupply, environmentalism or the economy?

Neo 50's - A surge in length and difficulty to counteract technology?

Neo 60's - a cyclical return to the very practical to (finally?) control costs of golf?

Neo 70's - More Scottish, or is it too soon?

I will skip the 80' and 90's, since no one seems to be nostalgic for those eras just yet!

Any thoughts on the next trend - or individual design feature - that will take the world of golf by storm?

jeff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh yeah, another option - too diverse an industry, so there are no damn trends at all!

Jeff

[ForkaB]

Jeff

This thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful reply, even if it is mostly my hoping and guessing rather than prognostication.  So, here it goes:

1.  Destination resorts in places nobody ever would have gone to before, except for the golf.  The "Bandon"izing of the great plains and other underpolulated places in the world.  Clusters of 3-5 great courses in places like Mullen, North Dakota, Norway, etc.

2.  Nae trees.

3.  Small is beautiful, particularly in urban areas.  Someone will have the balls to build a 12-hole course in LA or New Jersey, and the masses will follow.

4.  LOTS of dot-com-finance-inspired courses going belly up and being available for resurrection.

5.  Many more privately financed courses, with creative approaches to "membership."

6.  Simpler, subtler, flatter greens

7.  Fewer, deeper, bunkers

8.  Fewer tee boxes

9.  Simpler clubhouses

10. Architects taking equity rather than fees.

11. Etc.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

Would you not think it fair to say that from the late 80's thru the 90's the majority of our courses were built not necessarily for golf but for the enhancement of land to be developed for housing.  And with lot quantity not golf being of major importance.  And to go further this enhanced the "signature" more than anything when appraisers were promoting how much more value a developer got for his buck when using a signature designer.  It made the lot more valuable and the developer did not care if he could get a better course by a lesser known architect for a better price. A million extra bucks is nothing in a major housing development.
And then we have had the CCFAD courses where many were built for too much, "managed" by companies that were interested in the "flip more than the daily play and it is now being realized.  I don't think we have had a time in history before where the above happened.  Land had always been enhanced by lakes, ocean or mountains.  Golf came after.

With the above said,
1.I think the future will see more golf with housing but it will be the so-called "core golf" that we had years ago when members of a club would build a house around the perimeter of a club after the course was built.  You are starting to see more of this now.  And it is more condusive to walking.
2.  Golf will become more "mom and pop" such as a local bar where there are personalities instead of the management company "pants with no front pockets" youngsters that change every few months.  And in becoming more "mom and pop" more will start to operate at a profit which will lead to less landscaping ,less rock walls but good playing surfaces.  And the golfer will acept this because it is a marketable product.
3.  Clubhouses will become more like ticket booths
And more people will therefore "golf" where now so many have just gotten into the club and thought it was the thing to do in order to keep up with the Jones.

The CCFADs are starting to see that people will not pay $100 green fees several times a month unless they are on expense account.  And therefore they are being forced to answer or be sold.  And when they are sold this time they will have to be fixed in many cases so that they can be maintained in a manner that is economical and efficient.

And all of this will give us the walkable, economically efficient,just golf, golf product of the 00's.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I certainly hope you're right, Mike.

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Mike,  Can I be on your team?  I've pondered this question for weeks. . . perhaps it is the Next Small Thing that we really wish for.

 Jeff, Great question but my answer would ebb and flow like the specific gravity of my brother's home brews.  I'll do my best to bring golf architecture out of its (American) adolescence into maturity but, like Mike says, it comes down to "forward looking statements" ---aka 'money speculation'.

 The architect is in a constant battle with balancing his/her artistic vision with the demands of the owner(s).  

 Looking at Renaissance art of the 15th and 16th century, there was only the Church and a few wealthy families that commissioned art, with limited (in fact repetitious) subject matter. The paintings are beautiful and undeniably priceless but there was only subtle variations in style. Changes came slowly, through restless generations tired of standard fare but still dependant upon the wishes and control of the powers that be.  
 Michaelangelo placed subliminal messages into his sculptures as a way of freeing himself from this control.  500 years later he is still revered, not only for his masterful expertise but also because he broke rank.  

 

[RJ_Daley]

Ditto to all of the above.  Rich, Mike, Scott, and Slag; are you guys collaborating on your posts?  I sense a strong clear channel or frequency that you guy's are sharing. Thoughts like those expressed here are really making me think about taking a BIG risk.

Jeff, do you think these gentlemen are on to something based on your widespread experience with diverse clients?  I would like to hear all of our architect/designer contributors comment on the ideas found herein.  Afterall, it is about your futures as much as anything  

[aclayman]

Dick- It is a no brainer. You simply must not consider it a risk, you will however tear your own heart out with regret everyday you don't. NIKE dude!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Perhaps the responses suggest "no damn trend at all", which is about what I suspect. After all, who ten years ago could envision even a handful of courses that are walking only, with caddies no less. The caddy was declared "dead".

Mike,

I agree with most of your points - especially the ticket booth concept.  I love the old clubs, like Palmetto in Aiken, with very modest clubhouses, just golf.  On the public side, and even modern clubs, the 40,000 sf clubhouses are a real drain. But, even experienced golf operators who know this, build clubhouse monuments to themselves when building "their course".

I also think the "mom and Pop" era will come back around.  In fact, I have always likened golf to 7-11 - the corner store was originally owned by local concerns, and corporate america found a way to take them over. The only problem is that if you are playing a course owned by a big management company, about 20-30% of your greens fee is going to the corporate headquarters in Dallas, Santa Monica or somewhere.  These companies sell off the "Marginal performers -i.e. those that can't generate the additional 20% revenue for the home office" on a regular basis, opening up the door for a mom/pop, happpy to take the $125,000 profit a course might generate to buy themselves a nice job.  I'm not sure that the major suppliers discount their prices to the national companies enough to offset the overhead, but I could be wrong.

Mike, sounds like you are thinking affordable, affordable, affordable - taking golf back to its Scottish roots.  However, I don't always agree that its a problem building $10 million courses, when $5M would do.

In my experience, most courses in a given market (I'm thinking of Dallas now) "fall back to the middle", regardless of initial construction cost or signature.  if they flounder, they get sold at 50% value, and the greens fees come down under new ownership. The golfer doesn't always pay. Most times, its the foolish developer or banker who made the loan.  Seems like they would learn though.

Slag,

Too deep for me, buddy, but I am now thinking about subliminal messages in my designs.  Any thoughts on that trend? (i.e., what should I subliminally suggest?)

Rich,

I think the remote courses is a counter trend, probably more in tune with a great economy, not an average one.  I once saw a golf course that was only 12 holes. My first reaction was "you can't do that", followed by, well I guess you can.  Really, if the competition ball or other changes come about, why not 12 holes if they fit.  We will go away from standarization.

Jeff

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Very intereting post.

I'm curious if you wanted to share any of your thoughts about "creative" approaches to memberships??

[ForkaB]

Tim

Some thoughts off the top of my head, none of which are completely new, and each of which will vary in terms of specific efficacy in terms of things like course location, course quality, developer aspirations and expectations, etc.

1.  Time Sharing--selling off the right to tee times for a fixed week or two a year for some discrete period of time (10-20 years).

2.  Finacing capital improvements through major gift programs (e.g. the "Tim Weiman Raynor Restoration Project," the "Rich Goodale Malt Whisky Tasting Room", etc.

3.  Multiple membership categories with varying usage and voting rights.

4. Subscription programs which allow younger members to build up their equity over time and older members to draw down on that equity in their later years (in exchange for restricted playing tme).

5.  Limited corporate memberships, including "memberships" for municipalities, foundations, etc. to provide for public access and junior golf programs.

6.  Annual auctioning of blocks of available tee times to tour operators.

All these would have to be balanced against the rights and needs of the "core" membership, of course.  A fair amount of number crunching would need to be done to establish the right mix of options, but that's what developers get the big bucks for, anyway, isn't it!

Hope this is useful.

Rich

[Slag_Bandoon]

  I'm not sure who said it several months ago, (Tom Huckableach, me thinks) but there was a mention that a recession in America would help bring courses into a more minimalistic direction. It's a case of 'careful what you wish for' but I think/hope the excesses of course design may have reached its zenith. (God, please don't make me eat my words.)

This just in...Doh!!...Rocky Crest Golf Club, north of Toronto, brought in 26,000 truckloads of soil. 26,000 Truckloads! Mind boggling.
"My word's but a whisper, my deafness a shout." IA
 
 Jeff, I'm not trying to be a smartypants, just making an end-around point that it will take visionary owners (like Keiser) as well as visionary course artists (like you?) to give us epochal touchstones.  

 Pulling up another old post, this one, I'm sure, by the venerable Dan King...(paraphrased) "Once a style becomes popular it loses it's character and uniqueness; the two traits that take a course from good to great."   This goes for music, literature, architecture, skateboarding tricks, mountain climbing routes, fine food, fashion, etc.

"The Right becomes wrong, and the Left become the Right."   Mark Knopfler (Political statement of the natural path of historical power shifts.)

[ForkaB]

Jeff

In terms of "remoteness" I am thinking more about quality than quantity, i.e. where are the really good and interesting courses going to be built? My belief here is based on two primary factors, namely:

1.  That's where the land is.  Lot's easier to find the land to build a really majestic course (or set of courses) in the middle of Nebraska than in the middle of Santa Monica.
2.  That's where the good golfing land is likely to be.  As the French say about wine, "the poorer the soil, the better the wine."  Same thing is true with golf courses, in a very general sense, I think.

Finally, I do think, in these days, that if you build it they will come--if it is truly something special, and the experiences re multiple--Bandon seems to be proving that.

[ForkaB]

Slag

Your post inspired me to pull out my old Jethro Tull CD, and I'm sitting here listening to it and wondering what difference there is, if any, between a reverence for 'golden age" golf course architecture and "living in the past?" or even "sitting on a park bench, eying little land forms with bad intent...."

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Rich, you state "...pull out my old JT CD".  Sadly, this implies that you have only one of their CDs.  And it sounds like a "Best of" collection as well.  That's like learning the bible by reading tabloid articles on Jimmy Swaggert.  Enlightenment is still being recorded and performed by the auld Scot and troop. Update, my good man!  

And, for your soul's sake, I hope that's not the Morrisett Bench @ Royal Dornoch.

 "I am convinced that God punishes me for being an athiest."  NP

[ForkaB]

Slag

I bought my 1st JT 8-track in 1972 when you were probably still being "rocked" to sleep by Little Miss Muffet.  But, I'm still not too proud to buy the odd Greatest Hits CD from time to time.....

......and, just a dislexic agnostic who really isn't sure whether or not he belives in Dog......

Rich

[Stephen Reid]

Forget about the "Trends". Be a leader not a follower.

Get the ole shagbag out. The lead architect and all the associates should go out to the site, if not completely tree'd, and start pounding balls. Most likely everyone in the office is not going to be the same type of ball striker, especially if you have a red raider and aggie in your office. From there create the program and the initial routing, then tweek it later. You may end up with a gem of a course. Or just lety an aggie design 17 or 19 holes.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I believe you will seee a surge in activity to rework 70's and 80's courses which badly need to be upgraded from a real estate drivin purpose to one which allows the mature property to prosper with a better designed course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Thanks.

By the way, do you have any thoughts about "national memberships" for private clubs, i.e., an arrangement where the initiation fee and dues are at a significant discount to local membership?

What would influence you to buy in to such an arrangement?  The quality of the course?  A location where you did business?  The nature of the membership?

[ForkaB]

Tim

If NGLA, Pine Valley, Sand Hills, etc. were to offer me some sort of "national" membership for a fiver, I'd probably bite--but then I'm from Yankee stock and spent a lot of my life in Scotland.

More seriously, I'd add a club to my cv only if I were able to and planned to play it regularly.  However, I know there are a lot of people out there (not here) who would and do collect such memberships as trophies, and they are a good source of finance for any golf course venture, as long as you carefully manage their participation in the club's affairs.  Peter de Savary (Carnegie Club) is a master of this strategy.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I understand your point with a $10 million product eventually being sold off for $5 million.  And yes the golfer will benefit but the industry may stagger.  I do not think the free enterprise system will accept much more of it.  Most courses that I have built have been in the $2.8 -$3.5million construction cost range before grow-in or clubhouse etc.  If you take the clubhouse and grow-in into consideration we get into the $4 million range and that works using the $10 of green fee for every million spent rule.($40 green fee)  But I have been unfortunate enough to build some that were much more.  I built one in Atlanta that was over 12.5 million in construction and I hated doing it. It may be my worst. I don't know how to spend that much on a good piece of land.  But while it was hailing itself and spending money out the wazoo; the little mom and pops were making a profit and will continue.
My only dilemma!!! And I am guilty of designing some.  Is how do we allow the mom and pop to compete with the muni when he can subsidize.  This may be another post topic because I think it will be a major problem in the coming years.
Mike

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Mike Y, interesting post.  Would you please elaborate or start a new post on your last thought?  I didn't quite gather the full meaning of subsidizing and a major problem in the coming years.

[Jeff_McDowell]

I read an interesting quote from an old college professor that made me think of this post. I'm paraphrasing, but she said, "Knowing and understanding traditions allows you to take risks".

With the new found interest in golden age architecture, this bodes well for the type of architecture that is enjoyed on this site.

[Mike_Young]

Slag,
Sorry for the confusion.  I was trying to say that many munis do not have to worry about repaying the construction cost as a private mom and pop would.  And yet the private mom and pop is paying taxes from their revenues to help support the muni.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Mike,

The advantage munis have over privately owned courses goes much deeper, in my opinion.  

For example, I know of a municipal course whose cart paths that were showing wear on the edges.  They wanted curbs to keep people on the paths, so they brought out the city's curbing crew to curb all the cart paths. There was no charge to the golf course. The same course had a muskrat stuck in their irrigation intake.  A City crew came out with an auger and took care of the problem.  Again no charge to the course.

I could come up with a lot more examples of costs for goods or services that don't get charged to publicly owned courses.

I"m not sure this unlevel field is "bad" for golf.  

Some areas with small populations need the government to participate to make a project feasible.

It does have to be frustrating to private course owners.