Will capitalism allow great architecture to remain cheap?

[Tim Pitner]

John,

I'm not playing BN or SH.  This is a unique situation--I'm driving from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Denver, sans family, so I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse en route.  

You seem to be making a larger point on this thread, but I'm really not sure what it is.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I think even Mike Keiser wanted the architects he hired to build courses that people want to play.  I will grant you that the study of why people want to play those courses is a worthy hobby.  I think you taught me something today if that is any consolation.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I'm not playing BN or SH.  This is a unique situation--I'm driving from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Denver, sans family, so I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse en route.  

You seem to be making a larger point on this thread, but I'm really not sure what it is.  

Thank you...So it is similar to pulling into a fast food joint on a road trip that you would be making anyway.  That is what I was wondering.  

[Brad Swanson]

John,

I'm not playing BN or SH.  This is a unique situation--I'm driving from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Denver, sans family, so I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse en route.  

You seem to be making a larger point on this thread, but I'm really not sure what it is.  

Oooohhh, Tim, the prestigous Cedar Rapids to Denver "travel package"  .  Did you spring for the 1,000,000,000,000 smashed bugs on the front of your car package upgrade?  Last week on our Madison to Denver "travel package" trip it was unfortunately included at no charge.  Much to my shagrin my travels didn't allow for any golf on the trip.  Glancing toward the course from I-80 I did notice that more houses have popped up around Wild Horse than my last round there about 3 years ago.  The closest I got to Ballyneal was to take the Holyoke exit off of I-76 to refuel and change my son's diaper/decontaminate his car seat .  Enjoy Wild Horse, I hope it is as fast/firm/windy as I remember it.  I've heard the maintenance meld has been softened up a bit over the last few years.

Cheers,
Brad  

[Tim Pitner]

John,

I'm not playing BN or SH.  This is a unique situation--I'm driving from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Denver, sans family, so I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse en route.  

You seem to be making a larger point on this thread, but I'm really not sure what it is.  

Thank you...So it is similar to pulling into a fast food joint on a road trip that you would be making anyway.  That is what I was wondering.  

Yes and no.  It's true that I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse because they're on the way (more or less), but I've specifically coordinated my travel around playing them, so it's different than stopping at a fast food joint.  Since we had a new addition last August, this is pretty much my golf trip for the year.  I still don't see where you're going with this.  

[Tim Pitner]

John,

I'm not playing BN or SH.  This is a unique situation--I'm driving from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Denver, sans family, so I'm playing Harvester and Wild Horse en route.  

You seem to be making a larger point on this thread, but I'm really not sure what it is.  

Oooohhh, Tim, the prestigous Cedar Rapids to Denver "travel package"  .  Did you spring for the 1,000,000,000,000 smashed bugs on the front of your car package upgrade?  Last week on our Madison to Denver "travel package" trip it was unfortunately included at no charge.  Much to my shagrin my travels didn't allow for any golf on the trip.  Glancing toward the course from I-80 I did notice that more houses have popped up around Wild Horse than my last round there about 3 years ago.  The closest I got to Ballyneal was to take the Holyoke exit off of I-76 to refuel and change my son's diaper/decontaminate his car seat .  Enjoy Wild Horse, I hope it is as fast/firm/windy as I remember it.  I've heard the maintenance meld has been softened up a bit over the last few years.

Brad, yes, this is part golf trip, part Grapes of Wrath trek.  The ostensible purpose for my trip is to drive a rental truck loaded with furniture back to Denver.  In reality, I'm using it as an excuse to play my college course (Finkbine), meet up with some friends at Harvester (which I've wanted to play for some time) and to see if Wild Horse is all that it's cracked up to be.  Watch for the write-up in the Americana section of your National Geographic.  

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  Thanks for the kind words but I don't need any consolation.  Exchanges of this type help me focus my thinking, its just one of the reasons I participate.

As to your point about Mike Keiser, I think you have it a little bit backwards.  I agree that he is happy that the courses are very popular.  But if you have read what Mike has said in interviews or talked to him, a privilege I have had both before and after the courses were built, I think you would conclude that he set out to creat courses that satisfied his conception of greatness.  He was confident that if he achieved that objective the courses and the resort would be well received.

Very few developers set out to create "cult classics" and even fewer build private courses or works of art.  How they set out to achieve success commercially and the trade offs they are willing to make separate them.  Even those who seek to create the "best" course regardless of commercial considerations are likely to get different results depending on their artistic vision and their ability to execute.  So the fact that an owner like Mike Keiser desires commercial success is a given and does not shed any light on why and how he achieves both commercial and artistic success.  Understanding that which was important to Mike and comparing those factors to the approaches taken at other less successful projects may help us to understand why and how great golf courses are built.  Land, architects, vision, finances all are factors.

[SL_Solow]

Shivas;  I've been waiting for you.  With luck you'll outgrow Judas Priest and if Coltrane doesn't move you, you may discover Bird or Getz.  Shakespeare and Plato are not mutually exclusive, the Bard was merely illustrative.  Gone With The Wind is fine notwithstanding the embedded racism but it doesn't distract from Welle's masterpiece.  If cicadas were kosher I'd join you.  I hope to get to Gothenburg sooner rather than later.

[Peter Pallotta]

The trouble for me in contributing to this thread is that I don't believe capitalism is some inexorable force akin to gravity, characterized by unchanging laws that are independent of human agency. The choices, whims, mistakes, and intentions of golfers, developers, architects and critics obviously shape and influence, in a mind-boggling number and combinations of ways, the 'workings' of capitalism. In other words, maybe the question could just as easily be, "will the chaos theory make great architecture more accessible?", at least if you replace that one butterfly in Peru flapping its wings with Geoff Shackelford posting a post.  

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney;  Thanks for the kind words but I don't need any consolation.  Exchanges of this type help me focus my thinking, its just one of the reasons I participate.

As to your point about Mike Keiser, I think you have it a little bit backwards.  I agree that he is happy that the courses are very popular.  But if you have read what Mike has said in interviews or talked to him, a privilege I have had both before and after the courses were built, I think you would conclude that he set out to creat courses that satisfied his conception of greatness.  He was confident that if he achieved that objective the courses and the resort would be well received.

Very few developers set out to create "cult classics" and even fewer build private courses or works of art.  How they set out to achieve success commercially and the trade offs they are willing to make separate them.  Even those who seek to create the "best" course regardless of commercial considerations are likely to get different results depending on their artistic vision and their ability to execute.  So the fact that an owner like Mike Keiser desires commercial success is a given and does not shed any light on why and how he achieves both commercial and artistic success.  Understanding that which was important to Mike and comparing those factors to the approaches taken at other less successful projects may help us to understand why and how great golf courses are built.  Land, architects, vision, finances all are factors.

If I had to guess I would blame the effects of capitalism for the meteoric price increases at Bandon.  I would never blame greed or critical acclaim.  You just can't keep truly great courses down.

[RJ_Daley]

The trouble for me in contributing to this thread is that I don't believe capitalism is some inexorable force akin to gravity, characterized by unchanging laws that are independent of human agency. The choices, whims, mistakes, and intentions of golfers, developers, architects and critics obviously shape and influence, in a mind-boggling number and combinations of ways, the 'workings' of capitalism. In other words, maybe the question could just as easily be, "will the chaos theory make great architecture more accessible?", at least if you replace that one butterfly in Peru flapping its wings with Geoff Shackelford posting a post.

Peter, that was brilliant!

JK, I was thinking about this similar Capitalism driving golf costs and how rounds should be priced just recently.  I thought... is it better to charge a rediculous amount of money to play a good to great course (even if the costs to build and operate it are way less than you could technically charge on shear capitalistic principles) and thereby have far fewer rounds played -which in turn causes less wear and tear on the course which in turn keeps a certain profit goal attainable.   Or, is it better to price it as close as you can to the costs to build and operate, with a reasonable profit intention, but shoot for having the most rounds possible played.  The old full tee sheet at affordable prices populist mentality, or sparse tee sheet but make a big profit- capitalist pig mentality.    I think you can realistically have this sort of pricing option only if the course is great and highly desirable to play.  Average courses won't work.

But JK, I wonder if you aren't playing the provacatuer once again posing Wild Horse for your question (since you say you haven't even played it).  Do you even understand the set up there?  A highly capitalistic modelled enterprise owned and developed by an individual like Keiser at Bandon Resorts is way different than a community owned recreational venue (Wild Horse was a tiny intra-state share offer with modest homesite component)  Wild Horse cost about 1.6mil for the whole thing!  They built it for the community - primarily.  They wound up with a lightening strike of a one in a million cheaply made course of great quality, that flew in the face of all the modern big capitalistic enterprise developments with >$150 green fee projections.  They projected a modest green fee right in their prospectus at WH.  They knew that the local golf market was not going to pay more than $25-35 for their golf, and they had no idea that so many cult type golfers were going to find them.  I'd like to think I was one of the first and started raving about it on GCA and the other discussion group we had back then.  The folks that found their way to Sand Hills started to make that extra day plan to stop into the little burg town to see what the hub bub was all about.  

So NO, they shouldn't charge all they can get for rounds at Wild Horse from the out of town well healed Sand Hill/ BallyNeal destined players who can obviously afford more.  It wasn't what they were about in the begining, and shouldn't be what they would become due to the windfall of cult like status.  

And, they could screw up out there, let the course evolve into less than what most well schooled GCA afficianados know is the highest best maintenance meld that makes the course so great.  They could yield to some locals out there who think that when it is F&F, it is too difficult.  Then the question would become, is $40 too much of a capitalistic rip-off.

[Jim Nugent]

If I had to guess I would blame the effects of capitalism for the meteoric price increases at Bandon.  

I agree, supply and demand.  Which is one point where I disagree with Peter.  The capitalistic force of supply and demand IS inexorable, if the free market is allowed to operate.  A huge "IF", though.  There are virtually no free markets in the world.  Still, the closer we get to them, the better IMO.    

Wild Horse, e.g., is a muni, isn't it?  That alone makes it hard to talk in the same breath with "capitalism", and skews any price comparisons with privately-owned courses like Ballyneal and Sand Hills.  Even skipping over that, I always see Ballyneal and Sand Hills rated higher than Wild Horse, architecturally speaking.  So if architecture was the only thing that determines price (it isn't), and WH was not publicly owned, it would still make sense that BN and SH would cost more.  

We could level the playing field a bit, if Wild Horse got sold, and became a private club, similar to SH and Ballyneal.  What would WH charge?  Problem is, there are many other variables besides architecture that affect price.  

I believe that great architecture is that which appeals to the greatest audience.

 Does McDonald's make a great hamburger, then?  

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, there are very many people that have heart conditions that require medicines.  Wouldn't you agreee that under raw capitalism, they could charge even higher amounts for the medicine, and yet they could possibly still get the same profits that they received from fewer people that could afford even higher prices; while cutting others out by virtue of being unable to afford them.  Then what?  At what point does this raw capitalism lead to revolution by people cut out of the necessities?  I guess I wouldn't stand on the barricades for golf, but I would for medicine or food.  What is the good of capitalism if played out to the extremes?  

I think good architecture can exist without raw capitalism.  It depends like Peter suggests on the motivations and goals of a wide variety of people, who are in the game for vastly different reasons.  In fact, I think great architecture can exist inspite of raw capitalism.  I think a great architect can under the right conditions design a great course for minimal cost to build and operate, and pass the savings on to the people, and that is one reason the architect is great.  To do more with less is also an art form, IMO.  

[Jim Nugent]

RJ, the health industry is so far removed from free markets, it is sick and pathetic.  This is a big topic, that may not be appropriate for this forum.  To sum up in two lines, I personally believe that if free markets were permitted in health care, 1) overall costs would plummet, 2) options in drugs and care would soar, 3) overall health would improve.  The exact opposite of what you said about people being cut out would take place, IMO.  

Back on topic, my main points to John are that "raw capitalism" doesn't apply well to WH, since the government owns it; prices to play golf courses depend on more than just architecture; and even if both the points I just made were not true, Sand Hills and Ballyneal might cost more anyway because they are universally considered better courses.  i.e. I don't see that Wild Horse presents any big contradictions to capitalism.  

[Tom_Doak]

"I think a great architect can under the right conditions design a great course for minimal cost to build and operate, and pass the savings on to the people, and that is one reason the architect is great."

RJ:  This is where we part company.  While I agree with your premise that great architecture does not HAVE TO yield to the laws of supply and demand in terms of pricing, that decision is made by the owner, not the architect.  We can do everything you say and on opening day they can decide to charge $100 instead of $50, and there's nothing we can say or do about it.  That's one reason great architects tend to charge more for their services ... because they know the client can get it back, with interest.

[Jason Hines]

Just for clarity to the discussion, is WH a muni?  When I inquired on membership a few years ago, it was owned and built by the members which allows out of county resident play.  In western Nebraska, this sand hills type model could be copied easily in Sidney, Alliance, VALENTINE etc.  The supply side is out there, the big question as usual is the demand out there to pay for and close the capitalism loop.

[SB]

Golf courses in the middle of nowhere will never be a good economic model, period.  Allow me to redirect the discussion and propose that a better example would be Rustic Canyon, with good architecture and low costs.  This should be a good model of how to do it correctly, with low prices and high volume, and I believe it could be successfully duplicated in other places.

The problem with applying market analogies to golf is the high barriers to entry.  Land is expensive and often not available.  Most markets do not have excess demand so you will, for the most part,  be dividing an existing pie.   That said, I think Rustic Canyon has a lot that can be learned from.

[Jason Hines]

SBusch, great example in Rustic Canyon, but not the only one.

Don't forget the WH model includes the local membership that closed their old nine hole layout and built the new course themselves.  That is literally built, used their own equipment on the fairways and built the clubhouse with their hands. And pasture land is very, very cheap.  

It will however be interesting to see the future of the Prairie Club in Valentine.  This is purely a guess on my part, but I would imagine a lot more $ is going into the design of the Prairie Club than went into WH.

Do we really want a pure capitalistic golf course?  Isn't that the scourge of most on this board?  Cart revenue, 5 hour rounds because of high volume, etc.

Jason

[Kalen Braley]

Golf courses in the middle of nowhere will never be a good economic model, period.  

I think the experiment known as Bandon Resort would suggest otherwise.  And if you don't think its remote, just take a trip out there.

Tough yes, but never say never...

[Jim Nugent]

Just for clarity to the discussion, is WH a muni?

Can anyone confirm?  

Do we really want a pure capitalistic golf course?  

I think I do.  What is your alternative?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Nugent,
Here is an interview w/Dave Axland that explains the set-up at WH. Sounds like a for-some-profit venture grounded by community betterment, not much different than what a municipality tries to provide in areas where land prices/availability aren't as favorable as they are in Gothenburg.  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewaxland.html

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, as I and Jason have said above, Wild Horse is not a muni.  It is the result of an "intra-state" share offering.  And, while that share offering model is the epitome of a capitalist venture, it took on a community effort, quasi municipal (in spirit) flavor as Jason eludes to in community citizen volunteers to do various jobs during the construction.  Then, to pay for the land and as a recovery and return to the citizens that bought the intra state shares (I think they were something like $500 a share) they also platted out 39 homesites on the periphery of the course.  I bought the last one of them on the spot upon driving into the place to see what they had done there - it was my ideal vision of everything a golf project should be.  

In fact, in '92-93 I actually organized a golf course development corporation with home site component and wrote a prospectus for an intra-state share offering that was nearly identical to Wild Horses.  Ours didn't sell the prerequisite minimum # of shares to have the subscription funds released from the trust-escrow account to the corporation to go forward with the golf course construction.  So we folded our corp and returned the subscriptions to those that ponied up for shares.  Something ventured, nothing gained...  

Now, that is capitalism, as I understand it -winners and losers.  It is just that the ultimate maximum profit motive was not the driving force for the share offering effort at WH.  It was capitalism fund raising with a community recreational facility goal.  Anyone can now buy a yearly pass (memebership) fee at WH.  You don't need to be a share holder or property owner.  I hope the board at WH don't get greedy and charge outrageous fees for outside play.  I will be willing to bet that such a move would "kill the course" reputationally, and bring dissention and devisiveness to their board based on internal power-play operational planning because greed always does ultivmately destroy good things in the end (form my humble perspective).

Tom Doak, thanks for parting company.  Now folks will realize I am not your suck-up psychophant (spelling pun intended).     But, let's just explore your thoughts a little more.   I completely understand the inevitable capitalistic motive that any developer/owner will follow who upon having an archie create a special great design would charge whatever the market will bare, even if it is way higher of a green fee than was conceived in the original business plan projections.  That is a windfall of great architecture, I think.  If people love it and are willing to pay, and the owner wants to make $$$, it is obviously natural to jack it to whatever level possible.  If the archie knows that will probably happen because they are supremely confident that the design will indeed generate that much hype and buzz, why wouldn't the archie charge what they know it is worth?  

But, look at capitalism slightly different on the Wild Horse model.  The tread is called, "will capitalism allow great architecture to remain cheap". I bet that for Dan and Dave, capitalism was all about survival in those days - working at the lowest wages tolerable to "get the work" and subsequently the windfall of them just hitting the design home run at WH.  It is capitalism 'all on the come' to build the reputation for future projects where they could charge more.  As capitalists, didn't you and all our fav archies do just that?  Isn't capitalism a function with many facets and diverse motives, sometimes all in the same project?  The owner has the greatest profit motive.  But, the archie has a sliding scale of profit motive relative to their reputation and what they can charge at a given point in their career.  

I personally wonder if Dan and Dave in their own enterprise apart from their associated work with you big name archies, don't charge enough relative to the outstanding work they have already done.  I hope they get to cut a fat hog in the ass on a bigtime high profile project some day.  I hope they can show a minimalist golf designer talent to bring in the lowest cost construction of a big project - yet with sound design principles, and allow that owner to pass the savings on to the customer.  In that regard, I hope capitalism is true to that model.  But, I hope it is with an owner entity that can factor in the low construction cost with the higher design fees and pass it along to we the golf consumers, benevolent capitalist style.  

Can you be a benevolent capitalist and be successful?

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, I actually forgot about Axeland's comments in his interview, but I think he pretty much explains what I'm trying to say... "Or was it as attributed to Josh, "get a good site - work cheap" capitalism?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

RJ,
You asked:

Can you be a benevolent capitalist and be successful?

Yes, if you're a share holder, not just a shareholder.

[Adam Clayman]

Will capitalism allow great architecture to remain cheap?

....

And, .... Mediocre architecture to be expensive?

 Yes on both counts

Funny, even the term capitalism has a different connotation to different people. Just like minimalism!