Rounding out the portfolio...

[RJ_Daley]

Once very good or great architects have produced a significant body of work, is it wrong to expect that among their portfolio of designs - that they should produce some percentage of work that is designed with economy of cost and construction methods - yet offer their golf architectural gifts whereby the average Joe Duffer can afford to play and sample their work?  

How many courses have Coore and Crenshaw produced that are:

a. open to the public?
b. affordable to play?
c. exhibit their special gifts of design talent that are generally minimalist and in harmony with surrounds, yet offer outstanding golf strategy and enjoyment.  
(c., should be a hallmark of affordability by the very nature of minimalist expenses to construct)

Which modern architects and designers have produced excellent quality at both ends of the spectrums of public and private, and affordable and expensive?

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ;

To answer your first question, would Talking Stick qualify?

[RJ_Daley]

No Mike, not if I understand correct that the ticket there is $135 per round.  Although by all accounts it has the other two ingredients.

[John_Conley]

Mr. Daley:

For most of its existence, Sand Hills welcomed unaccompanied guests.  The cost was not high, but obviously you'd spend a lot more getting there.  I believe it is no longer wide-open for visitors, but a surprising number of non-members have seen it.

Cuscowilla is, I think, open to outside play.  They may have wanted a totally private club, but I don't think they have a lot of members.

Kapalua is open to the public.  A true resort course.

You'll have to help me with the definition of affordable.  For many, it means "anything I can afford".  You'd be surprised at what my neighbor was just calling "affordable" housing!  (I think the definition used by the government in Orlando is something like $125,000 and under.  These houses were 3X that!)

If I'm in Maui, 200 bucks wouldn't keep me from playing Plantation.  (I actually glommed a twilight round for about 75 when they were charging 160).  

Do they have municipal courses in my neighborhood?  No.

All of the Crenshaw & Coore courses I've seen meet the "C" criteria.

[John_Conley]

RJ:

Your last post went up while I was typing.  Never been there, but I thought $135 was below the median in Arizona for quality golf.

Do not forget these are businesses.  Perhaps I'm agreeing with what you are trying to say, but a top-flight design duo probably won't be designing a lot of $20 courses because they charge something to start.

[RJ_Daley]

John, we have been co-contributors on GCA too long to be calling eachother Mr.  

I guess I'd stick with the definition of affordable that GD uses; under $50.  OK, I'll say up to $75, cause I'm easy.

Not long ago, we had some discussion as to why many private clubs that did offer limitted outside play have now clamped down on unescorted guest policy and all that. (Tax laws!)

But, I think one has to admit that the ratio of what most of C&C courses cost to join if private, or play if resort or CCFADs, is among the highest spreads to what they generally cost to build due to their minimalist nature.  Look at the AOTD at AGC and then consider it was built out away from the higher priced land nearest the city, and the design is minimalist.  It looks like a dream to maintain also on a minimalist maintenance meld.  Yet, to join costs 6 figures!

Who is raking in all that $$$$ or atleast where is it going?

[John_Conley]

For Pete Dye, his early career can be described as "getting going" and there are some pretty cheap, low-end courses.  I played one in High Point.

For C&C, the "getting going" years were about 10 years waiting for the right job!  

In either case, once they could work on higher-profile courses they did.  A corollary to this discussion should be about the design philosophy of Joel Goldstrand.  He wanted to bring good golf to small towns throughout Minnesota and succeeded.

I reckon Bill Coore may have some of what you are looking for.

[RJ_Daley]

I think many great architects/designers by virtue of the nature of the progression of getting started and then moving up in class and clientele had early work in their career that allowed them to have affordable and open to the public courses in their portfolio of work.  Doak has a few, Strantz, Hanse, etc.  Other than Notre Dame (which I don't know the exact details of) I can't say that C&C have any in the affordable and public range.  I just think that as a body of work, a great archie should be able to point to some work that is available to everyone both as a matter of being able to share their talent, and to be a keeper of the game so to speak.

[kclarke]

A great course is always a great course, regardless of cost or who it was  built for - St Andrrews Old should answer any such artificial questions.

[Paul Richards]

RJ:

The Coore/Crenshaw course at Barton Creek is not a private course.  It is a resort course, and, thus, public.

[TEPaul]

It was my understanding when I first noticed the Easthampton course under construction (at that time I didn't know who was building it nor did I know Coore and Crenshaw then) that the course was intended for low cost public play. If that was true, clearly C&C signed on to do the project with that understanding.

Obviously, they didn't have control over what the golf course transitioned into and in that incredibly wealthy Easthampton atmosphere with not a large supply the transition was quite interesting.

I look at the outfit of Coore & Crenshaw not only as Ben and Bill anyway but the pretty darn extraordinary compliation of guys that work with them in a somewhat loose connection and have for an unusually long time and appear to be willing to continue that way. That's how I look at the company of Coore and Crenshaw--the unusual symbiosis of all of them.

There's at least one or maybe more than one of that number who appears now to be extremely interested in producing quality architecture at very affordable cost--probably hoping or expecting to cap the fee around $40.00-$50,00. If that happened they would probably all work together in somewhat the same frame-work they always have.

I really like the way that company seems to take projects for the opportunity to do architecture that really interests them artistically and that seems to be quite varied.

The only kind of project I could never see C&C getting involved in would be something like Shadow Creek, either artistically or otherwise. I think they like to do courses and architecture that's quite varied in all kinds of ways but I couldn't see them going to that extreme--but who knows, they might try anything--even dramatically the other way to very affordable golf!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Maybe I'm missing something, but do you really believe that the architect is deeply concerned about every facet of the end user ?  That they care about, and discuss and debate daily fees or membership dues with the developer ?

Or do you believe that their sole focus and mission is to put the best golf course onto the land they have inherited for the project ?

How many muni golf courses have they designed and built ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

That's a very good question! No I don't seriously believe that but I don't really know. My sense is that they do care about their clients and that they all (their clients and themselves) share a common purpose and probably vision in design, whatever that may be. I stress a common purpose in design not necessarily how the club is structured, membership, daily fee, whatever!

I see Coore and Crenshaw as designers and architects, not necessarily developers or creators of particular kinds of clubs etc whether that be private, public, high end, affordable end, etc! But then again, that may not be necessarily so with Ben Crenshaw and the Austin C.C. but I don't know that.

Primarily, I think they're into the architecture of it all not how or by whom the course will be used later or sometime in the future.

Clearly, RJ may be suggesting that architects who get to a certain level owe golf and golfers something in return in the way of affordable public golf. He may believe that would basically round out their career portfolio! Maybe it would, but I'm not sure that's necessary--it would be nice of course and I see nothing at all wrong with that, but necessary.....?

I guess what I'm really trying to say is I wouldn't really support a "premise" that for any architect to round out his career portfolio he would at some point have to create an affordable public golf course(s).

[Lou Duran]

Mr. Daley,

Tom Doak is doing work at both ends of the scale, and I think his style is generally conducive to low-price, high-quality golf.

Weiskopf and Morrish have also done some low and high-priced courses.  Buffalo Creek east of Dallas can be played at times for under $50, while Mira Vista in southwest Fort Worth has an initiation fee of $40,000+ (high by SW standards).

Through some of his Columbus contacts, and before the creation of the RTJ Trail in Alabama, I floated a low-price, municipal golf concept to Nicklaus (where his management company would retain control of running the courses for a period of time to guarantee quality and make his money in lieu of large up-front design fees).  Reportedly, there was not much interest in doing that (too much going on at that time).  Of course, a number of years after that he did similar work in Tennessee.

I do believe that history would look kindly upon the top designers/archies if they gave something back to the game by designing some affordable courses in areas where the private sector would not do so.  I think that Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones, et al. can accomplish this if done sparingly, without jeopardizing their brands.

[Dan Kelly]

Dick --

Maybe C&C would be up for designing an affordable, accessible course in, say, Nebraska.

Yes! Nebraska!

You wouldn't have any ideas, would you?  

[JBergan]

I took advantage of the summer rates at Talking Stick in June.  $64 green fee/cart, the replay rate was $48.  I played the South in the morning and North in the afternoon.  Because of the afternoon heat, I had the North all to myself after playing through a twosome on #2.  I had my first ever rattlesnake encounter on the par 5 17th (appropriately named Sidewinder!!)

At $112 for two rounds, I guess that's close enogh to the $50 level (I think Troon North and Grayhawk are at $75 in the summer).

In the winter, TS is still a good deal at $135 when compared to the other high-end course in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area, which are all over $200.  

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Many trips across the pond have convinced me that Europeans are probably more advanced than Americans when it comes to balancing "quality" golf with affordability.  So, I'm sympathetic to the direction you are trying to encourage.

But, aren't developers really more important than golf architects when it comes to what you are trying to accomplish?

Give folks like Bill Coore a good piece of land and I'm sure he can make the most of it without unnecessary expense.  But, if you want the course available to the average guy at reasonable prices, there must be a developer who starts with this goal in mind and sticks with it, don't you think?

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

The answer to your question is YES!!  I discuss in length with the developer not only what is the budget but also how the course or the club will be run.

It is very important to know what the budget is in deciding size of greens, size of bunkers, how many bunkers, fairway irrigation or not...(imagine that..how many other designers can say on this site that they have designed a course WITHOUT fairway irrigation?)...

I realise I am not up with the Doaks or the Brauers of the architect world but yes I do care about what the developer and owner wants.

As TEPaul knows I am constructing and designing a small nine hole course at the moment (due to open next year) for Vestlia hotel in Geilo Norway.  The course is 800 metres above sea level.

The budget is low so I have kept things to green irrigation but with manual couplings for the fairways.  The only thing I have not gone cheap on is the seed.  A4 creeping bent on the greens and a bent/fescue mix on the fairways which will tolerate a drought if it occurs.  I have also made sure that the grow in fert. is of the correct type by bringing in an agronomist who I trust.

Brian Silva is a really good example of an architect who takes all sorts of work.  He even says on his website that a budget is a challenge, a challenge for imaginative design!!  The man is awesome and a really funny guy.

Brian.

www.phillipsgolfdesign.com

website now up and running!!

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Silva certainly is a very funny man!

I think I posted this on here once before but this is my favortie Silvaism of all.

This was at a wonderful old Raynor course in Florida that hadn't had much done to it in many years (except for some poor redesign years before).

From a member I know this was Silva's presentation at a membership meeting as to a restoration by him. This original presentation was some time ago now but the members have not forgotten it.

Brian Silva:

"You people have some great architecture underlying this dogtrack you've been playing on for many years. You can continue to play on this dogtrack or I can have you playing on a great piece of architecture again. The choice is yours!"

And Brian sat down!

The Silva restoration should be complete very soon!

[Paul Richards]

Tom;

Excellent story on Brian Silva!

If that line really works, I have a few other courses in mind to try it on .........