The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.

[Joe Bausch]

That's the title of an article by John Garrity at Golf.com:

http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1952529,00.html

In it are many juicy quotes from Fazio, Weed, and Hurdzan.  For example, this from the good doctor:

"There's an undersupply of golfers," says Dr. Michael Hurdzan, senior partner at Hurdzan/Fry Golf Design in Columbus, Ohio. Or to be more precise, there's an oversupply of 7,200-yard "championship" courses by superstar designers like Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. "If you go back now and look at the developments going bankrupt, I think you'll see that the big-name designer is part of all those," Hurdzan says. "Those guys got a big fee, spent money like it was water, and left golf courses that are expensive to maintain. They were doomed to fail."

[Brian Phillips]

Is that throwing stones in a glass house?

[Tom_Doak]

I can't agree with that quote, either.  There are lots of modest courses that are failing now, too.

[Mac Plumart]

That last sentence is not true, is it?..."If you go back now and look at the developments going bankrupt, I think you'll see that the big-name designer is part of all those," Hurdzan says. "Those guys got a big fee, spent money like it was water, and left golf courses that are expensive to maintain. They were doomed to fail."

Haven't we seen multiple threads on this site regarding Ross courses going out of business and other "non-signature designer" courses going bust?

People can make a scapegoat out of these guys or the owners/developers can take some responsibility.  Didn't Erin Hills go bust and need a "bail out"?  Who designed that one?  And yes, I know the answer...but the rhetorical question proves a point.

Any designer can design a course that goes bust...as the ultimate responsibility lies with the owners and managers of the institutions to run the place correctly, budget correctly up-front, and be reasonable in their expectations.  Blaming the "take the fee and run" mentality of the designer is total hogwash in my opinion.  Heck, haven't some courses designed by Tom Doak gone belly up?  Is that his fault?  I think not.

Ugh!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

mac,

See my post on another thread, but yes, I doubt the design itself is generally a signifigant part of the equation.

Brian,

Mike comes from the low budget Jack Kidwell school of thought. He took Dana as a partner almost in self defense to go after the big market "look" courses.  However, the HF house does do a lot of both ends of the spectrum, even if we never hear about many of their lower budget courses, often done by other associates than Dana Fry.

As noted, I am not sure that many courses of all types aren't struggling.  I read once where most of the 100 plus courses that went out of business in the last few years were actually mom and pop courses way out in the country, not big name glitz courses.  I would think that the biggest predictor of courses going out of biz is the ratio of golfers to courses in its immediate area.  This group has a hard time remembering that 95% of all golf round decisions are based on convenience and cost rather than architecture and amenities.

For the high end, it may be the ratio of wealthy homebuyers to high end real estate developments in a particular area.

[Tim Nugent]

True, true, and true.  The point the good DR. was trying to make should have been that the underlying business model was the culprit in high-end housing development.  I remember when Jack started getting $1m design fees, 10x's what journeyman architects were getting and someone asked my father,"how can he get that?".  The answer was housing.  You only need to add $2k to 500 houses and it's covered.  Even if Jack spends twice on the course what averge Joe would and the Developer builds a grandios Clubhouse, your still probably only looking at bumping the house price by $10 grand.  When the houses are going for (at the time) $3-500k, that 2% max.
The developers looked at it as a marketing expense, plain and simple.
Where it all broke down was when the cash-flow from the housing sales dried up.  Since most developers want a green course to market, all the upfront costs are spent prior to house sales.  Since many developers rob Peter to pay Paul (allocate funds one development to fund others) if the cash cow (the housing) gets sick or dies, the cashflow disappears and the house of cards comes tumbling down.  Blaming it all n the Marquee designers is not fair.  But they shouldn't get off scot-free either.  They were part of the equation and should shoulder part of the blame.
PS.  Nice to see Tom Fazio make enough money to play golf every day.  Wonder what those dozen guys he cut loose are doing?  Bet it's not playing much golf.
Jeff: remember Dick's theory - 1 course needs a population of 30,000 to support it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think there is some fair truth in the quote. The newer top end courses do often look doomed from the outset by crazy costs and design fees, yes its true that a JN course with his $1M fee is only 2K per house x 500, so all covered, what this really translates is big name designers only work with real estate. In these times the real estate bit is on hold and that flaws the business plan. These courses probably dont die, but they fall into the 'second mouse theory'.

I think deep down we all know you are paying for the name, the client pays 10 times the going rate for the job, does he get a better course? No, infact he might even get an inferior one and also into his bargain he probably pays too much for his construction.

I would imagine a 'Greg Norman' would suffer more in these times and probably is not prepared to drop his fee 90% to mop up what litte work is out there. When it does kick off, Eastern Europe will be a hotspot for new courses but dont expect much money for the design or construction work, for it to work it has to be at about 50% of what we work with in the UK.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of the real culprits is not having a good plan for running a housing course after the developer leaves and doesn't care any more.

As a success story, our cousre in Newton, KS is doing quite well, even though the housing sales around it have stalled, but that deal was for the city to run the course from the outset, and it was pretty well paid for from the outset as well.  I think the housing and public course is probably the model for most future real estate developments in outer suburbs.

Tim,

I remember it as 1 for 50K, but what do I know.  If the national average of about 10% play golf you get 5000 golfers at 6-8 rounds a year or your 30-40K rounds. 

Those numbers can vary, and I know that the NGF later came up with a lot more sophisticated stats to better parse the need for golf courses, but even so that ratio often holds.

[Scott Weersing]

That's the title of an article by John Garrity at Golf.com:

http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1952529,00.html

In it are many juicy quotes from Fazio, Weed, and Hurdzan.  For example, this from the good doctor:

"There's an undersupply of golfers," says Dr. Michael Hurdzan, senior partner at Hurdzan/Fry Golf Design in Columbus, Ohio. Or to be more precise, there's an oversupply of 7,200-yard "championship" courses by superstar designers like Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. "If you go back now and look at the developments going bankrupt, I think you'll see that the big-name designer is part of all those," Hurdzan says. "Those guys got a big fee, spent money like it was water, and left golf courses that are expensive to maintain. They were doomed to fail."

I would agree that 2009 is an end of era of golf courses being supported by housing developments. I am not sure we can name the 1995 to 2009 period as the Gilded Age. But I would say it is an era of golf course design. Some may want to call it the Minimialist Era but I think minimialism will continue because these type of courses are less costly to build and maintain.

Some of the characteristics of this Gilded Age:

Courses were built on land that were not very good for golf courses. Example- The Ranch Golf Club in San Jose, CA.
Courses were built to sell homes.
Courses were built far away from the cities. Ex. Bandon Dunes
Courses were better designed than the previous era.
Courses were built to be championship length, even though there was little chance of a PGA event being played there.
Courses were built based on incorrect revenue predictions. Ex- Glen Annie GC and The Crossings in Carlsbad, CA.
Courses were designed by owners rather than architects. Ex- Erin Hills and any Trump course.

What are some other characteristics of this age?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

I don't have time to dissect your assertions, but I am not sure they are really right for the entire US.  There have been lots of successful courses built in the last decade that displaced older ones.

There is some great points in there, though. I wonder if this is the decade when we all decide to eliminate the 7250 + tees to save the cost for the 1% of golfers who go back there and play for any new course in a subdivision?

[Jason Topp]

Does it really cost more to maintain a modern 7200 yard course than a 1920's 6700 yard course? 

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I would guess that it costs approximately 7.46% more.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps a little responsibility rests on the shoulders of the designers, for (a) taken the job in the first place (b) for not achieving the desired affect or thrill (c) producing a lack luster uninspiring design on a questionable site (d) not understand the location and its attraction for the local and visitors alike.

Being involved in design, I would expect some form of general feasibility check re the type and location of the pending project would have been done by the designer before accepting his commission. Or is that considered just over the top or just too professional.

Yet another thought, would any designer take on a project for the money alone knowing that doubts exist in his mind re the long term viability of the concern. After all you just provide the tools for others to run the venture, so by pocketing the fee then departing its not your fault, if they do not understand your design or is it – perhaps a question of taking responsibility for ones work/design - who knows or who cares, after all many on here are always talking about feeding their family, perhaps that’s is what it is really all about and golf is just a by-product.

Then perhaps a “getting back to the basics” would not be a bad phase in the publicity literature of some golf design houses, then perhaps some may not be able remember the basics.

Oh, the life of a modern course designer can be more challenging than some of their courses –well so I am told

Melvyn
 

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

Great post.

Right here on this site we get to see theory smash head on into reality.

In theory golf courses can be works of art and should be done with the principles outlined in the "Golden Age".

However, this artwork and theoritical discussion has to be applied on a day by day basis by people trying to run a business.  And a business by nature is a money making venture which will employ people, provide incomes, and allow people to live in homes, eat food, and care for kids.

Wild stuff!!!

In my world, I've always been told that if you are going to start your own investment banking firm you need to already be wealthy to ride the ups and downs of the economy.  Maybe being a golf course architectural firm is the same in concept...at least if you want to live the dream and fulfill the theory.  CB MacDonald did...but wasn't he rich?  Ross did great work, but he was a business man (maybe) first. 

Anyway, interseting.

[Tim Nugent]

I won't say this is the end of Golf/Real Estate.  But there sure will be a pause.  Look at history - what goes around, comes around.  What I do think will happen is that you will not see as many mega-developments nor will you see as many Pro names.  The usual suspects will still be around , they have the where-with-all to weather it (if they live that long) and play golf in the interun (Tom Fazio).

Look, there is a symbiotic relationship between Golf and RE.  It has to do with density, stormwater, open space, and marketing. I'm sure. like most on this site, we would love for all new courses to be pure, stand alone, core courses.  But, as Jeff points out, most will need a critical mass of local population to survive.  Sure, a few unique courses can make it out in the middle of nowhere, but to think this is the way of the future is ludicrious.  Plus, how will you get to these places if gas goes to Europe prices? To me, they all should be considered Destination Resort courses (even if you stay at the Red Roof Inn down the road).  How many rounds a year are played by the locals around Bandon?

Once the rat (of housing) works its way through the snake, you will see developers needing a Hook to differentiate their development.  And let's face it, a home overlooking a golf course is still a desirable thing as is the cache of living in a golf course community.  However, everything will be scaled way down.  And developers may see the light and build core course that can stand on there own without needing subsidies from the housing element.

[Tim Nugent]

Melvin,  if I follow your thesis, (and I do possess an MBA) would Sand Hills ever be built?  And if it wasn't, would any of the "build it and they will come" courses that followed?  Would we even know who Tom Doak is?
If we, in our infinite wisdom, declined a commission, do you think that that would kill the project?
To answer your question, I have a rather in-depth Development and Operations Pro-Forma I use (which is pretty conservative) in order to get a handle on what the financial parameters are.  Then I try to design to meet those parameters.  So, yes, some of us actually do the due-dilligence, irregardless of what KPMG, NGF or any other expert says.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tim

Who knows, and would it have been a bad think if we had not heard of Tom Doad (no disrespect intended, Tom) and others, As you said perhaps others would have come forward in their place.

As for declining a commission, I do not see that as weakness but the strength of the designer. The weakness is on those who need the business at just about at any price. There are times when a project is just not worth the hassle. When referring to golf I would question any course that has a long distance between the Greens and the next Tee – for me a compromise has been incurred from the start allowing other easy options or compromises to be made for the core business at the expense of providing a worthy golf course. What is it that has actually been built, a golf course that was clearly secondary to the core business and is just the window dressing to sell the main concept. That for me is doing business purely for the sake of the money and feeding the family but nothing to shout or be proud about IMHO.

I feel designers need to be recognized and credited for their good/great designs. Not for faking or aging a site but in its playability and the enjoyment of the challenge. Nor is fake window dressing required but what I feel is important is to give the course the appearance of blending back into its environment so to give the golfer a sense of harmony as he walks to the any of the Tees. Thus allowing the inner mind the ability of concentrating on playing the course rather than seeing the land at conflict with itself. It is also IMO easier to read and play a course that has Nature on her side. Designers who go that extra little distance in design deserve the recognition for their acheivements.

If we are not improving or going off track, then that is the time to address the position and to get back to core values. To retreat and reform then again move forward is no disgrace. No do I believe exiting a deep bunker by the rear or sides is a sign of defeat, but of sound judgement of regrouping and then again facing the challenge face on, yet I have see some who refuse to chip out sideward and kill not only the hole but their round by trying to better a deep bunker. Strategy 
Is not part of their game, nor do they like challenges that test them. It’s the ‘Bull in a china shop’ mentality which is not conducive to being a good golfer IMHO.

Golfers are like Designers, you get all sorts in the mix.

Melvyn

[Jud_T]

Tim,

If you don't drink, now would be as good a time as any to start.....

[Richard Choi]

To be fair, there are two types of golf bankruptsies that are happening right now.

1. Spending too much to build a golf course - this is the type of failures that the article is referring to. The real estate developer figure he would recoup the cost through housing sales, but when the housing market cratered, there wasn't enough revenue from the daily operations to keep the place open. This is the cause for most new course failures.

2. Borrowing too much to renovate/upgrade - this is the type of failure that I see more often and more spectacular in nature. You have a (relatively) successful operations like Sea Island, Ginn, Yellowstone, etc.  But the owner/members decide that the course needs an upgrade or more likely the resort/club house needs to be upgraded and borrows and spends too much for that purpose. When the housing market crashes and debt market crashes along with it, they find themselves in a hole as they can't generate enough revenue and they cannot restructure their debt.

I really don't think Jack making millions designing courses had much to do with the failures.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jud

I love the way you can clearly address the issue 'Face On'. You are not a failure if you have no opinion or are unable to voice one.

Say what you mean, be honest with all, including yourself instead of these little side swipes.

Have a nice day

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

If there was a business feasibility plan, I think BD and SH would never have been built.  Fed Ex would also never have gotten off the ground, as its founder actually got flunked on his business plan in college.  Actually, those who do feasibility studies are usually accountant types by nature, with little real vision, if I may generalize.  There are some different personality types out there and one is "designer-developer" which is quite distinct in trying to take chances.

As for gca's doing feasibility, it is generally seen as a conflict of interest.  What gca wouldn't have a tendency to say "sure a course would work here" if a design commission is at stake?  Yes, I know you think we should all be perfectly pure, but someone will design a course for an owner and if we think we are the best, we tend to think we will do it the best for that owner over someone else.  There are only a few hundred "perfect" sites in the world.

And, most commissions aren't for dream projects, they are by definition the best course for the real estate, muni, etc.
There have actually been many threads about whether gca's should turn down jobs.  In general, the answer is no.  We are professional gca's, not hobbyists like George Thomas or CBM. Its just the way it is, and there is nothing evil about being paid to design a golf course, or trying to provide what the owner wants, or anything else that goes with it.

[Jud_T]

Melvyn,

You are so far off the beaten path that I'd rather not simply give you another opening to espouse your tiresome antiquated beliefs, speaking of being off topic.  Maybe you were one of the handful of people in the world who knew that the global economy was going to fall off a cliff.  Most people are not in a position to turn down work when presented with it.  i.e.- food, clothing, shelter etc.  come in handy, particularly in Scotland my friend...I would think someone who is so dogmatic about the ancient game would be thrilled about the direction golf course architecture has taken in the hands of some of the folks spoken highly of here, but alas you seem incapable of entering the 20th century not to mention the 21st...Say what you will but this will be my last response to one of your diatribes...

[PCCraig]

The idea

"There's an undersupply of golfers," says Dr. Michael Hurdzan, senior partner at Hurdzan/Fry Golf Design in Columbus, Ohio. Or to be more precise, there's an oversupply of 7,200-yard "championship" courses by superstar designers like Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. "If you go back now and look at the developments going bankrupt, I think you'll see that the big-name designer is part of all those," Hurdzan says. "Those guys got a big fee, spent money like it was water, and left golf courses that are expensive to maintain. They were doomed to fail."

I personally agree with Hurdzan in that there is an oversupply of "7,200-yard "championship" courses" but I cannot disagree more that it's "Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player" (or Doak, C&C, etc...)'s fault that the golf course construction industry is where it is right now. The "fault" is widespread throughout the financial and economic state of not only the US, but the rest of the world (IE the "domino effect" with people losing their jobs, mortgages being given to those whom wouldn't be able to repay, globalization, etc...).

More specifically related to golf course construction, the fault can be assigned more properly to 1) ourselves the golfing public, and 2) the developers of these properties. When there is a HUGE demand for "7,200-yard "championship" courses" by us, the golfing public, someone is going to fill the demand. Enter the developer, who sees this demand from golfers and homebuyers and builds exactly what everyone wants. When said developer sets out to build a course, he's not going to build a golf course his 95% of his target market doesn't want. (This is different for a place like Sand Hills and Bandon which the target market were golfers looking for something different).

So when a developer calls up a "Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player" and asks for a 7200 yard golf course and tells them he will pay them a $1MM fee, and that creative control is theirs as so long as the course is on a certain part of the property, is the GCA supposed to say "I'm sorry, this project is tied to a housing project, the course would include cart paths, and the membership's income stream doesn't look stable enough to support one of my designs...so I'll have to take a pass on my moral grounds."

Give me a break.

The designers build the course because while many love what they do and have a real hope for what the game can be, they are also businessmen (and women) that have families to take care of and a staff to employ. It's not their fault for building something that the developer wanted. It's the developer's and our fault for wanting a certain product that none of us could afford.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I was trying for a new commission the other day and the discussion of the 7000 yard course came up.

In fact, there is about 1% demand for a golf course that plays over 7000 yards and in fact, that is kind of a no man's land anymore. If its not 6800 yards, it has to be 7,250 for the long ball hitters to be a distance challenge.

But many will argue that while we want to play 66-6800 yards (16%) or 63-6400 yards (57%) or less, that we don't consider a course worthy unless those back tees are back there.

I wonder how long that obsession will be there for 50 yards of real estate that hardly anyone uses or if we can just say we have enough of those and go back to building 6800 yard courses and saying "screw you" to those few who want longer courses and tell them to go play somewhere else?  Or, why should 99% of golfers pay to maintain about 7% of the course that is just a rumor to them anyway/

[JMEvensky]

But many will argue that while we want to play 66-6800 yards (16%) or 63-6400 yards (57%) or less, that we don't consider a course worthy unless those back tees are back there.

Maybe part of the reason that 73% say they want 6400-6800 yards is because the 7200 yard tee boxes exist.If 6800 was the "tips",then the 6400 yard guys (57%) might get moved to a 6000 yard set of markers,causing a real crimp in their manhood.

I think it might be more palatable having those tees 50 yards back for a lot of people.They can feel better knowing that,even though they're playing the 3rd set of markers,the 1st set is way,way back there.

Not saying this is the right thing to do,just giving a reason why some might not like a golf course that stretches out to "only" 6800 yards.