Following on from the Florida bashing......

[JESII]

I think it might be a mistake to view suitability of land in the short term...after all, if Al Gore is right, how suitable would true linksland be for golf?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Clearly Al does not live in Scotland

Melvyn

[JESII]

No, I don't think so Melvyn, but I'm sure he learned all he needed on a flyover in his G5...



Seriously though...you seem to view growing the game for the sake of growing the game as somewhat less than ideal and I think you'll see some real shrinkage over the next several years...what then?

Do you see value in presenting the game as a challenge in hopes of attracting people that appreciate a challenge? Or would you prefer to introduce the game to someone as something to do to kill a few hours outside?

[TEPaul]

"As a member of Hidden Creek I would have thought you'd have a different perspective...did Mr. Hansen give C&C an exorbitant budget?"


Jim:

I know Roger or I certainly know him that way and the fact is if Roger is even thinking in the back of his mind of giving somebody an exorbitant budget the last thing in the world he would ever do is tell them that upfront. Roger has a ton of sense and style, in my opinion, but first and foremost and by his own constant admission Roger is a businessman!

David Madison and Tom Doak:

Did you ever hear Tom Fazio's story about Steve Wynn's trying to get him to do Shadow Creek and how Tom turned him down and basically left Wynn's office and got on the plane----and what happened next?

[JESII]

...and I have no idea if he limited their budget at all, and maybe I misread Pat's comment about the the budget being all that matters on a bland site (hopefully he will come out of his shell and tell me if by chance I misinterpreted his words...) is the budget.

Clearly, Hidden Creek is a low profile golf focussed operation with a really good golf course...on what I would call a bland site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Kind of a sad, albeit telling,  commentary on Fazio.  However, given a blank slate, i.e. Shadow Creek or the Glen Club, he's the man....

Jud,

On a bland site, with a blank slate, it's got nothing to do with the site or the architect, it's all about the BUDGET

Pat,

As a member of Hidden Creek I would have thought you'd have a different perspective...did Mr. Hansen give C&C an exorbitant budget?

Jim,

Might I suggest that you hit the edit button and erase your post.

Hidden Creek a BLAND site ?

I wouldn't let anyone know that you said that unless you want to be known as GCA challenged

TEPaul,

Fazio DIDN'T turn him down, he inadvertantly left the check behind

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Yes, I have heard that story.

I think Tom Fazio was a different architect after Shadow Creek than he was before.

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

1) Neither I nor anyone else on this thread has said, or even implied, that "land fit for purpose is a joke."  It defies belief that you could come to such a conclusion or make such an absurd statement.

2) The subject of green fees was not part of the discussion until you raised it.

As I clearly stated in my post, "In a perfect world, there would be plenty of inexpensive property of gently rolling hills, valleys and streams on well draining soils (land "fit for golf"), near enough to populations large enough to support the enterprise of constructing and operating a golf course."

The practical realities of the world we now live in are that 1) precious little of that land fit for purpose still exists, 2) much of such land is not available for golf course development due to environmental restrictions and 3) where such land does exist (whether it is on South Uist or in the middle of Nebraska), it more often than not too far from enough people and/or in an inhospitable climate to make the operation of the course financially viable.

It is wonderful to travel to a remote location (be it South Uist or Nebraska) to play a charming golf golf at a modest green fee inexpensively built on land fit for golf. But when one factors in the time and cost of travel involved, that modest green is no longer quite so modest.

As a result of the lack of land fit for golf near the majority of people who want to play golf, many golf courses and many inexpensive publicly-owned golf courses have been built on land that has been degraded in some way and is less than fit for golf. Maybe you should make an effort to see some of these courses, rather than casting stones from your ivory tower.

And, by the way, how many golf courses have you played or visited in Florida?

DT         
 

[JESII]

Then maybe you need to define bland, Pat...and provide a few examples.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

No you are wrong, I want to see the game grow but on a consistent level. I want to see the designers being given free reign to at least produce course that can match or beat the challenging and quality courses of the past. I do question the madness of the past decade or two and the ridicules amount of money spent on golf courses. I question the value for money aspect as ultimately the ordinary golfer foots the bill.

I want to see more courses worldwide, I would like to see a healthy and productive industry but at sensible prices that the golfing public can afford. I want common sense to prevail when building golf courses, I want to see short distance between Greens and Tees for either Walker or carts and yes I want to see more sites working in harmony with the surrounding land, because that has been part of the game for centuries.

To come along and want a blank canvas to produce your masterpiece then you could be in the wrong industry. Perhaps look at modelling or the arts because the land forms a major part of the game of golf. Many but thank God not all seem to have forgotten that it is the land that makes the course, gives it is essence, its core value.

However if you are regarding golf as a way to make money or a fortune then you are certainly in the wrong business. The current credit environment has burst that bubble, so now is perhaps time to try to reassess our achievements based upon what has been transpired over the last 20 years and get back to real core golfing values.

I do not agree that we should build a course in a specific area just because there is a demand for a course on that location. We need to offer real value for money and targets to recoup the original investment with a good profit return within a fair time scale. That being the case, site selection is even more critical and yes there are places that are not suitable for the game unless you have a large budget, but then is that not what we are trying to reduce for the sake of the course and its players.

Lets not forget the customers here guys, this is not all about the designers contractors owners or operators, its about your Customers, the one who have to put their hand in their pockets to pay for all this, lets put them first and seek to present them with quality courses that give them a challenge with the fun and enjoyment of playing golf. Then and only then perhaps we may be able to attract others to play golf.

I feel in part we have taken our eyes of the ball (well we know the R&A have).

Melvyn       

[Dean Stokes]

Fellas, you've gone off topic!!!!!!

Is it harder/does it take more skill/different sets of skills to design a golf course on land with elevation changes and rolling terrain or a flat boorish piece of dirt?

This is nothing to do with money or 'land fit for purpose'. Should we be more impressed with some of the Florida courses that were built out of nothing or courses that were laid out on great golfing terrain. Simple.

[Jud_T]

Dean,

Don't you have to do it on a case by case basis? Each can be quite an accomplishment...Do you have 2 specific courses in mind?

[Dean Stokes]

Jud, I did not really want to pit one architect against another and get into who is better.

I (imho) think that taking a piece of land in Florida and creating in a good course out of nothing would be harder than finding a piece of land in let's say Ohio, where I hear it is great golfing terrain and designing a course on it.

Listening to what people have said about Fazio it appears he thinks differently and would prefer a blank canvas. I just wondered about the opinions of members of GCA.

It's really a follow on from the Florida thread because the courses there seem to get bashed so much on here. Again, I think they should get a little more credit as the architects had little or nothing to work with and produced playable golf courses - some in fact excellent.

[Jud_T]

Dean,

I would agree if you had a course in Florida that were as good as Sand Hills that started with less, that it would be a better accomplishment, but you don't....Now if you want to argue whether Seminole is a better accomplishment on that property than Sand Hills is on it's land, that could be interesting, but it's for better minds with more experience than yours truly...

[Garland Bayley]

A few years ago I asked Tom Fazio pretty much that question. I asked him if he'd rather have a perfect piece of land, rolling and with great views, or something like he had to work with in creating Shadow Creek. His response was that his perfect piece of land would be the parking lot at Mall of the Americas, i.e., a dead flat nothing site where he could create 100% of the course and the playing experience.

No wonder many on here fault him for creating the same course over, and over, and over, and over again.

[Bill_McBride]

yes I am saying that there are areas in the world where we should not build a golf course.

Mel,

Can you name us 3 courses that you have played that should not have been built and why?

Let me think......there's the Castle Course and of course the Castle Course, and oh yes,........the Castle Course!!!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Fazio DIDN'T turn him down, he inadvertantly left the check behind."


Pat:

What is that, the relating of that story according to you or according to Fazio? As I heard Fazio tell it he didn't leave that million dollar check on Wynn's desk quite so inadvertantly. I heard him tell it at a conference in Philadelphia that was called "The Restoration Conference."

Fazio got up and said that he and his uncle had agreed about 25 years ago right after Oak Hill that there was no money in restoration projects and that they would never do it again and Fazio said he hadn't. WELL, that left about 200 people in the room looking at each other wondering what in the Hell Fazio was talking about since he had been involved in so many so-called restoration projects including the one that was going on with Merion at the time of that conference, not to mention what in the hell he was the featured speaker for at a conference called "The Restoration Conference."

I guess all that adds up to the fact that maybe you do know what happened with Wynn better than Fazio does or at least the way he told that story at the "Restoration Conference." 

Tom Fazio certainly seems to be the nicest guy in the world but I've often wondered if, when he speaks, he is listening to what he's actually saying.

[David_Madison]

TEPaul: Great story about Fazio and Shadow Creek.

So which is the greater accomplishment - - building the Dye Preserve or Old Marsh out of flat, nothing marsh, or using the gentle yet very rare (for South Florida) terrain movement of a Jupiter Hills and building a course that has the feeling of being shockingly hilly?

[TEPaul]

David:

Actually I forgot to mention the last part of Fazio's story about Shadow Creek. He said Wynn slipped a million dollar check across the desk to him just to say yes. Fazio said shortly after that he left not intending to do the project. I can't remember if he even mentioned whether he left that check on Wynn's desk on purpose. So the next thing is Fazio is on the plane home and I can't remember if he said the plane was pulling out of the gate or already taxi-ing but the next think he knows the plane hooks back up, the door opens and in comes Wynn's secretary and hands Tom the envelop with the check for a million smackers just to say yes in it. I think part of his point was in Las Vegas Steve Wynn has enough power to get a plane to turn around.

It was a great story and as I said earlier Tom Fazio seems like such a nice guy and entertaining to listen to. I'd never seen him before that particular conference in Philadelphia when he spoke on restoration but I do remember the guy next to me said just before The Faz got up to speak; "Just watch this, I guarantee you he's gonna say something about money; he always talks about money at some point" (because The Faz originally comes from Norristown he has a ton of friends around here not to mention his close connection to Pine Valley and all those members).

And about 10 seconds later he was telling that funny story about Shadow Creek, Wynn and the million dollar check. Or maybe that was just after he told us all that he and his uncle agreed 25 years earlier that after the Oak Hill restoration project (with which he did allow as he thought he made some mistakes) they would never do another restoration project and then he said he never did do another one which had us all looking at each other wondering what the hell he was doing at Merion and why was he at a conference in Philadelphia named "The Restoration Conference?"

On some reflection maybe Tom Fazio knew exactly what he was saying and he really was telling us that he doesn't believe he does do restorations on all those courses that claim they are restorations and maybe he means he simply improves them----ie makes them better than they have ever been. I think I remember him saying most all those old guys did the very same thing with a ton of each others' courses too.

And historically, that is impossible to deny, as most all of us know. What those old guys did to each other's courses and even their own courses was never restoration. That idea and even the word of it in American architecture frankly didn't even exist until maybe the mid-1980s at the earliest.

Actually, that just might be quite the trivia question, at this point----eg what was the first actual restoration project of a course in America and who did it?

[Garland Bayley]

...
I was playing an average course here in Florida last week with a friend from England who is a member at a very good course over there. We had played about thirteen holes when we got to a tee box that was on the boundary of the course. As we looked over the hedge/fence all we could see was swamp! Water, tree stumps, birds, alligators and dirt for as far as we could see. My friend said "you know what, you really have to give it the course designers who can take that (pointing at the swamp), and turn it into a golf course. You've got nothing to work with and you can build a course that is very playable, maybe not brilliant but not bad".
...

This makes me wonder, why was the course built there? Would I be right in assuming that it was built there, because the cost of the land was low? Especially lower than perhaps the same amount of land in the Florida sand belt?

The next question I wonder about is, what would be relative costs of maintaining and running the course in the swamp compared to a course in the sand belt? If there is a real estate component, what are the relative costs of maintaining the homes in the swamp versus homes built in a dry area?

[David_Tepper]

Anyone interested in learning more about what goes into building a golf course in Florida should read Driving the Green: The Making of a Golf Course, by John Strawn. You will get much better appreciation for what is involved.

Garland -

The sand belt in Florida is in the center of the state and covers a relatively minor area. The vast majority of the population of Florida lives along the state's coastline, well away from the sand belt.
 
DT

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, flat land cost more to build in many cases and if the water table is just a few feet below then it will cost even more.  BUT IMHO it is easier for an architect to design because an architect can do it without really having to "find" the golf course.  In other words he doesn't have to have good routing skills to put the course there.  It's all made by him.  Actually there are Florida courses that one could take from site to site...
I still think that this site doesn't give some of these premier courses the credit they deserve for the routings.  The routing is still IMHO the most critical part to a golf course and is the hardest aspect to learn.....that's is why I have such a problem with some "restoration expert" hype.  
So in my book......the flat Florida course is easier...especially for a production house ..finding a contiguous course ( not one hole) on a piece of land takes much more talent than creating one....     P.S.  same thought process for some of these development courses with holes a half mile apart.....

[Garland Bayley]

David,

I have a good idea where most Floridians live. But, I suspect it is not in a swamp.

Was not TPC Sawgrass constructed from a swamp or near swamp?  Is it in a population center? Did they have to build there? If they are a golf organization, why wouldn't they be choosing land more suited to the purpose?

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

As is so often the case, priority for the better land in Florida goes for homes, schools, shopping malls and office buildings. Golf courses are low on the pecking order determined developers, planning commissions and other public officials. They are often consigned to being built on land that is, at best, marginal.

You really should read John Strawn's book.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

David,

I own and have read John's book. Funny how an egghead from Portland could end up writing a book like that.

The course there was built on an old ranch as I recall. Hardly a swamp.

So why is it you wanted me to read the book?