Taxpayer-owned courses / dumb-down designs?

[Matt_Ward]

Golf course development on the public side seems to be squarely in the corner in developing high priced upscale daily fee courses.

I wonder does the taxpayer-owned golf course have a role today? And why are so many offering a "dumb-down" design often times so utterly lacking in strategic quality? Must every hole have generic bunkers that flank each green but are so far from the target that it takes a miracle to land in one?

Yes, I'm sure people will mention Bethpage but the Black is just one course among 90 holes and NY State's other top taxpayer layout, Montauk Downs, has been stripped of so much of what made the course so marvelous in the first place. There are also other successes like the Alabama Golf Trail and key other courses like Pinon Hills in Farmignton (NM) and I believe Painted Dunes Desert GC in El Paso which is owned by the town as well as Palm Desert's (CA) Desert Willow facility -- I really enjoy the Fire Cliff 18 that Hurdzan & Fry did with John Cook consulting .. ditto Wilmington GC in NC.

In my home state of NJ only two taxpayer owned facilities have the possibility in being listed among a top ten public listing -- Hominy Hill in Colts Neck and The Knoll in Parsippany. Incidentally, both courses have a private pedigree before becoming available to the masses.

Can taxpayer owned facilities be designed today that really test all levels of players or must they be just recreational layouts that get people started wiht our grand game?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Histoically, city courses have a charge of providing golf at the lowest possible fee, for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

My experience with city courses is that they eventually "dumb them down", usually for maintenance and speed of play reasons, over time.  Cash is king, and they struggle to stay afloat, so they need to alter the equation, either by increasing revenue (speed of play) or reducing costs (like bunker maintenance)

These are pretty powerful forces.  so, while they don't necessarily HAVE to make courses easier (ie Torrey Pines) most probably will.  

[Matt_Ward]

shivas:

I played the old Forest Preserve National and agree it was a honey of a course. What a spectacular finish and I just loved the 18th hole. Believe me with the right vision and follow-through things can improve -- witness Bethpage Black.

But neglect is not what I'm talking about -- I'm talking about courses built specifically to be "dumbed-down" in all respects. I mean why have any hazards or anything of consequence? You don't see these facilties cutting down on the janitor drum size beer cups they sell? Can't genuine recreation and quality golf be combined through creative design?

When an architect says the client wants a dumb-down version I have to ask did the architect offer real alternatives? Or was the architect inclined to be a "yes" person.

Just realize the case with Pinon Hills in New Mexico. The town (Farmington) floated a $4 million bond for its construction -- heck, the town went ahead and got one super layout that can handle all types of players. Can't others follow the lead of Pinon Hills? There are a number of munis on Cape Cod that have taken the lead to provide quality golf -- i.e. The Captain's Club, Dennis Pines, etc, etc.

Must every taxpayer owned course be a generic fast-food type of burger, shake and fries only

NYC had at one time a number of fine munis before they decided to rip out all of the key features for so-called "speed of play." Last time I checked the speed of play is still tortoise like!

Please don't think I'm advocating mini Bethpage Blacks everywhere. But taxpayer owned facilities have been created with quality designs. If people are going to float a major bond and you get nothing more than 18 holes cut into the ground with generic bland features I don't know how that is really helpful. I guess the belief is that taxpayer owned facilitiers must be a "B" level facility and not an "A" one.  

[THuckaby2]

Matt:  there is a certain deserved negative connotation to the non-word "muni."

However, the Bethpage example is a powerful one, and when the whole world sees this come June, look for a BUNCH of mayors asking "why can't we have something like that?"...  They already have used the example in San Francisco re Harding, though if you read that thread you can see our opinions on the long-term viability of that effort...

Which brings me to my main point:  interest and maintenance seem to go hand in hand here.  Harding is exactly like Forest Preserve in that the design is wonderful, but conditions are so awful, it makes it absolutely not worth wasting time on.

That's the fear I have re muni courses... if they don't have budget for maintenance, what difference does it make what the design is?  I think municipalities understand this better than we think, and operate bare-bones golf courses that eke by using the money they have.  They can't compete with the CCFAD's, so they don't try.

Perhaps the Bethpage example will indeed change this.  As a public course golfer, all I can say is here's hoping.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

I remember working on Forest Preserve National!  It was mostly Dick Nugent and Bob Lohmann, with Ken Killian making just a few site visits.  I was banished to RJDaley country (Nekoosa, Wisconsin) to build a course with a bunch of kids just after the plans were done. I lamented the fact that Bob got to work on the bigger budget project, (about 2.1M versus $850,00K, if I recall) but learned there are no bad projects, dispite budget.  As good as FPN was, I got the better site......

This is typical of public operations - there is often money to build courses right, because they usually get built with stand alone bond issues, but never enough later for maintenance, as the budget must compete with other city/county etc. needs.  I'll bet most city courses end up the way they do because of neglect,  although many architects do get instructions for a pretty simple course up front.

The Forest Preserve district was, I think, doing what many municipalities have tried - a low, mid, and high level course if they have more than one.  But whoever has the good initial vision often gets offered a better job elsewhere to do the same thing!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I think Jeff Brauer is on the right track.  In the beginning the intent is to provide some architectural interest in a simple to play course for all.  Where some would put three bunkers, sometimes one suffices.  But then speed of play comes into question and that bunker is eliminated.  Where different teeing areas create different angles in the beginning, someone renovates and makes one large teeing ground.  In Los Angeles at Griffith Park, where the George Thomas designed courses Harding and Wilson had small greens, the City decided larger flatter greens would be easier to maintain due to heavy play.  Of course then many 3 putted, slowing things down.  Then on the issue of speed of play.  It seldom has much to do with the course, it is all about one's recognition of the need to keep moving.  All is takes is one A.D.D case or ignorant sole to back up the whole course.  I say ban those players, but this is compassiate America and so we all have to put up with 5 hour rounds on the muni.
A knowledgeable designer could come in and create some design and strategy, but most golfers and administrators would not find it to be money well spent.  The golfers are just trying to hit the ball, the administrators just trying to get the place watered and mowed and make money for other recreational programs.
So Matt therein lies the problem with your theory.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm kind of spoiled in that my municipal Brown County Golf Course is a darn good round of golf.  It has good routing for the most part and uses the property well.  But, it is the outstanding work of the superintendent that also keeps this course in the near "hidden gem" category.  But that is accomplished in the context of the ever tumultuous county budget and county government process.  Each year, even though the course operates in the black and returns money to the county treasury, there is a big debate in the council to sell it off, or cut back the maintenance budget etc.  Our superintendent not only has to cope with the regulars constantly asking for certain maintenance-feature work that they know little about, but he has to be politically adept with the county board to save his budget in order to continue to keep the course as nice as he has.  One of these days he will get sick of the hassle and retire and leave us in the breach.

I wonder if the only thing better municipal golf has going for it is the aging baby-boomer population demanding more recreation at affordable senior retired persons rates.  

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn:

Appreciate your take but don't buy it all.

Taxpayer-owned facilities can exist that don't go on the cheap regarding maintenance procedures. I suggest Monmouth County (NJ) as a great example -- also Morris and Somerset Counties as well. In the case of Monmouth they have six regulation courses that fit the spectrum of needs. You do have challenging layouts at Hominy Hill in Colts Neck (Trent Jones design) and Howell Park in Howell (Frank Duane design). There are also "user-friendly" courses meant to handle the inexperienced player. The highest fee charged is $60 for weekend times at Hominy Hill.

As far as slow play is concerned it is completely erroneous to believe that eliminating strategic elements on any course will speed up play. Failure of management to monitor the pace of play is the reason and when it's carried forward with vigilance you can keep players moving -- even when courses have slopes above 130 and course ratings higher than 73 from the tips.

The biggest issue is what you mentioned happened at LA (Harding & Wilson) courses where George Thomas actually designed the layouts. How does a municipality / county / state allow for this sort of destruction is truly mindboggling? The same thing happned with the Charles "steam-shovel" design at the former Essex County West Course (now called Francis Bryne) in West Orange, NJ.

I will say this again you can create challenging layouts owned by the taxpayers -- the greatest example being TOC in Scotland. Yes, there are clearly issues where management must look after the course when it's finished. Examples exist in the USA where this can be done -- Desert Willow in Palm Desert is a solid example as well as the Alabama Golf Trail, to name just two.

Patrons of any golf facility will pay their fair share PROVIDED you show them some sort of game plan exists that preserves the inherent strategic qualities and obviously includes a turf mainternance program that's adequately funded and staffed.

Some people believe more golf no matter what type it is makes sense. Clearly, you can't simply build replicas of Bethpage Black nor should that be the primary model to emulate. But "dumbing down," in my opinion, is not the way to go. I can remember the wholesale butchering that was done to the Passaic County GC in Wayne, NJ, where I played frequently as a youth and can remember the day they pulled out numerous bunkers. One hole where this happened is a short par-3 of 150 yards that had a deep bunker that hugged the right side. It protected the hole and also kept balls from bonding even further into trouble. What did the braintrust at the course do? They pulled the bunker further away from the green and with it the strategic qualities lessened. Did play speed up as a result? Not one second was gained.

The market cannot simply present a situations where upscale layouts provide appropriate "bells n' whistles" and the taxpayer owned facilities are just your basic "burger, shake and fries" layouts. Yes, there are tight budgets but I urge anyone to venture to Farmington, NM and see what can be done. Ken Dye's design at Pinon Hills is indeed a superb one and it still provides quality for a super price. When I hear people say it can't be done what they really mean is they can't do it -- but it can be done.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I hate to write in generalities, but the "I don't care" attitude of city workers has been known to sometimes override quality concerns.  Whether it is the overall attitude from above, budgets, or patronage jobs, every one over time that works maintenance would have to have the "superior public facility" mind meld installed in them.  It doesn't always happen, and features get taken out gradually because they are "too hard to maintain."  

On the plus side, I have seen numerous superintendents get more out of less budget on both public and private facilities than their counterparts elsewhere.  Sadly, most of these supers find bigger and better jobs, w/o employees unions, calls from city hall, etc.  I'm not sure which side of the supers fence is greener - clubs or cities.  I just know lots of them go into equipment sales at a relatively early age!

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I think you are going in the wrong direction.

A few miles from where I live there are two nine hole municipal courses which play about 2700 yards and cater to the beginner.  Students of golf architecture can learn a lot from playing these courses, including the fact that:

Most people can’t hit 200 yard drives.
It is very unusual to see anyone hit a green in regulation.
It is even more unusual to see a good bunker shot.
Forced carries are usually too intimidating.
Water hazards are terrifying.
It usually takes three putts to hole out, if not more.
The game is so inherently difficult that any thought of “strategy” rarely comes to mind.
People care most about affordability.
Pace of play is horrible.
Most people don’t have a clue about how to move quickly.
The skills and/or will to encourage faster play doesn't exist.
Breaking 100 any time soon is highly unlikely.

But, you can usually walk up and meet very nice people who, despite their lack of worldly exposure to golf architecture and their lack of skill, truly love the game.  These are the people the golf industry should be targeting, especially if you intend to employ taxpayer money and use precious land in metropolitan areas.

Better players are not the people we should be catering to, certainly not with taxpayer money.  Let the private sector handle that.

Would I like to see more munis the likes of a Bethpage Black?  Of course.  But, is this what the golf industry really needs and taxpayers should support?  I don’t think so.  We need more courses for beginners, not more “championship” layouts.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
Munis are a great marketplace in which strategic architecture can flourish. Didn't many architects of old talk about building courses that offer tests of the skills of all players? What better cross section of players to build for than at munis? How intelligent the designs would need to be to serve such a mix of players. Real thoughtful holes, less bells and whistles.
     Length would not need to be the driving force behind the design, lines of play would. All the tried and true devices of the "Golden Age" could be recycled for a whole new generation. An architect might have to soften it so maintenance can take place mainly in the riding position but that wouldn't necessarily mean dumbing it down.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

You're absolutely right Tim we need more -- McDonald's "burger, shake, fries" type courses. Let's have courses flat as the eye can see, no hazards and a big hole cut into the ground. Wonderful stuff. Only kidding.

You see the agenda as an "either or." I don't. Counties that I listed have achieved a multiple purpose that can serve a range of people and their widely varying skill levels. Just check out monmouthcountyparks.com.

I can name a range of others. Kudos to the State of Alabama for the RTJ Golf Trail. Alabama built a range of courses that are both exciting and affordable for the masses.

Tim, my love for golf, as well as others, didn't start from "dumb down" designs. It came from playing public courses, many in rag-tag shape, but still possessing a few holes of strategic quality. You mention the profile of the "average" public player and I say this -- plenty of these players want a challenge when playing. How do I know this? Check out the tee sheet at any successful upscale facility. The same type of player who frequents the munis you outlined are often at the upscale places too. The difference is they can't afford $100 plus green fees each and every time they tee it up.

As a taxpayer I think designs can be brought forward that can achieve a multiple agenda.

P.S. One last thing -- it amazes me that people actually blame the entire cause for slow play on the players. WRONG. It's management's responsibility -- when they delegate that function or have blind eyes you permit the inmates to run the asylum -- pure and simple!

Jeff B:

Agree with the factors you outlined. No doubt many people employed at that level simply punch the clock and figure a golf course is no different than your basic park. Clearly, the better ones usually leave fairly soon because of the BS politics that goes on.

I've played many taxpayer-owned facilities in the greater NYC metro area and can see what happens when a poor mindset is allowed to germinate. It infects everything.

But, I also believe there are many park facilities that do hire the right people and want the public's facilities to be shining testaments to what can be done. When people say it cannot be done -- what they're really saying is they can't do it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I'd agree with Lynn, I think an inherent conflict of interest exists between those responsible for the creation and utilization of public facilities, and the architectual design merits you seek.

I feel as he does that they are mutually exclusive of one another.

I think I can best address this on a new thread.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- Being a native Chicagoan I can understand  how anything municipal will completely deteriorate. It is a lack of centralized power that is different from a private enterprise which uses fear to instill into it's employees to perform, or else. Most city jobs are rife with patronage and with that comes security.
Even our beloved Pinon isn't immune to the infections of civl servants and politicians. Did you know the course lost money last year? I find it hard to believe unless there is waste.

The type of waste probably not seen at a place that is truely loved and cared for with diligence by it's caretakers.

[Mike O'Neill]

I can mention one step in the right direction, I believe. The City of Omaha allows the public courses to keep all revenue in the courses themselves. The golf courses basically live and die by and with and in and of themselves. That at least eliminates the possibility that other aspects of the park system will bleed any of that money away. And there is a certain fairness about the golf courses not taking more tax money than they can return. Seems ultimately fair. And within this scenario, there must be some planning for capital improvements or upgrades--irrigation, paving parking lots, etc. If the courses cannot sustain themselves in all of this, then one has to ask if the demand is there. In Omaha at least, there is significant demand.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Investing taxpayer's money, by it's very nature, is all about making tradeoffs.

If we are going to invest taxpayer's money, shouldn't we focus on the market segment least well served by the private sector, i.e., the entry level golfer?

Such a player has all the trouble they can handle at the driving range, so why do they need more than a "burger, shake and fries"?

Matt, I'm also curious how much experience you have improving the pace of play.  What is your track record?  How many golf courses have you ever changed the playing time at least 15 minutes?

Yes, "management" shares in the blame, but they don't exist in a vacuum.

Think about your experiences playing across the pond.  Whether it is Scotland, Ireland or England, the average player is far superior to the typical American when it comes to moving on a golf course.  They have a culture that insists on it.  They don't get hung up on their medal score.  They have far greater respect for other people on the golf course.

Unless we are going to suddenly import good Scotish or Irish manners, pace of play in the US will continue to be a problem.  "Management" isn't going to find the answer any time soon, so why make things worse by making golf courses too difficult for the beginning golfer?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

I'll say this again for those who don't believe it but solid managed and well designed taxpayer owned facilities do exist. Do yourself a big favor and see how successful the Alabama Golf Trail is. Good layouts and manageable prices for all.

I know from many trips to different locales where taxpayer-owned facilities does not mean automatically a politically connected haven of unqualified personnel running the store. In addition, these same locales have interesting layouts that span a spectrum of design merits that can accomodate all types of players.

Why this cannot be duplicated is simple -- people tolerate the nonsense or simply give up and go to other courses. I look at the work that's been done at all 90 holes at Bethpage and know that with sound management and efficient use of resources it can be done. And, no gentlemen, it's not just the Black Course -- check out the other courses and you can see what can be done with sustained vision and know how.

As far as slow play is concerned Tim I know from having observed courses throughout the country as a rater that many REALLY do something against slow play. Management owns the facility ... management sets the day-to-day philosophy and staff orientation and if they give that up either because of inertia, stupidity, whatever, that's their fault. The players are like cattle -- you steer them or they start to wander to whatever interests them or grabs their attention.

Tim -- I think you've not seen the types of courses I am speaking about. Go to Monmouth County or Morris County (NJ) and play one of their park courses and begin to do the six-hour crawl you find at a number of other taxpayer-owned facilities and you will be escorted off the course after fair warning has been given. They don't tolerate the nonsense -- period!

Tim -- if you think the players are going to get it by divine guidance you are sadly mistaken. Management at any facility that applies consistent policies and follow-ups can beat back slow play. There are courses in the USA that do it -- I don't have to go to another culture (Irish / Scottish) to find it. Also -- how demanding or less demanding a course plays is really a secondary consideration if at all. You can have fairways as wide as Kansas with no rough and if you permit players to drag their butts it will happen.

When you say taxpayer $$ are being used I hear you loud and clear, however, you can get taxpayer-owned facilities that have quality design and sustained maintenance efforts to keep them as such. For those who believe otherwise I urge you to visit any of the courses I have mentioned throughout this thread. They do exist and one doesn't have to "dumb down" courses in the process.

Pat M.

As someone who lives in NJ I urge you to visit what's happening with Monmouth, Morris and Somerset counties. Each of these three does what I have mentioned. The concepts I am talking about are not mutually exclusive. You can ask George Bahto that with what he's doing with The Knoll -- a course owned by the town of Parsippany as just another example that comes quickly to mind.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Matt,
Comparing large city munis to some of the County courses you mentioned is comparing bad apples to great oranges.  It has been my experience that County's have better run departments in general.
Have you seen the operating numbers of the Robert Trent Jones Trail?  The pension plan which funded it had mega bucks to invest and didn't need a return on their investment.

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn:

I live in the NY / NJ metro area -- a very large populated area with large sized counties. Is the Bethpage complex not big enough for the area it covers for Long Island?

Ditto -- the NJ counties I have mentioned. The counties I have mentioned (Morris, Monmouth and Somerset) are no less than 500,000 each in population and are good models for even larger cities to emulate. What I am saying is that with the proper vision, follow-through and yes, appropriate financial commitment, it can be done. How much larger do you need these successful "oranges" to be Lynn?

I am not naive Lynn to believe that political nonsense and inane actions do not continue to take place but the examples I provided show what can be done. I grew up in a large county where such things do happen. Yes, there are others in NJ (Essex and Bergen / both have over 800,000 people) where things are simply woeful given what other neighboring NJ counties are doing.

If you think I'm comparing apples to oranges I don't see it that way. I'm referring to large populated areas that have demonstrated in my eyes what you can accomplish -- good quality designs with strategic elements at a competitive price for the people they serve. What's amazing is that succesful large sized counties have shown that with better planning even counties such as Bergen and Essex could do the same -- in fact, Bergen is looking towards developing golf on former landiflls in the Meadowlands area!

As far as the Trail is concerned I'm sure Alabama didn't decide to simply throw valuable pension $$ into a situation that was going to be a sink-hole. I do not have detailed info on what their balance sheet reflects so if anyone can elaborate it would be most helpful. Given what I saw of the different courses throughout their network the operation looked to be running smoothly.

Taxpayer-owned facilities do not have to be empty layouts devoid of any real strategic merit.

[SBusch (Guest)]

My understanding of the RTJ Golf Trail is that they are a financial success only because of the economic impact they have on the state through out of state tourism.  As stand alone facilities, they are disasters, yet the state Employee Retirement Fund keeps pumping money into them on the theory that yankees who visit the course will also pay for hotels and restaurants and such, which will help the state economy as a whole.

In general, the municipal golf arena is not easily defined as apples and oranges, but more like apples, oranges, broccoli, wheat, and heating oil.  Differences in management, funding, bonding authority, political egos, borrowing rates, and local competition all have an effect on the overall product.  Comparing wealthy Monmouth County to NYC or other counties is insane.

At the end of the day, each municipal agency needs to decide what their agenda for golf is.  There's always a subsidy, but how much?  At Hominy, $60 is a steal since there is nothing else even close.  But would their constituents be better served by selling the course for $15 million and building 3 inexpensive courses where they could charge $35?  

This rolls into architecture:  is a municipal golfer served by topshot bunkers, fairway bunke

[SBusch (Guest)]

Oops, here's the rest:  

This rolls into architecture:  is a municipal golfer served by topshot bunkers, fairway bunkers and 10 ft deep greenside bunkers?  If you're trying to serve beginners, no.  If you have 5 other courses and have deep pockets, why not?  Bethpage Black exists only because there are 4 other courses to serve other needs.

[A_Clay_Man]

Alabama is an example of a state where if you do want to build a golf course, you will have little in your way as far government regulations. Which lowers cost (initially) but who knows what long term damage can be wrought without some guidelines.

[Matt_Ward]

SBusch:

My point was simple -- you can develop a multiple set of courses whereby different levels of playing skills can be handled. If you have issue with Monmouth County as an appropriate example I can provide others. Forsyth County in NC (Winston-Salem vicinity) does very well with the Tanglewood complex (I'm sure Scott B can comment since he plays there plenty of times).

You say Bethpage is an aberation -- check out Montauk Downs at the end of the Island. Still, a demanding track even though it has been partially dumbed down over the years. I would also submit that the Green, Red and Blue are worthy layouts as well at Bethpage ... lesser versions of the Black for sure but still very competitive and challenging.

Quality taxpayer-owned facilities do exist. When you mention about Hominy Hill I believe the residents of Monmouth prefer things as they are and are encouraging their reps to do even more ... witness the development of the 36-hole facility called Charleston Springs by Mark Mungeam. If they just wanted a big open field devoid of any hazards / strategy they would have gone in that direction. They have not ... ditto Morris and Somerset Counties. And, if you want counties with less income as examples tack on Union and Mercer in NJ.

[Tim_Weiman]

SBusch:

My impression is that Matt Ward is calling for taxpayer money to be spent developing more golf courses like Bethpage Black because he wants more municipal courses to "really test all level of players".

But, Matt fails to make the case why taxpayer money should be spent building ANY golf courses.  He fails to make the case why any taxpayer money spent on building golf courses SHOULD go to attract better players (what he really has in mind).  He fails to make the case why this kind of investment shouldn't be left to the private sector.

You ask whether a place like Hominy Hill should be sold off to a private operator with the proceeds devoted to developing three affordable golf courses for people learning the game.

That would be a great idea.

Sunday afternoon I went to play nine holes at a local muni which is reportedly the busiest course in Ohio.  By my count the course has only one hole of any real architectural merit, but go out there any afternoon and you will find the course provides all the challenge 95% of the players can handle.

Would your typical single digit handicap player be bored?  Yes, they would.  But, so what?  There are plenty of other places they can go.

Anyway, going off the back nine I was matched up with two fellows who apparently frequent the course on a regular basis as it is not far from a local auto plant where they make a living.  It turns out that they were quite upset that the city raised the weekend rates from $19 to $23 for 18 holes.

This is why I think Matt is off track calling for more Bethpage Black type courses.  Such courses really aren't needed for about 98% of the people playing the game and certainly don't merit the subsidy of precious taxpayer dollars.

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Interesting thread you started here.  It's obvious you don't buy into my 99% rule    The mini's in my area (last I checked) were in the $17 per round price range.  How much can you build/maintain for that price these days.  They also do probably 40,000 rounds a year and no one seems to be complaining.  Stick a bunker in the middle of one of the fairways and I'm afraid you'll have golfers screaming "bloody murder" vs. "now we have some interest and options in a tee shot".  

I grew up playing public golf on muni courses.  My goal was shoot my lowest score possible and win all my bets!!
Mark