[Mike Cirba]

Two questions;

1) What, if anything can be learned from this whole process on what worked and what didn't work from soup to nuts in the renovation project at Papago?

2) If a person were looking for a cheap game of golf on an interesting architectural course during a single day in Scottsdale/Phoenix, would Papago still be a good choice?   Why or why not?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

[Bill_McBride]

Two questions;

1) What, if anything can be learned from this whole process on what worked and what didn't work from soup to nuts in the renovation project at Papago?

2) If a person were looking for a cheap game of golf on an interesting architectural course during a single day in Scottsdale/Phoenix, would Papago still be a good choice?   Why or why not?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

As long as you're not looking for a sandwich and beer after golf I hear the course is okay.  They tore down the old clubhouse and can't afford to build a new one!

[Tom Yost]

Two questions;

1) What, if anything can be learned from this whole process on what worked and what didn't work from soup to nuts in the renovation project at Papago?

2) If a person were looking for a cheap game of golf on an interesting architectural course during a single day in Scottsdale/Phoenix, would Papago still be a good choice?   Why or why not?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

While I have to believe that some of the problems can be attributed to the economic downturn, I do think that the numbers in the AGA proposal were unrealistic.

To try and charge upscale daily fee rates to raise funds for improvements that might transform the property into an upscale facility is a chicken/egg proposition.

If there is a lesson to be learned, it might be that municipalities should consider awarding contracts only to experienced and successful golf course management firms.

I am pleased to see the needed renovations completed to the tees, greens, fairways and bunkers.  I am disappointed that the scruffy periphery remains.  I also think there should be a lot more tree clearing done.  I'm also not fond of the US Open style "maintenance meld" that seems to remain from the pre-reno days...  narrow fairways and rough surrounding the greens.   I would prefer to see it opened up a lot more.

We should also be clear that the work done was not a restoration. 

Whether Papago offers any worthy architectural merit, I don't know.  It is a nice lay of the land course that makes good use of the movement of the property and is an enjoyable walk.   I would not hesitate to recommend it as long as you don't have to pay more than $50.

Mike - as before, if your hypothetical single day in the Phoenix area becomes reality, I would very much enjoy meeting you for a round of golf!

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Yost,

Thanks for the excellent information.

I will let you know as plans firm, but right now the morning of the last Saturday in March looks distinctly possible.

I'm sure I would enjoy a round with you!

[Matthew Petersen]

I can't comment with too much authority, since I haven't played the "new" course. But much of that is due to the cost of a round there which is now out of line given what other, presumably similar, courses in my area cost. And that may be the first, biggest lesson to take away--demand needs to drive your price. Also, of course, the amenities are something that need to be addressed before opening. I haven't seen any major criticisms of what was done with the course work, it's everything else that has been an issue.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Prime season non twilight rates on their website are discounted to $70   weekdays and $76 weekends.

[Tim Nugent]

Wow, that's too bad. In my ASU days you could do 18 and get a beer for under $20.  Although I did bend the shafts on my Pro Staff iron by hitting down on those common fairways and the water features looked like they belonged down the street at the Phx zoo.

[Mike Cirba]

Guys,

I think maintaining affordability is a huge lesson I'm learning here.

Are restoration and inexpensive golf mutually exclusive terms?

[Tim Nugent]

Mutually exclusive? no, I don't think so.  But (and this is a big but) one has to step back and be realistic as to just what amount of incremental increase to the  "bottom-line" will result from any reworking (redisgn, renovation, restoration) of a course.  This requires assumptions be made and that's where things can go south. 

I have not seen the Papago work so I'm just speculating.  What they had was a once 100 course that was a worn out muni.  Someone came up with the idea that, if they fixed her up, they would return to that promenant level and hence, be able to charge what other top-tier Valley of the Sun courses can.  The flaw in this aurgument was that was then, this is now.  Since it's glory years, many fine courses have been built.  The Valley has expanded into the more interesting and visually stimulating terrain of the foothills. Papago is no longer the Big Fish in a little pool but the opposite.  And over the years, it's client base has shifted to the local, value conscious player from the out-of-town-tourist player.

The business plan didn't account for what would happen if the higher prices forced away the bread & butter customer but the high end guy didn't come to replace him.  Or if it did, what was the ratio of 'low-dollar' leaving vs. "high-dollar" aquiring?  Clubs go through this all the time when deciding upon capital projects.  They know that they willlose some members due to the financial burden but, if they can get new members to replace them (and finacially better-off),  then it's a winner.

[Tom Yost]

I also have to think the Torrey Pines / Bethpage Black fee models were considered.  Obviously the extent of renovation and the public visibility is much greater with those courses than with Papago.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, Oh,I'm sure they were the poster boys. but that's what happens when you look at things out of context.  And note that those also have additional courses to help with revenue and offer a cheaper alternative - Just like Cog Hill in Chicago.  To bad they didn't pay attention to what ahppened in San Fran.  Sad thing, it's happening again in New Orleans and New York right now.

For a long time, the cost of a ski lift ticket and a round of golf at a resort/HEDF, were about the same. but in the 90's they diverged, skiing moved at the pace of inflation and golf rates grew faster.  So, when resort/HEDF once again revert back to the mean, they should be charging $65-$75.

The problem I saw (from the inside looking out) was the old guard (mom & pop) charged a premium to the muni level - bottom-up pricing.  When management companies came in with their Country Club for a Day philosophy, they approached pricing from the top-down. ie. if it cost, say, $5000/yr to belong to a club, that's $200/rnd for 25 rnds/yr.  Therefore, they justified charging in that neighborhood.  This was good and fine as it was an alternative for those who couldn't play enough to justify a memebership but still wanted the experience 8-12 times/yr.  the only problem, they over supplied a relatively small market.

When I look around, the courses I see doing well are the ones who are , as Robert Bruce Harris used to say, catering to the masses, not the classes.  That segment of the demographic pyrimid is much broader than the top 10%.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
I think what was done at Commonground for the Colorado Golf association is worth a look as you study affordable course renovations.

[Matthew Petersen]

Mike,
I think what was done at Commonground for the Colorado Golf association is worth a look as you study affordable course renovations.

While this seems to be a good example of doing it the right way, it's important to note that there is a difference between a privately-owned facility (CGA) versus a publicly owned one such as Papago (owned by the City of Phoenix).

From the first stages of the Papago restoration project, there was a lot of complaint about public money being used in this "frivolous" way. I am not familiar with all the details, but I have to believe that the city made compromises in the name of appeasing some of those people who didn't like this idea. But the bigger factor--and this would hold true, if to a lesser extent, for private groups, as well--the economy turned after the project was under way. Phoenix and Arizona in general are dead broke right now and this doesn't help from either the financing side of things or the ability to bring in players to the course.

[Mike Cirba]

Thanks for all of the information, fellows....I think this type of discussion is a very good one as we all struggle to determine what business models make sense today and in the near term. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mike,

The definition of "affordability" varies from city to city and even within a city. For example, during my current stay in AZ, I recently played the newest Phoenix muni for under $40 weekday that is a quality course- Aguila designed by Gary Panks. If you'd compare and contrast Aguila with Papago,it would be hard to figure the price differential.

 http://phoenix.gov/sports/aguila.html

[Matthew Petersen]

Mike,

The definition of "affordability" varies from city to city and even within a city. For example, during my current stay in AZ, I recently played the newest Phoenix muni for under $40 weekday that is a quality course- Aguila designed by Gary Panks. If you'd compare and contrast Aguila with Papago,it would be hard to figure the price differential.

 http://phoenix.gov/sports/aguila.html

This is one of the issues with the management deal they have for the new Papago.

Aguila is the furthest city of Phoenix course from me (I live right near the Cave Creek course in the north part of the city) but I'm happy to drive down there for a round anytime. It's a wonderful course. And yet, it costs me no more to play there than it does to play cave Creek, which is lousy at best, or the very disappointing Maryvale or Encanto courses.

Again, I haven't been to the "new" Papago, but I have a hard time believing I would prefer it to Aguila. At the very least, one would have to say those two are the elite of the muni properties and if there's going to be a pricing structure, they both should be a bit higher (in respect to CC, Encanto, and Maryvale anyway).

[Forrest Richardson]

What s shame. Nothing is better as I can tell. The course did a mere 41,000 rounds in 2009, which is about half of what it did in its heyday. The lesson to be learned is that golf is both design, passion and business. Papago had, as far as I can tell, not much of any of these as it went through its gyrations.

[Tim Nugent]

Forrest, can you post some pics?

Tim

[Tom Yost]

Mike Cirba - Enjoyed our round at Papago during your March visit.  Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the course.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Cirba - Enjoyed our round at Papago during your March visit.  Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the course.

Tom, we played there with Forrest and Steve and some other guys before the restoration.

Now you have played after.

Not to put you on the spot, but do you think the city's taxpayers and/or golfers got their money's worth?   

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Bill,

I've played there after the "restoration" but could not make the date with Tom & Mike . The course presents much better and cleaner. Most of the money went for a new maintenance building, irrigation and a new cart fleet. The demolition of the club house was a big mistake.

I don't know how much money went into the course so it's hard to determine if the taxpayers got value. I do like the "new" Papago.

Aguila is a very good course with a lower price point as Matt Peterson and I  mentioned above.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I've played there after the "restoration" but could not make the date with Tom & Mike . The course presents much better and cleaner. Most of the money went for a new maintenance building, irrigation and a new cart fleet. The demolition of the club house was a big mistake.

I don't know how much money went into the course so it's hard to determine if the taxpayers got value. I do like the "new" Papago.

Aguila is a very good course with a lower price point as Matt Peterson points out above.

I kinda liked that "scruffy" look before!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Bill,

It may get "scruffy" again as the city has major budget problems and there is an ongoing problem with the current management company.

I'll try to find my pictures and will post them later.

[Tom Yost]

Did the taxpayers get their money's worth?  I don't know how much was spent or how much was taxpayer funded.  I do know that the original press releases announced a $9.75M figure that was to be funded by "Industrial Development Authority Bonds."  Not sure how that works, but my understanding is that would be a loan to be paid back.

Here is what was done (based on my observation):
- Turf renovation - tees, fairways and greens
- New irrigation system
- Bunker renovation + new bunkers
- Lagoon renovation
- Lots of tree and brush removal
- New trees
- Practice area renovation
- Some new cart paths
- A new halfway house/restroom
- New maintenance building
- New cart fleet
- Demolition of the old clubhouse.

How much that cost, I have no idea.  It is plainly apparent that they ran out of money.  The tees, fairways, greens and bunkers are in wonderful shape.  Greens of course will need a few years of topdressing to smooth out I think.  Tree removal has opened up the views on many holes.  The periphery remains "scruffy" however, and much further tree work is needed and the roughs and native areas need attention.   

I don't know if it was in the plans to complete the cart paths and some may think it better without cart paths, but I think on a muni that gets lots of rounds, they risk compaction of that turf that all that money was spent to renovate.  Many of the beat down dirt paths remain adjacent to the tees that didn't get new cart paths, and these bare spots will expand as time goes on.

The clubhouse remains a double-wide trailer.  Not a big deal to me, but I do think, along with the still scruffy periphery, it impedes the plans to charge $125 to the out-of-town visitors.  I was disappointed that they couldn't save the old building, a funky, "mid-century modern" design. 

I still think it is a wonderful course in much better shape than before and a delight to play.  I hope they get things squared away.

 

[Matthew Petersen]

There have been some interesting articles in the local paper about paying golf courses to use less water. This isn't an issue for Papago since as a city-run facility, the city is already in control, but it could presumably lead to other courses facing some of the challenges that hurt Papago in the first place.

Meanwhile, the above-mentioned Aguila is currently celebrating it's 10th anniversary with $10 greens fees.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()