...the Next Sand Hills?

[Don_Mahaffey]

You know if you build a really nice house and after a few years decide you want a different counter top in the kitchen or you want new bathroom fixtures then great. But if right after moving in you realize the doors are stuck and will not open, the plumbing leaks, and if you turn on more then one appliance in the kitchen the main breaker to the house trips, well those repairs are not upgrades or improvements. And just because a certain well known structure might have had electrical problems in 1915 doesn't make it right if a new building has the same problem in 2011.

We're talking about two different issues here. There is a difference between getting it right and making it better.

And with the training, experience, technology, historical examples and resources made available to modern designers and builders its just down right poor work if they have to return to a project in the first few years to repair mistakes made the first time around. That is not evolution or some romantic notion about tweaking until they get it right. Its malpractice. 

[JC Jones]

Don,

Can you give us an example of a course that was completely unmaintainable or unsustainable in the form it was designed?  Not just one where the client wanted a bold course, hired a designer with a reputation, got a bold course but then got cold feet because the magazine critics came to town and didn't like it?

I agree that just because a well known house had electrical problems in 1915 doesnt make it ok for one to have one today.  But that's not what you and others were saying, you said the electrical problems never existed.

Golden Age guys were celebrated for their boldness, their risk taking and their wild greens.  Sometimes things didn't work, lots of times they did.  The things that didn't were changed and we have the masterpieces that are there today.  It's a shame that because of technology the same isn't allowed today.

[Don_Mahaffey]

JC,
Sure, first I need to know your definition of completely unmaintainable and unsustainable.

Even in my house example you could always walk around the door that will not open or not use that room, or choose to use a minimum amount of electricity so as not to pop the breaker.
Living with it isn't an excuse.

There are many examples and I'm glad to share them off line but some will hit a little to close to home for a few here.

Edit. I said early builders never had problems??? Where did I say that? I don't know that I've ever even entered that arena in any of my posts. I don't spend all my time studying old courses and their evolution like so many here. I do believe modern builders and designers have an obligation to get the fundamentals right. No amount of bringing up examples from a century ago will change my belief.

[JC Jones]

Shoot me a PM.  Let's keep our mud wrestling to ourselves!!  I don't want The Nose to get jealous.

[Tim Nugent]

I found this to be an interesting thread. From the inside, looking out, I have wrestled with this delemma.  Here's the way I see it.
My goal is to "get it exactly how I want it -thefirst time".  However, I suspect I am not alone in being a perfectionist.  The rub for most architects is that they do not control the purse strings.  The owner typically hires a contractor for a fixed fee and the acrhitect has to work as an outsider to that arrangement.  If he is a big enough name and the contractor sees him as a person to keep happy in order to ge future, he will do re-work during the course of construction (to an extent) as a cost of doing business. THis is because he knows that if he constantly goes back to the owner for compensation for all those "tweeks", the owner will look unfavorably on the architect and the architect will let it be know that the contractor is hard to work with and is a "change order specialist".
So, the best way to avoid that is for the architect to spend as much time as possible "on-site".  However, in the recent past of the go-go development, many Marquee designers that didn't have their own construction personnel on-site, had to rely on the contractor because he had serveral projects in construction along with several more in planning and could only allocate a couple days a month to being "on-site".
I totally believeit whenTD stated that he would assume most all the tweeks would be done pre-opening because his MO allows for it to happen, as does C&C's.
Before I jumped to hard on DMK, I would ask how many days a week he was on site. And if it wasn't an aweful lot, then why didn't the owner demand (and pay) for it?  When I saw it under construction, I saw what appeared to be many redundancies in the shaping.  Almost as if what happens when an architects comments favorably on a feature and the shapers keeps repeating it thinking he's doing what the architect wanted.  Now, if he was there everyday, the spectrum changes.
Also, I find it intersesting that people here are alluding to the "severity" as a bad thing.  Sure he could have played it safe and done something routine but he chose (or was asked to) push the envelope.  Who knows, maybe he read GCA and fgured the path to success was to have fun/wild greens.
I suspect the hardest thing for an srchitect is getting the balance just right because many times, the choice of grass along with the maintenance practices are out of his control.  Those "Wild" greens at ANGC weren't so wild when they were rolling 8 vs 12.

Finally, remember that the more manufactured a site is the farther the architect has to evolve the design.  On the great sites, the architect only has to go from A to maybe C or D.  On more mundane site or site inherent with many restrictions, that may be more along the line of A to M or (say in the case of Shadow Creek) Z.
It is not unreasonable to expect that the greater the transformation of the site, the harder it is to 'get it perfect' the first time.  Sometimes, even for an architect, it is hard to get all the way to Z or even realize what Z could be without first stopping off at M.

[John Kirk]

This thread is a bit off the topic.  wrt changes, every golf course has strengths and every course has weaknesses.  I've seen most of the greats and have never seen one with 18 perfect or even 18 spectacular holes.  Not one.  Every course makes changes, including the greats, some of which have been mentioned here.   How many great holes, for example, does Cypress Point have?  Augusta?  Pine Valley?  Bandon?  Pacific?  Don't like radical greens?  Better pan Augusta.  Have they all made substantial changes?  Yep.  Did all (or any) of these get it wrong the first time - I don't think so - they just saw opportunity to make it better.  

We seem to judge unequally here and bias is hard wired in most of us.  #2 at Sand Hills itself is a perfect example.  A very challenging drive and a mind bending green complex on the #1 modern golf course?  I like the hole a bunch but it certainly fits "extreme", it will kick your fanny, and par is a very good score.  There is a story that a poobah from the USGA thought it so poor he wrote and strongly suggested it be changed for its severity.  The story further goes that they wrote back and suggested the poobah not bother to return. Sand Hills doesn't apologize for its eccentricities. Why should they?  Did they make changes?  You bet they did.  Did they get it right the first time?  Not if the prevailing litmus test is predicated upon changes if they made em.  Every improvement they made is just that, an improvement.  I wouldn't trade my membership there even up for any other club I've played on the planet.

Funny thing is, from another angle, there are several great courses that have been restored to their original "then radical" form, even though prevailing wisdom at the time dictated the changes were much needed.  

Like art, the beauty of Architecture is the divergence of opinion.  As long as the opinion is applied consistently, who can argue?  If it isn't applied consistently, the question is simply, why?  

I follow a simple axiom...A good course is a good course when its a good course.  Why can't we just celebrate good golf?

A terrific post.

Hi Gene,

Golf course evaluation is not a cold, mechanistic science.  The opposite is true.  A wide variety of information is processed, and a general impression is formed.  The course that makes you happiest, the one that makes you say "Wow!" the most times, is the best course.

What makes music from 50 years ago better than music today are the inherent flaws.  Today's modern recording techniques and attention to perfect presentation have taken all of the imperfections out of the music, robbing it of its soul.  Humans are imperfect, and the right imperfections can raise one's impression of art like golf courses or pop songs into special territory.

I once wrote that if Ballyneal has an imperfection, it is that it is too perfect, that the connection between the quality of the shot and the shot result were too highly correlated.  So you know, I still think it may be the best golf course I've ever played.

I've played Crystal Downs three times.  The greens are too sloped for modern speeds in many places.  The first time I played it, I spent the whole evening yelling "Overrated!" at any friend who seemed willing to defend it.  The second time I thought, "Gee, not bad, better than I thought."  The third time I played it, I felt like I was playing golf in heaven.  If there's anything that's underrated in golf, it's the back nine at Crystal Downs.  Quirky and beautiful and imperfect as it is.

(the back nine at Kingsley, in that neck of the woods, is another highly underrated feature)

Imperfection may be essential for greatness.

[Jud_T]

Imperfection may be essential for greatness.

It's the quality we can empathize with.  Perfection can be admired like a gaudy shiny perfectly formed cubic zirconia.  Great artists are human and therefore are imperfect.  Something that cannot be captured by auto-tune or a CAD drawing in an email...

[Tom_Doak]

You all can argue about this subject all you want in your ivory tower.  In the real world, you're crazy. 

Do you think Mr. Nicklaus TOLD the developer of Dove Mountain that he was going to build a bunch of wild greens and he might need to come back and modify many of them a year or two later, and the developer was fine with that?  Do you think David Kidd told the Links Trust he was going to push the envelope and they should budget a significant amount for modifications in Year 2?

Do you think any of you would get a lot of work if you took that approach?

No one is perfect, and it's exceedingly rare that someone builds a course that doesn't require any modification for years after it opens.  [We've managed to do it a couple of times, so I appreciate how rare it is.]  And, of course, all design is subjective, so sometimes an architect has to come in and "fix" things that he doesn't really believe are broken -- but the client or the members do.  But as a business plan, if you are not trying to get it right the first time, what the hell ARE you doing?  Experimenting with other people's money?  Nice work if you can get it.

[Mike Hendren]

Never mistake  marketing for professional opinion.  

How is this any different from the architect's mantra - "This is the best site that I have ever had the privilege to work with."

Go back and look at the statements the design team for Erin Hills made prior to its opening for the best example I can think of.

Buzz can be a good thing when you have the talent to back it up.  As a wise man once said, "It ain't over til it's over."

Bogey

[paul cowley]

I tend to agree with Tim N and Tom D, but will add that there is probably a direct correlation in that the more time spent on site during construction equals less time spent post....and if you can't be there, then you are only as good as those associates under you.

I think much of the re do efforts with the major firms is largely because they CAN demand the time and money to fix the work their associates did...largely in the principals absence.

I've always learned more from my mistakes than my successes, but I try hard to make sure these mistakes are not readily apparent to the masses.

[Chris Johnston]

Never mistake the beginning with the end.  A whole lot can happen in between.

[JC Jones]

You all can argue about this subject all you want in your ivory tower.  In the real world, you're crazy. 

Do you think Mr. Nicklaus TOLD the developer of Dove Mountain that he was going to build a bunch of wild greens and he might need to come back and modify many of them a year or two later, and the developer was fine with that?  Do you think David Kidd told the Links Trust he was going to push the envelope and they should budget a significant amount for modifications in Year 2?

Do you think any of you would get a lot of work if you took that approach?

No one is perfect, and it's exceedingly rare that someone builds a course that doesn't require any modification for years after it opens.  [We've managed to do it a couple of times, so I appreciate how rare it is.]  And, of course, all design is subjective, so sometimes an architect has to come in and "fix" things that he doesn't really believe are broken -- but the client or the members do.  But as a business plan, if you are not trying to get it right the first time, what the hell ARE you doing?  Experimenting with other people's money?  Nice work if you can get it.

This is a great post, Tom.  I doubt any of the architects you mentioned DIDN'T try to get it right the first time and I, too, wonder how much "needed" to be fixed vs how much the client or the members thought should be fixed at some of the courses mentioned.

Taking your first paragraph last, however, doesn't the client know who they are hiring?  If David Kidd has a reputation for pushing the envelope is it on him or the person who hired him if they don't like it when he is done?  (By the way, this question is directed towards anyone)

[Don_Mahaffey]

Never mistake the beginning with the end.  A whole lot can happen in between.

Well, that does seem to be the best business model. Be the guy at the end and make sure someone else pays for the beginning and the middle.
Wouldn't it be nice to find people in golf who could make the first guy successful? I might live in an ivory tower but I think we are too quick to chalk it all up to "they tried hard".

[Mike_Young]

what has always amazed me is when a signature comes back to rework the greens or any other major feature after a year or two....it is acceptable....it a regional guy was to have the same problem....he would most likely be replaced by another .....

[Garland Bayley]

This is a great post, Tom.  I doubt any of the architects you mentioned DIDN'T try to get it right the first time and I, too, wonder how much "needed" to be fixed vs how much the client or the members thought should be fixed at some of the courses mentioned.

Taking your first paragraph last, however, doesn't the client know who they are hiring?  If David Kidd has a reputation for pushing the envelope is it on him or the person who hired him if they don't like it when he is done?  (By the way, this question is directed towards anyone)

First, I would note that in the examples you have been citing at Pine Valley and at NGLA the client hired himself.

Second, I don't think David Kidd had a reputation for pushing the envelope before his work at St. Andrews and at Bend, OR.

[Chris Johnston]

Don:

Yep.  My comment was about golf courses, evolution, and improvements.  It is widely known that Dismal River had a rough start for several reasons and we are well past blaming anyone.  We don't hide from it, we use it to improve, and we have.  Today, I would stack us up with very best of courses and experiences in the game.   It matured, it improved, it evolved.  It's pretty cool.  We bought Dismal River to save it, to build it.  Most would much rather have a great golf course that can be improved than one with a crushing debt load and balance sheet that can't be improved...unless, that is, a new owner arrives.

Now, to your other point...I'm one of those "third" guys you just disparaged.  I'll take the bait..please allow me a response.

We didn't wait around for anything to fail but, we do look for opportunity.  There is an axiom in golf that the third owner usually can make something work - not an absolute but it certainly has precedent.  Thats what we do, we make things work.  Debt is a cancer and the business is risky - always has been.  It ain't for the naive, faint of heart, the inexperienced or arrogant.  Hope is not a strategy and most "first guys" (and their courses) that fail do so due to fawning, ego, and debt.  Ratings don't pay the bills, my friend and getting "it" right the first time doesn't much matter if IT isn't financially sustainable. 

Find people who can "make" the first guy successful?  Really?  Good luck with that, my friend. I know alot of people that many of those "first guys" stuck with the bill when the club failed.  Most took risk with their eyes wide open and other people's money and/or leveraged up WAY TOO MUCH. Timing didn't help but everone doesn't get a trophy in real life, not every golf course is a masterpiece the day it opens, and the ones who eventually get things right are just as good, if not better, than those who stand pat.  The Accenture course today has a new owner and I'm glad the place has a new lease on life.  It doesn't matter if I like the course or the old owner.

To a player, golf is a game, a wonderful mistress.  To many here, GCA is a place to share views on architecture and love for the game.  To the owner (ahhh, yes, the owner) golf is a business.  For him, it is tough, difficult, full of love, compromise, friendship, risk, passion, and pain.  Same thing for the architect.

Would you prefer every "first guy" just close the doors when he can't carry on?  They knew the risks, and they knew the butchers bill always comes due.  There will be winners and losers, and winners yet again.  The winners aren't villans and they will be easy to spot - they will have happy members and a vibrant club.  They are quite good for the game.  I have said it before and say it again, these days, most would rather be members of a vibrant club without a large sum tied up for 30 years to a debt ladened and financially unstable club.  Who really wants that?

I root for, and will help, anyone in this business.  If someone has trouble or fails, and if it is a good opportunity, we may have a look.  We never cause their problems or force hands.  It's our money, our decision, and our risk. 

They don't give medals for lost equity nor for place in line, my friend.  No one is assured of or entitled to success, those that innovate, work together, and evolve, just may. 

[Chris Johnston]

what has always amazed me is when a signature comes back to rework the greens or any other major feature after a year or two....it is acceptable....it a regional guy was to have the same problem....he would most likely be replaced by another .....

Mike

Any owner who would abandon his architect due to need for improvements isn't a very good partner in the process.  The architect deserves better.

[Sean_A]

This is a wild thread.  I don't understand why its okay to plan to fail on the first attempt.  There is no way I would be planning for my course to make engineering or artistic changes in years 2 and on.  On the other hand, failure needs to be defined.  If its an engineering problem (bunkers flood, sprinkler system doesn't work etc) then sure - its a failure that is inexcusable.  If its an artist issue which makes the course too extreme, it is entirely possible that the archie did everytrhing he said he was going to and the client agreed.  In this instance, the failure is on everybody's part for not reading the clientele properly.  Jeepers, sometimes this very failure could be an artist triumph with another set of folks.  Consequently, in these sorts of situations I can see where changes are okay, not ideal by a long shot, but okay.  And it doesn't matter to me if alterations happen over 1 or 20 years, the issues don't change.  What does change are the perceptions people have about archies.  Before passing judgement on an archie (rather than the course) it is best to know specifics about the project in question, but its much easier to point fingers and assign blame than to actually discover the back story.   

Ciao

[Don_Mahaffey]

Chris,
I did not disparage you. Read it again. That is unfair of you.
My post was not personal to you as I do not know you, anymore then I know the guys who were at DR before you. I wish you luck, but I also feel a bit of sympathy for the guys who had the dream and lost. We in golf are way to quick to blame all these large macro factors for failure when often time the reasons are right in front of us. Being practical, controlling costs, and expecting the professionals you hire to protect your investment is a good place to start.

I do think the norm is golf courses cost to much to develop and although there are many reasons for that, architects share the blame in some cases. If you love the business and the guys in it the you also should hope that some of the first guys make it.

[Michael Dugger]

Wow, what a wild turn this thread has taken.

I thought Don M. laid out a pretty concise argument.  I'm baffled by Chris J.'s response, to be honest.  Nowhere did Don say there was something wrong with you, as third owner, putting money into a remodel of Dismal River

But what Don is saying is if more architects got it right "the first time" then perhaps there wouldn't be quite so much need for the "third owner."

I can't help but wonder, if you are the first owner, Chris, would you be pleased if you had to pay an architect to come back and fix things they didn't get right the first time? 

[Terry Lavin]

I'll offer my contribution in the spirit of thread "redirection".

Based on the recent developments in the economy and the golf development business, I think it is rather foolhardy to suggest that there is another Sand Hills in the offing.  Sand Hills and its ilk (Alotian Club) are driven by a singleminded individual of enormous means and/or contacts and I just can't see somebody coming up with a competing business model in the near future.  Those who attempted in recent years to duplicate his success (Dismal, Ballyneal, Prairie Club, Dormie Club) have struggled to some extent, for various reasons that have been widely discussed, but I think there aren't really any other Dick Youngscaps out there who want to try for this model.  Youngscap, in fact, has been widely quoted as saying there will never even be another 18 hole course at Sand Hills and he could build five on that property.  It seems like Ballyneal, Dismal and Prairie Club are all in good hands and I hope they continue to make a go of it, but I don't have the vision to see if there's going to be another attempt to mimic the success, architecturally and otherwise, at Sand Hills.

[Sean Leary]

I've known about the site for about three years and seen some pictures of the property. Have not been there. That's all I can say.

Is the site similar to Sagebrush at all?  I heard about this project a while ago. I think there was supposed to be two courses....

[Tom_Doak]

Based on the recent developments in the economy and the golf development business, I think it is rather foolhardy to suggest that there is another Sand Hills in the offing.  Sand Hills and its ilk (Alotian Club) are driven by a singleminded individual of enormous means and/or contacts and I just can't see somebody coming up with a competing business model in the near future.  Those who attempted in recent years to duplicate his success (Dismal, Ballyneal, Prairie Club, Dormie Club) have struggled to some extent, for various reasons that have been widely discussed, but I think there aren't really any other Dick Youngscaps out there who want to try for this model.  Youngscap, in fact, has been widely quoted as saying there will never even be another 18 hole course at Sand Hills and he could build five on that property.  It seems like Ballyneal, Dismal and Prairie Club are all in good hands and I hope they continue to make a go of it, but I don't have the vision to see if there's going to be another attempt to mimic the success, architecturally and otherwise, at Sand Hills.

Terry:

Gee, I hope you're wrong.  And I think you are, because I still get calls from people who want to create something special.  Not as many as before, and they are certainly chastened by the current state of the golf business; but there are still people with vision and enough money to see that vision through.  Hopefully some of them will have as much business sense as Mr. Youngscap does.

[Terry Lavin]

Heck, I hope I'm wrong, too.  Youngscap (on the private side) and Keiser (on the large resort side) have the distinct advantage of being to the market well before the others that I've mentioned.  I'm sure that there are persons of enormous wealth who may attempt to fully subsidize a rich man's folly of a private club (like the Alotian), but I don't think there's another Mike Keiser on the immediate horizon.

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe the next Sand Hills can be built and enjoyed by its membership.  I just don't think living in a world where everyone is a critic and has a voice that can be heard you will ever arrive at the universal acclaim that was once possible.  I don't even know why anyone would want to make a sacrifice of time and or resources to be a member at a club that fits all sizes, shapes and types of people.  Universal acclaim strives for this false achievement.