Commonground - A promising future for golf

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

I had a chance to stop by and see Commonground on Thursday morning.  I left truly impressed by what I saw...

http://www.commongroundgc.com/

Relatively flat piece of property, former site of another golf course, now an interesting strategic course that can host state/national competitions.
Par 3 kids course where an adult has to be accompanied by a child and it costs $5
$40-$50 greens fee
9 hole rates available
Tee times start at 6am
Great practice areas including a grass range, short game area and a beautiful putting green
10 minutes from downtown Denver
Municipally owned, open to all

A number of cites should look at this model assuming the financial performance of the property looks good as well.  I always thought it would be possible to build an interesting golf course on a flat piece of property with good bunkering and a great set of greens.  Commonground should be exhibit A.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoffrey:

I do think that course is a fine model for others, but there were some factors that would be hard to replicate elsewhere:

(1)  It is not owned municipally, but by the Colorado Golf Associations (men's and women's).  As such, there was a lot less red tape than for a real muni, and instead of bureaucrats we were dealing with people whose #1 priority was GOLF.

(2)  They got the land for nothing from the Air Force Base.

(3)  They took ten years to put the deal together, saving their pennies from handicap fees so that they didn't have to borrow to build it.

It was a great project and one that my whole crew was proud to be a part of.  And they seem to be doing quite well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - your citing of the role of the Colorado Golf Association brought to mind something similar in my neck of the woods. Yeah, really. It was back in the 1970s, when the Royal Canadian Golf Association got Jack Nicklaus to build Glen Abbey as the permanent home of our national championship, and for a long time any regular joe or jane public could play it for just about $200 bucks! 



Ah, the RCGA, it makes a guy proud -- all of the elitism of the R&A but with none of the venues...all of the snobbishness of an R&A member but with none of the noblesse oblige.

Ah,still got that blue collar chip on my shoulder I guess.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - your citing of the role of the Colorado Golf Association brought to mind something similar in my neck of the woods. Yeah, really. It was back in the 1970s, when the Royal Canadian Golf Association got Jack Nicklaus to build Glen Abbey as the permanent home of our national championship, and for a long time any regular joe or jane public could play it for just about $200 bucks! 



Ah, the RCGA, it makes a guy proud -- all of the elitism of the R&A but with none of the venues...all of the snobbishness of an R&A member but with none of the noblesse oblige.

Ah,still got that blue collar chip on my shoulder I guess.

Peter

Peter:

It's not just in Canada.  In the USA there are a lot of municipalities and a few state golf associations that have gone down the same road, putting their egos in front of their ideals, and setting their goal as building a course which could command top-dollar green fees.

The CGA actually thought about going that route ten years ago, but they would have had to borrow money to do it, and decided not to.  Their mission statement was to take a $40 golf course and spend the $4 million they'd saved to make it the best $40 golf course possible.  I have not found many clients like that.

[Jim Colton]

I toured Common back in May and thought to myself, somebody with deep pockets should give Doak and Renaissance a huge grant to do this at muni's and other public courses around the country. Imagine the long-run benefits to the game of having quality, affordable golf available to the masses and a great junior program as well. A great success story.

[Peter Pallotta]

I wonder if you're not being too generous/kind, Tom, in suggesting a struggle between ego and ideals with most of these ruling bodies. I'm not so sure there are/were a lot of ideals out there, not that I could see at least (i.e.see actually manifested, literally on the ground).  In the case of governing bodies aiming to foster an affordable/welcoming game and quality architecture, the proof is definitely not in the pudding. But I think/hope that such ideals are starting to form/gain momentum bit by bit...with Colorado helping to lead the way.

Peter   

[John Mayhugh]

Ah, the RCGA, it makes a guy proud -- all of the elitism of the R&A but with none of the venues...all of the snobbishness of an R&A member but with none of the noblesse oblige.

Peter,
How many R&A members do you know?  I've only met a few, but didn't find them elitist or snobbish.

[Tony_Chapman]

I see on the Commonground website that they are the "supporting" course for the 2012 Amateur at Cherry Hills. Does that mean it is the second qualifying course? I would assume so, but thought I'd ask.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its a nice course, but are we really postulating that literally hundreds of other cities haven't done nearly the same thing?

There is a history in the US dating back to Van Cortlandt Park in NYC of building affordable, and generally self sustaining munis (providing construction cost is paid for)

[Tony_Chapman]

Its a nice course, but are we really postulating that literally hundreds of other cities haven't done nearly the same thing?

There is a history in the US dating back to Van Cortlandt Park in NYC of building affordable, and generally self sustaining munis (providing construction cost is paid for)

Jeff -- It's not a muni, is it? It's owned by the Colorado Golf Association. I wish the Nebraska Golf Association would hire you to do the same thing in Grand Island. 

[Doug Wright]

I see on the Commonground website that they are the "supporting" course for the 2012 Amateur at Cherry Hills. Does that mean it is the second qualifying course? I would assume so, but thought I'd ask.

Tony, that is correct. Colorado Golf Club was to be the second course along with Cherry Hills but its financial difficulties compelled the USGA to seek an alternative. I  expect CommonGround to yield a lot of mid 60s scores but I'm sure the pin placements will be challenging and the amateurs will have a lot of fun playing there.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Its a nice course, but are we really postulating that literally hundreds of other cities haven't done nearly the same thing?

There is a history in the US dating back to Van Cortlandt Park in NYC of building affordable, and generally self sustaining munis (providing construction cost is paid for)

Jeff,

I can only speak to the two areas I have lived in... Suburban Philly and NYC.  While it is true that both metropolitan areas have "affordable, self-sustaining golf courses", that is primarily due to the lack of options rather than the quality of the facility.  The one exception in NYC is Bethpage, but for someone who grew up in Westchester County, it was an hour and a half to get out there and the practice facilities even there are not what they should be.

The thing I loved about Commonground was it was the total package... quality course, quality practice facilities (even for juniors), affordable rates, centrally located, and a stated goal to embrace the traditions of the game.  The lesson that should be learned by other cities is that they took an existing golf course on a flat piece of property which was marginal by most accounts and converted it into a wonderful asset for $4MM with no debt.

Take Philly for example.  If you live in the city, it is not uncommon for people to drive 45 minutes to an hour to go play golf.  However, if the city and the GAP worked together on a project at one of the city courses that is not well regarded (take FDR as an example near South Philly) and handed the canvas over to a great architect, who knows what type of revenue it could generate (and how it would grow the game).  The same would hold true for our project at Cobb's, but our focus is more on restoring what was there rather than completely transforming it.  However, we can put more focus on creating better practice facilities and a possible par 3 kids course.

The same would hold true in Westchester County (NY).  As they are surrounded by WF, QR and Fenway, someone should take a look at doing some serious work on Saxon Woods, Maple Moor or Sprain Lake.  Instead the County decided to build Hudson Hills in the northern part of the county.  The best evidence of a dearth of quality public golf options for a golf hungry population?... The fact that Pound Ridge can charge $235/round and still stay in business.

[Tom_Doak]

The thing I loved about Commonground was it was the total package... quality course, quality practice facilities (even for juniors), affordable rates, centrally located, and a stated goal to embrace the traditions of the game.  The lesson that should be learned by other cities is that they took an existing golf course on a flat piece of property which was marginal by most accounts and converted it into a wonderful asset for $4MM with no debt.

Geoffrey:

Again, the key to making it work was that we worked for the CGA, not a municipality.

There was a thread recently on design/build projects.  We didn't do exactly that for Common Ground, but we did agree to help them manage the project and keep the expenditures to $4 million.  That never would have worked in a muni setting; it only worked at Common Ground because we knew the directors of the CGA and we trusted each other to make it work.

It worked well enough that Eric Iverson was able to scrimp and save enough $$ to build the kids' course within the $4 million budget, even though we didn't have a budget for it at the start.

Municipal projects in big cities tend to be organized just the opposite of this -- they solicit bids from management companies who are trying to extract every penny they can in profit.  Most municipalities ditched the whole concept of golf as recreation for the community long ago.  They are in the golf business to try and make money, and most of them lose money at it.  The sad part is that nobody in the golf business really wants it to be fixed ... all of the for-profit golf course owners would cry foul if someone went in and cleaned up the municipal operation.  In fact, now that I think about it, I'm surprised we haven't gotten some nasty notes from public-course operators around Denver ... thank God it's a big market I guess.

[Ted Cahill]

Tom D, or others with experience in this area:  is it possible for a forward thinking state golf association to approach a stressed muni operation (any of us who live in large urban areas can think of one or more) and "take the muni off their hands"- and then turn it over to Rennisance or other like-minded operation and produce a result similar to Common Ground?  I may be displaying my ignorance on these matters suggesting this- but I also know most of these municipalities are in the red bad and may be open to some new thinking.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Ted,

You and I are on the exact same page.  The only group I would add to your post are a few private donors who believe in the importance of growing the game and improving the city courses that in many cases have untapped potential given their location.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D, or others with experience in this area:  is it possible for a forward thinking state golf association to approach a stressed muni operation (any of us who live in large urban areas can think of one or more) and "take the muni off their hands"- and then turn it over to Rennisance or other like-minded operation and produce a result similar to Common Ground?  I may be displaying my ignorance on these matters suggesting this- but I also know most of these municipalities are in the red bad and may be open to some new thinking.

Ted:

As Geoffrey comments, I think it would require having a few private donors in the middle of the deal to acquire the property ... perhaps then donating it to the state golf association or setting up a 501(c)(3) and getting a write-off for it.  Municipalities might very well SELL a golf course, but they aren't going to give it away, as the underlying land has value.

By the same token, this could be done far more cheaply with a failed bank property -- the banks are ready to sell for well under a million dollars.  But the location is unlikely to be as centralized as Common Ground's, and that's important for the junior program to really work.

[Adam Clayman]

There's few muni's where one can actually feel what I felt on the 12th hole.

Just amazing considering it's cost and location.

[Jerry Kluger]

While CommonGround is a great success that isn't always the case - look what happened at Papago in Phoenix. It is critical not only to do the course well but to plan the finances well.  In my view Bethpage was a much different story as they knew that if the work was done they would get a US Open which meant a good deal of money for them immediately as well as the ability to charge substantial fees to non-residents.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

But that's exactly the point -- Papago and Bethpage were all about the money they would earn in the future justifying a lot of expense.

Common Ground saved their pennies and spent them carefully, but they didn't expect it (or even WANT it) to change the price point.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I agree - I was giving examples where they depended on future income to pay for the improvements which CommonGround did not - it worked at BP but not at Papago.  I think that too much of the golf industry followed the path that Papago used and that is the principle reason why so many are about to fail whether it was improvements to courses or other facilities which depended on increased membership or revenues but it hasn't worked out.

[D_Malley]

Geoffrey
One needs to only look right in your own back yard for a self managed muni golf course that has done an amazing transformation. We have been working with Jim Wagner of Gil Hanse Golf design at Paxon Hollow to turn PH into a great public golf course. Jim has provided us with a master plan which we have been gradually implementing over the past several years. We have done alot of work and have not had to spend hugh amounts of money.  All of this while the rates remain in the $40-$60 range.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34384781@N08/5909078468/

I can not figure out how to get photo of some of Jim's work to appear here.

[D_Malley]

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Aren't you on record as having said that some of the mal-practioners tried to tell them to spend their 4 mil on a clubhouse?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, Aren't you on record as having said that some of the mal-practioners tried to tell them to spend their 4 mil on a clubhouse?

Adam:

Not that I can recall.  I know that early in the process they were going to build a new clubhouse on the site of the old one -- I don't know where the money was going to come from -- but for now they are just operating out of a temporary, which seems to work just fine.

I know at least one golf course architect [whom I used to work for] suggested they borrow $4 million more so they could make it a "real" course instead of settling for less.  And I think a couple of other architects dropped out of the interview process when told it was only a $4 million project.

[Kirk Gill]

...I'm surprised we haven't gotten some nasty notes from public-course operators around Denver ... thank God it's a big market I guess.

The location of Commonground really helped the course - the old Mira Vista course got an amazing amount of play given that it really wasn't any good. Plus the feel of the course is so unique... it's never felt like it was stepping on the toes of the Denver or Aurora munis. Not to me, anyway.

And it's also at a slightly higher price point than the Denver munis - which are $26 weekdays, $32 on the weekend. Not a huge difference from the $50 that non-CGA members pay at CG ($40 for members) - but maybe enough to keep them from writing any nasty notes?

Sure don't know what's stopping the non-municipal public operators from writing !