[Jason Topp]

On one of the Golf Channel architects week segments, Matt Ginella stated that about 150 courses per year are closing and 15 are opening.  He expressed the view that this trend may be a good thing for the quality of architecture in the US.  Essentially, he said that the courses closing either have poor business models or are poor golf courses and that the new ones being built are of much higher quality. 

I am not certain whether or not I agree with the premise.  Here are some random and contratictory thoughts:

1.  Many very good designs have closed or have struggled.  Several Doak courses have shut down.  Dormie Club and Apache Stronghold have survived but by the skin of their teeth. 

2.  However, the courses that have closed in my area (Minneapolis) have tended to be poorer designs - Minnetonka CC, Lakeview, and Izaytys are examples.

3.  Many older courses have been improved significantly - presumably in part due to competition.  In my area that includes Keller and Edina CC.  It will include Braemar and Olympic Hills.   

4.  Poorer courses with good business models seem to do fine.  There are a couple of public courses that fit this description in Minneapolis.

So - is the downturn improving the quality of architecture? 

 

[Brent Hutto]

What do you mean by "designed".

I see no plausible selection mechanism by which "design" (in the sense we bandy the term on this forum) factors into which courses survive and which perish. Not at all.

[Jason Topp]

What do you mean by "designed".

I see no plausible selection mechanism by which "design" (in the sense we bandy the term on this forum) factors into which courses survive and which perish. Not at all.

I mean higher quality golf courses viewed from an architectural standpoint.

[Mike Hendren]

It's all and only about supply and demand based upon price point/elasticity.

Even conditioning trumps design.

Doak leads the pack on modern NLE's.  I rest my case.

Bogey

[Dan Kelly]

... the courses that have closed in my area (Minneapolis) have tended to be poorer designs - Minnetonka CC, Lakeview, and Izatys are examples.

I don't know what to make of your overall question, but thought I'd chime in on this one point.

I think Hastings CC was a pretty good golf course -- certainly better than many of the area's public courses still extant, and some of the privates.

I don't think Minnetonka CC was such a bad design. I do think the land was terrible land -- boggy.

[Jason Topp]

It's all and only about supply and demand based upon price point/elasticity.

Even conditioning trumps design.

Doak leads the pack on modern NLE's.  I rest my case.

Bogey

Although - Doak's NLEs seem to me to involve long shot business models -either owners with thin financials or locations that were very remote. Bay of Dreams involved a winding, long drive from Cabo, Hi-Pointe was in a saturated area with an owner that did not keep the architectural features intact, Apache Stronghold suffersfrom management issues, location and colder temperatures during prime tourist season. 

When one looks at comparable business situations - such as private courses in metropolitan areas - it seems to me that the better designs are surviving somehow while poorer courses are not. 

And - would we have seen the significant renovations

[Adrian_Stiff]

Location is probably the biggest reason why golf courses suffer which is more directly related to the numbers game.

I think what happens in the oversupply situation is that many drop the price and so are better value than the not so good that did not drop their price, they then drop their price etc......ultimately the consumer gets more for his $25 and the poorer ones drop off.

I think poor conditioning is more the reason than poor design. Is Painswick poor design? If that closed it would be more about conditioning, length of course, safety aspect. There was a new course a few miles away that might be a Doak 1 that opened and that nearly killed it 20-30 years ago. It was in better condition.

[archie_struthers]

I think   Michael H is right on in his assertion that conditioning trumps design for the average consumer, and sometimes for the above average   consumer.

My experience would be that conditioning , customer service and most importantly for all but the most exclusive clubs pricing trumps all. Lots of people very price conscious, but without some quality to the conditioning they won't return.

For private clubs, flexibility in pricing will become more and more the norm , except for those clubs that are obviously "special".  Funny was just talking to a friend of mine who works at PGA and they are getting $335 a rattle to play there this season. Guess the "Bear Trap" has some marketability .  

Most of us tend to look for different venues , probably opting for quiet and quirky most times, but there is a whole gang of consumers that think otherwise.

[Mark Pritchett]

It is weeding out poorly positioned (either by location or business model) courses on a market by market basis.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Success is some kind of undefined blend of (in approximate order) location, conditions, service and design.  Combined, they equal value, or as I often call it, paying $45 for a course you believe is worth $65.  If you can produce a golf experience that cost about a third less than its perceived market value, you have a winner.

I haven't studied it in detail, but sometimes a course really strong in one can overcome lower portions of the other, with location allowing for more compensation than other items, down to design.  Of course, to most design would also probably include "setting" so even design, and probably other items listed have their own subsets of importance in the golfers mind.

Sort of related, but of the dozen public courses that have remodeled over the last decade here in DFW, all have experienced revenue increases, usually substantial.  The shiny new model appeals to at least Texans.  It usually gives more of condition and design, and the ones who did best also improved their clubhouse and service, too.  And, advertised highly to rebrand their new and improved experience.

[Jason Topp]

It is weeding out poorly positioned (either by location or business model) courses on a market by market basis.  

I am not certain that view holds up to scrutiny - at least in Minnesota and, I believe, elsewhere.  Are the courses that have shut down in your area better or worse designs than others that have stayed afloat?

In Minnesota, generally the worst courses are the ones shutting down (with the notable exception that Dan identifies of Hastings).  Better courses have had plenty of financial troubles but have managed thus far to stay in business.

The conditioning issue is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.  If a course is doing ok financially, it generally is in good condition.  If it is struggling, conditioning suffers.  

[Mark Pritchett]

I think it is market by market.  Luckily we have not had too many courses close in my area, however of the two that come to mind, one was a decent design and one no so great, but both had out of the way locations. 

[Adam Warren]

In many ways, one relates to another.  A poorly designed course can suffer from a conditions standpoint if it creates ways that it is very difficult to manage the conditions.  It could also lead to questionable management, in that perhaps they are trying to maintain things they shouldnt and lose money due to that.  As a few have said, conditions probably drive the consumer more than any of the other factors.  I have seen courses really struggle because the course was not well designed and was just too hard, even though the price point may have been correct. 

The courses that have struggled the most here in Kentucky seem to have been semi-private subdivision courses that did not require membership from its residents (disconnected course and development ownership) and poorly designed/conditioned public courses.  There have been the few private courses that are just terribly managed that have had major financial struggles, but I do not believe any of those have closed.

[J_ Crisham]

It was brought  to my attention last week that one of the old line private clubs here in Chicago may not open this season. This club hosted a US OPEN back in the day. They are down to 125 members and the numbers simply do not cash flow. The architecture is good , not great , but could  be improved greatly by the removal of 1000 trees- sadly that's not in their budget. My sense is there are 2 other classic designs within 20 minutes of the aforementioned club that also may not be around in 3 more years. Just a sign of the times IMO.

[Joe Zucker]

It was brought  to my attention last week that one of the old line private clubs here in Chicago may not open this season. This club hosted a US OPEN back in the day. They are down to 125 members and the numbers simply do not cash flow. The architecture is good , not great , but could  be improved greatly by the removal of 1000 trees- sadly that's not in their budget. My sense is there are 2 other classic designs within 20 minutes of the aforementioned club that also may not be around in 3 more years. Just a sign of the times IMO.

How do you think the courses you have in mind would do if they opened their doors up to the public like Ravisloe did?  I know the merits of private clubs with all of the other options (i.e. Bandon or Streamsong) has been discussed before, but I would guess that a nice club would do OK if it went semi private in Chicago.  Assuming its relatively close to the city, it has millions of new potential customers.  But if the membership isn't interested, its a moot point.

[Jon Wiggett]

It is weeding out poorly positioned (either by location or business model) courses on a market by market basis.  

+1

[Mike_Young]

It is weeding out poorly positioned (either by location or business model) courses on a market by market basis.  

+1

+1

[J_ Crisham]

It was brought  to my attention last week that one of the old line private clubs here in Chicago may not open this season. This club hosted a US OPEN back in the day. They are down to 125 members and the numbers simply do not cash flow. The architecture is good , not great , but could  be improved greatly by the removal of 1000 trees- sadly that's not in their budget. My sense is there are 2 other classic designs within 20 minutes of the aforementioned club that also may not be around in 3 more years. Just a sign of the times IMO.

How do you think the courses you have in mind would do if they opened their doors up to the public like Ravisloe did?  I know the merits of private clubs with all of the other options (i.e. Bandon or Streamsong) has been discussed before, but I would guess that a nice club would do OK if it went semi private in Chicago.  Assuming its relatively close to the city, it has millions of new potential customers.  But if the membership isn't interested, its a moot point.

Joe,    My sense is that they would do well as publics. I personally would play them a few times a year- in fact one of the clubs has what I believe are the best greens in Chicago year in and year out. The public golf scene in Chicago is largely void of impressive Classic designs other than Pine Meadows, Cog Hill, and Ravisloe. A few additions would be welcome. The closing of the clubs I cited on the other hand will undoubtedly strengthen the other privates in the area. The one club was offering "memberships" last year with no downstroke and monthlies of about $300 a month- which is less than half of prevailing dues locally. The numbers simply do not work.

[Carl Rogers]

I have no clue how to assess one market to the next....

My own decision making on this subject boils down to time-location-price point-experience-fast play ... all are interconnected.
 
For everday golf, If a reasonably ok course is down the street and cost let's say $X and there is a slightly better designed course that requires a one hour drive and costs 10% less, then my time is worth more than the lower cost and the slightly better experience.

Now if I am looking for a once every 6 month golf (a terrific experience), then I will drive half a day and put out $3-4X the amount for everyday golf, if I can figure out ahead of time it is worh it.  (like the Homestead)

(I am asking my self if Streamsong is worth a 2 day drive???  It might be.)

I have no clue if my own approach is typical.

[Dave Doxey]

Design itself is not a major reason that courses close.  They close due to financial unsustainability. This is mostly due to a course failing to generate revenue to cover expenses. 

Design, location conditioning, and service contribute to revenue generation, so in a way design is a factor – but just one of many.   
Debt, operating efficiency and location driven costs contribute to expense.  One could also argue that design can drive maintenance cost, so it’s again involved.

Some courses in prime real estate areas also close because the return on investment of the operating as a course is less than the return to be had from re-purposing the land.

Some great designs, with a lot of debt or with the land more valuable for other uses will close. (Beechtree?)  Likewise, some crap designs will survive due to having no debt, being on land unsuitable for other use, and being in areas of high golf demand.

I doubt that course closings will affect ratio of well-designed courses much, if at all. We will, however, end up with courses with much better operating models and business plans.  Better business practices will prevail in tough times.

[Dave McCollum]

There is not much to add to what has been said.  All I know is based on running a rural course in an area where there are more courses than golfers to fill them.  We all struggle to some extent.  Price and conditioning seem to be dominate factors, but the most important factor where a golfer chooses to play is where his buddies play. 

I’ve believed this a long time and said so before.  These opinions were strongly reinforced by recent experience.  Our 20+ year superintendant died suddenly.  His replacement was qualified, however he had never worked on a sand-based course.  It took him two years to acquire the knowledge and experience and the conditioning suffered as result.  Several groups of our most loyal customers left for another comparably priced club.  The principal issue was green grass.  I don’t think I’m being overly biased when I say our course is the clearly superior design and even during the worst of our irrigation issues offered superior playing surfaces.  Whether intended or not, we were firm and fast with lots of brownish turf.  When I played the competitive courses, they were green with lots of grass.  I called them grass factories chocked by rough.  Our greens were much more interesting and in decent shape.  Our landscape is a much more spectacular natural setting without housing.  Yet the word on the street was we were in rough shape and that hurt our business.  Since then we have adopted a maintenance meld based on keeping the course green in the height of the season even though that has substantially increased our maintenance costs.  Business has improved. 

Understand that most courses around here have fairly minimal maintenance budgets, ours included, as golf in this market is quite affordable.   My favorite time to play is early spring before we turn on the pumps or before they have much effect.  However, if we maintained these fast conditions throughout the year we wouldn’t be around for long.  As a golfer who has gone to some effort to play other styles of golf, sadly my conclusion, from a business perspective, is that most golfers don’t really notice or care much about architecture or design.  Sure, they are aware on some subliminal level that they are unable to articulate beyond the usual clichés. 

Consequently, our maintenance meld is based on giving our golfers what they think they want:  and that means green and growing grass when we can.  Many here will disagree and conclude we don’t know or lack the backbone to create ideal playing conditions.  I justify it along the lines of providing the most pleasure to the greatest number of folks because I want to stay in the golf business.

[Mark_Fine]

Sadly the quality of the golf architecture (conditioning aside) rarely has anything to do with whether a course stays open or closes.  Some of the most popular (and most profitable) courses out there are what most on this site would consider dog tracks!  My guess is that 95% of all rounds played are on courses that are rarely if ever discussed on this website. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think Mark Fine is correct.

Location and demographics, not architecture are the primary causes.

[J_ Crisham]

I think Mark Fine is correct.

Location and demographics, not architecture are the primary causes.

Pat,   You nailed it with respect to the Chicago clubs I mentioned. Areas that were affluent 50 yrs ago that have since cratered.

[Jason Topp]

I think Mark Fine is correct.

Location and demographics, not architecture are the primary causes.

Pat,   You nailed it with respect to the Chicago clubs I mentioned. Areas that were affluent 50 yrs ago that have since cratered.

Each closed course has a unique story.  Nonetheless, of the courses that have closed in your area, how many would you classify as having well designed golf courses.  How many are poor?

In my area, the comparison is not close.  Most of the courses that have closed have been poor golf courses. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()