Is Course Contraction The Key To Recovery?

[Mike Benham]

AHA!

Wait a second... no, it's not The Institute, and it's not Silver Creek, but very close to the latter geographically... It's actually a strange green from a new course, which I can't remember the name of now... It's a housing development course, supposed to be a high-end public CCFAD type, and it's quite close to the 101...  Yep, on the left going south, actually in the city of San Jose.

Yep, this is it.  Looks damn strange to me also.  But I also look forward to it opening - however much it sucks - and who knows if it will - we need another course!

The course isn't open yet, but that part has been visible as a golf hole for about 6 monhts.

And btw, since you have seen this Tommy, that means you were here quite recently and didn't tell me.  I shall get over the shame of you ducking me once again.  

TH

We must get Tommy to clarify if it was south or north of Coyote Creek ...

Anyway, I found The Institute on MapQuest (the link is too long to post) but the address is 15060 Foothill Avnue, Morgan Hill, CA.  

Interesting to note that I found the address and phone for this CIA top secret location in .... Yahoo Yellow Pages ...

[THuckaby2]

It's got to be the new not yet opened course, Mike.  It fits the description perfectly and no way can one make out much of The Institute from 101.

Good to hear they are acknowledging their existence at TI, anyway...

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, I thought you knew. I recently flew-in (July) and met my cousin up there who was on his way to moving down here. It was a sort of last minute deal that was put together literally on a last minute notice. Were coming back up again there soon for either Notre Dame vs Standford or Oakland and some other team to be named later. Golf will hopefully be part of the trip:) (And some more time!)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And yes, that does sound like it.

Here is about where I thought it was, but none of the holes looked to be part of Silver Creek CC. So this is a new course then?

[THuckaby2]

No hassles whatsoever Tommy, just giving you a hard time.  Yeah, hopefully you and I can do Pasa some day but odds are you come here again and I'm either gone, or at a kiddie soccer game, or doing anything of 1000 other things that tend to take precedence over golf for me!

I think we have nailed the course in question in any case.  It is VERY strange to me, as that hole you see from 101 seems to be miles away from the rest of the course, which one can see by getting off the freeway there and taking a few roads to the left... it's quite near THE VILLAGES, where Dan King lives...

This course doesn't look close to opening, and I really think they grassed in that hole near 101 first, as well as some others near the road to The Villages, to get word of mouth going.  It is absolutely a mountain-side course looking from afar quite similar to Cascades.  Hell no, not the perfect thing re what we really need here, which is for Rustic Canyon to be airlifted to the confines of the city of San Jose!  But to me it remains better than no new course at all... anything that will relieve our horrible per-capita status of courses is always to me going to be a good thing.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, The thing that concerns me, and getting back to the original point of the topic, is it playable for the majority of golfers out there? That majority is the 18-32 handicap that support golf and are vital to the game. Would they routinely go to this course knowing it is going to be very difficult, or are they going to want to play courses like the OLD Riverside? (afforadable, maybe somewhat lackluster design because of the era it was built in, etc.)

These high end courses that build the massive clubhouse, and have a head-setted staff, taking the clubs and putting them on a cart, and then explaining how the GPS works, as well as directions to the high-end refreshment stand that is offering the $7.00 beer.

[THuckaby2]

Oh, I'm with you Tommy.  It would be much better to re-create Riverside than build this monstrosity-looking place.  Of course we can't tell just from that look from 101 how playable for the average joe it will be, but it doesn't look good, for sure....

The problem is there is only so much land available, particularly in a high-density place like San Jose.  The land that IS available is invariably hill-side, really not meant for golf course stuff like this.  So that being the case, is it better to wish for more courses that are flat and playable, or just take what we can get?  Land being so damn expensive here as it is, I just can't see where a new, playable for everyone course will be built...

The new Los Lagos, ripped by Gib and others, is VERY playable for one and all, and is always packed.  It too didn't have the world's greatest land, but it's better than mountainside.  It is relatively reasonably priced though, and in fact the issue there is that rounds take too long... having 9 par 3's doesn't help speed of play.  It does have other issues though that Gib rightly pointed out, when it was discussed on here.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

I saw that course (or hole) driving south on 101 around or before Morgan Hill.  I thought it was just someone's idea of a "ornament" for a housing development.  The slope of the hole makes #1 at Tilden Park look like something from Kansas.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

The land that IS available is invariably hill-side, really not meant for golf course stuff like this.  So that being the case, is it better to wish for more courses that are flat and playable, or just take what we can get?  

Obviosuly, there is always more money in housing than golf courses.

Cascades, Tierra Rejada, Lost Canyons are all built on land not ideally suited for housing. Apparently, the latter 2 are not doing great business, mostly due to what the public perceives as being too expensive--or not enough bang for the buck.

I think we in SoCal got lucky with Rustic Canyon, not only in the execution of the design, but the fact that the land is very suitable for housing and it became a golf course instead.

[Mike Benham]

I think we in SoCal got lucky with Rustic Canyon, not only in the execution of the design, but the fact that the land is very suitable for housing and it became a golf course instead.

Andy,

That's a true statement with Rustic but for a majority of SoCals, it is quite a distance to travel.

In or around any major Metropolitan area, any piece of land that is available to be built on has at least one major flaw.  It may be wind, terrain, power lines (TPC Valencia) or distance from the greens fee paying public.

NorCal is the same way; Poppy Ridge; Stevenson Ranch; Diablo Grande; San Juan Oaks ... they all have at least one flaw in their concept.

Mike

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Mike:

RC is still within 30-35 minutes for anyone in the San Fernando Valley, and that's over 1 million people. Housing in Moorpark, goes right up to the south edge (4th hole) of the course. As "golfers," we got lucky with that piece of land.

Aside from the aforementioned instance, yes, I agree, nearly all courses around major metro areas have a major flaw. Which of course, leads this discussion into urban planning; developers ruling the roost of city politics, and all the other aspects of why we have so few quality public courses in SoCal which I have beaten to death on assorted threads.

[Rick Shefchik]

Golf and population density are mutually incompatible. I recently drove round trip from Minnesota to Tucson, and I can't tell you all the wonderful potential golf sites I saw from the interstate highway system -- but they were all in places where nobody lives.

One spot in particular that was simply crying out for a links-style course was south of I-76 near Julesburg, Colo., in the northeast corner of the state near the Nebraska border. I'm no course builder, but it seemed to me that the glorious, rippling, dunes-like pasture land there would make a phenomenal course -- even more interesting than Wild Horse, which I stopped to check out but didn't play.

As Tom Doak and others can attest, there are still fabulous places to put golf courses on this earth, but how many of us can get to New Zealand, or even northeast Colorado? I live in the eastern Twin Cities metro area, and I've been dying to get to Williston, N.D., to play Red Mike, but even from where I live the drive would be 672 miles. For those of you on the east or west coast, Red Mike might as well be on the moon.

When our favorite courses were built 100 years ago, land was both (relatively) cheap and plentiful, even near our most dense population centers. The new courses we want to see built are, by necessity, going to have to cost an arm and a leg to play, either because they're going to be built on land that's exorbitantly expensive, or built on land where almost nobody lives.

To be honest, I don't see how contraction addresses this problem one way or the other.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

To get the juices flowing I suggest the following:

1). Bag about 30% of the golf you find in the "Grand Strand" area since many are now suffering from lack of play.

2). Ditto the same percentage for plenty of courses that Brad outlined that exist in Michigan -- paticularly in the upper region section.

3). Bag an equal percentage in Florida -- many are non-descript layouts built on swamps or adjacent to them.

4). I agree (yes, it does happen from time to time) that Shadow can be canned for housing or for just open space.

I'm sure other areas of the country will come to mind.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Precisely what I'm talking about!

One of the problems also is that so many of these new courses have been built at a high cost (No, I'm not gioing to attack Fazio or Jones here) I'm talking about the type of developer that builds a golf course for 17 million including the clubhouse and such, and HAS to charge exhorbitant dollars to play it. The Rule of Thumb used to be for every million spent, $10.00 was added to the green fee. (in Orange County, you can make that $20.00) so, going by that pretense, a $100.00 green fee meant it cost 10 Million to build it. Most in Orange County have $125.00 green fees and cost around 12 Million to build, so the developers are/were charging that amount until they figured out that people weren't breaking down the doors for a tee time. This is where the Players Club's and other special deals started to pop out of the woodwork.

Pelican Hill and Oak Creek, two of the highest-end facilties of the CCFAD genre, utilzed the Players Club, and so far, it has provided repeat play to happen with golfers who normally played there regardless. It isn't bringing in any new blood so to speak, and that is what they needed.

Tijeras Creek, A Ted Robinson design, actually implemented a program where if you came to play full boat, you could do an unlimited golf and food, meaning you could get as many hot dogs and holes of golf your stomach could handle, during the week, at the weekend rate of $125.00. It too proved to be a very meek success that they cancelled the program due to lack of interest--and they were allowing you all the food and beverage you wanted!

Tustin Ranch, Strawberry Farms, have pretty much has offered discount packages for repeat play (For every 10 rounds, 1 round free)

Aliso Viejo, a 27 hole Little Jackie Nickalus II project is considering taking out 9 holes because they don't have the play, let alone, and thankfully didn't build the clubhouse because of ridiculous local building codes which found the structure 5 inches over the limited height in one paticular area!

Even Lost Canyons sends me emails weekly regarding some deal they have trying to lure the players out there. I recently drove by there in the early afternoon when the course should have been packed with twilight play--it looked more like a ghost town with its ranch themed clubhouse.

And that is a very sad thing.

Charging $125.00 and then building a golf course that requires forecaddies to find your slightly off track golf ball isn't exactly the right thing to do in a market where your customer base is a 18 handicap or more.

[John_Conley]

Finally had a chance to read Brad's column.  He really hit the nail on the head from a macro overview perspective.  It doesn't really help the owner-operator who says, "Yeah.  They should get rid of my competitors!"  Why?  They probably are saying the same thing about him!!

I liked hearing that some people are finally looking at courses for other uses.  This will be key to seeing some shut down.

Now does anyone see why I'm not shedding a tear for the Ponce de Leon?  I know a good number of Florida courses could be closed and it doesn't much matter where you start.  If a course is truly special it will survive.  

(Wexler - you owe me $5 for getting the ball rolling on your next installment of Missing Links!)

[THuckaby2]

"Charging $125.00 and then building a golf course that requires forecaddies to find your slightly off track golf ball isn't exactly the right thing to do in a market where your customer base is a 18 handicap or more."

Absolutely correct.

But given the land issues in places like the Bay Area, how would you have it done differently?

What I'd say is bag the fancy clubhouses... Nothing pisses me off more than a lavish clubhouse that never really gets used and just makes the green fees $25 more.  They seem to be doing the right thing with Shadow Lakes out in Brentwood as their clubhouse looks to be nice, but modest, and won't cause a green fee hike.

And obviously Rustic Canyon did this correctly also, in stark contrast once again to Lost Canyons!  Say what you will about the clubhouse at RC - sure it might not have the right "look" for the place, but it is the right size, appropriate for the course, and didn't cause a fee hike - right?

So many others go the opposite way...

But that being said, even if they follow this route, you still have the land issues.  I just don't see where a Rustic Canyon is gonna be built up here.

So we have what we have, and the cost and design are just necessary evils... Mike B. is so right - the places where land is available for playable courses for one and all are all very outlying - each of the examples he cites are perfect.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

The issue can be speeded along if owners of multi-course developments within a given location were smart enough to scale down the size of their projects. Multiple course aren;t really going to thrive simply because the demand for them isn't there from what I see.

Yes, you do have pockets in the country where the triple digit green fee still holds true (i.e. Vegas, Scottsdale, Orange County, metro NY area with certain courses) but for the most part the oversaturation of courses has simply become way too much.

The Grand Strand is one of the worst culprits ... many folks there were delusional to believe that if they had just their course they would be able to hop on the golf $$ trail. That hasn't happened. Part of the responsibility goes to the governing authority that grants the appropriate permits and approvals -- more due diligence needs to be taken because the numbers aren't there (and likely won't be there) to continue this trend.

At the same time golf course owners need to brand their facilities with an awareness on real marketing that grows the game -- not just the fat and happy mid-handicapper with tons of dough who comes out to impress his clients with his new Ginty club. Establishing different price points and getting programs started that really encourage more play is an absolute must IMHO.

[John_Conley]

Matt:

I agree with your last sentence, but who's going to do it?

Everyone (club manufacturers, USGA, PGA Tour, PGA of America, etc..) points to each other and says it isn't their job.  The First Tee struggles for funding and introduces the game to people that may never be able to afford its cost.  Golf 20/20 appears to be talk without results.  

The president of Meadowbrook agreed with my view and said their facilities are working to grow at the course level.  They have some good ideas including promoting business league play in the evenings as a way to introduce people to the game and their facility.

When you look at the Macro, golf's problems are easy to see and solutions are easy to come up with.  Now drop down to the Micro level and it isn't clear what should be done.  Your first comment is the kind I'm referring to.  How will it be better for courses that are already struggling if a new project scales down their ambition?  Each new course makes it worse for everyone.

[Brad Klein]

The full text of the "Course contraction" column will be on Golfweek.com later today if you haven't seen it in the Sept. 6 printed issue.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
But the point is that the triple digit green fee isn't doing well in OC. They (the coourse operators) are having their problems with this, yet, I will say, they still persist in hopes that rounds will rise. I just don't see that happening because of time and money--which Brad's article hits upon correctly.

You see, People are not willing to spend 4 1/2 hours to play golf, let alone 5+ hours it eventually takes them. At least not in Orange County because they have to get home and take the significant other to Villa Nova or the Cannery later that day or night. They have to get the car washed or the gardner payed, and then they have to run down to Home Depot and decide which tile they are going to redo the 4th bathroom in. They do this while fighting traffic to get to all of the places mentioned above, because their building more houses on more of the beautiful old orange groves that used to exist over on Jamboree, and construction has messed-up the streets, which far exceeded their original infrastructure long ago.

Hopefully you can see the point. I think Golf is starting to become less a weekend activity and more of a monthly or business activity when time permits. All of this from the county that produced Tiger Woods.

OC Resident to another OC Resident--Do you play Golf?

OC Resident--Why yes, I just played last month......

That's the type of conversations you hear nowadays. And then ask them if they know where Merion or Pine Valley is, and see what kind of an answer you get.

[Mike Benham]

You see, People are not willing to spend 4 1/2 hours to play golf, let alone 5+ hours it eventually takes them. At least not in Orange County because they have to get home and take the significant other to Villa Nova or the Cannery later that day or night. They have to get the car washed or the gardner payed, and then ...

Tommy - you forgot the part about stopping to get, at one of the 42 Starbucks nearby, a double de-cafe no foam latte frappucino, on the way to pretending to watch Skippy's soccer game but really checking out that hot blond mom in a tank top ...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

......Yes, of course, how stupid of me! But you forgot to menton the Volvo Station Wagon, that just replaced the Lincoln Navigator which replaced the Ford Excursion, which replaced the Chevy Suburban, which replaced the Range Rover, which replaced the Mercedes Wagon, which replaced the......etc.etc.etc.

Yikes! MaybeI should move! How depressing!

[SB]

One thing to point out here is that course contraction will definitely not work out the way that many of you are hoping - to bulldoze ugly new courses, and make cheap courses somewhere else.

The problem is that courses will only be bulldozed when the land under them is more valuable as something else.  The courses with the most valuable land are the old courses with urban locations.  New courses out in the burbs have lower land values, and are probably deed restricted anyway.

Thats why Cypress in LA is getting nixed.  Not that it's an architectural treasure by any stretch, but it just means people in LA will have to drive further.  It's only a matter of time before a good course gets wiped out.  Maybe even a private.  

For you folks in LA, think about a place like Brentwood Country Club.  150 acres of flat ground in Brentwood?  That'd go for what, at least a mill an acre?  That's a $300,000 check for each member, maybe more.  How about those clubs in Westchester County with average layouts but 200 acres and only 200 members?  Many of them have been losing members, it's only a matter of time before the pain sets in.

How about urban 9-hole courses where the owner is only making a hundred thousand a year?  Think he'll turn down a big check to turn it into townhomes?  

Oversupply has hurt owners badly, and it is in everyone's interest to have a healthy industry.  But contraction will not take out the new courses.  It'll take out the old.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Scott,
I agree with much what you are saying, but take La Habra-Westridge for instance. This new course is a ghost town--It's having trouble getting the play simply because it is unplayable, and expensive, given that it was considered a deal to play at their $75.00 green fee.  I think that is the point of what is being said here. The newer designs are over-the-top, the public has spoken withtheir insistance not to play them, thus they are a financial disaster for the people who invested in their construction. They get sold to other parties for a dime to the dollar, and so on, and so on, and so on.

It would take nothing for La Habra Westridge to be leveled and homes to be installed, but it is also a ccourse that the City had some hand into. It's all their's in 17 years. It's not the type of course that can be remodeled or changed to make it more playable either. It's stuck in it's footprint, yet it is perfect razing and installing rows of housing and condo's that could sell instantly in our current real estate.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Just realize people keep playing the stock market even when they're just pissing into the ocean. Plenty of the California facilities I have visited in recent times need to start re-branding themselves so that they can get a mass of people to play. Too many of the are fixted on getting the deep pocket crowd and once the newness of a facility wears of the likelihood of repeat play for $150+ is just not realistic.

On the flip side I don't feel sorry for people who took a gamble and built a big time layout when land costs in California are just too high to sustain the profitability that a golf course has to generate to continue in operation. Yes, the tee sheet may be full at Pelican Hill more often than the places right down the street but the reality is that very few places -- the Palm Springs area is a slight exception -- do any real branding so that different price points are available to the public.

John C:

I can't disagree with you -- there is really no "super" authority that ties the game of golf and its related industries together. Yes, the major groups do get together and issue "summit" decrees and the like but the future of golf as a growing game is clearly a long term issue and each of the separate parts has a role / responsibility to play.