Is Chambers Bay everything that's wrong with golf?

[Jeff Taylor]

"You know people don't set out to do stupid, unsustainable things totally out of proportion to sustainable reality. "

Don't know what this means. Will the project fail? Is it any less sustainable than the quarry that it was built on?

[Sean_A]

The quality of the design etc isn't the issue.  Nor is it a question of how much was spent.  The issue is whose money was spent.  If this project was a great idea why wasn't there a private investment aspect to it? Surely the local and state governments could have sought matching funding from private sources and if that capital wasn't forthcoming the project should have been minimized or shleved until such funding was available.  Usually, public spend makes facilities more affordable for those who pay for it...in this case someone didn't get the memo.  If there was no private enterprise involved I think it is very dubious for goverment to spend this much public funds for a non-emergency build golf course which charges quite a tidy sum for the priveledge of a game...and also competes against privately owned public courses.   

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

"You know people don't set out to do stupid, unsustainable things totally out of proportion to sustainable reality. "

Don't know what this means. Will the project fail? Is it any less sustainable than the quarry that it was built on?

Jeff,

I have no idea whether Chambers Bay will turn into a white elephant for its owner. Or maybe it becomes a moneymaking gold mine. Most likely somewhere in between.

But the building of Chambers Bay is motivated by the same reasoning that drove all those real estate developers to overpay for Jack Nicklaus' name on hundreds of mediocre courses. I can't believe the future of the game will be secured by building more Chambers Bay type courses any more than it was secured by all those "Signature" layouts in the 80's, 90's and early 00's.

[Jeff Taylor]

Got it. Thanks.
Bad investments are made every day. That will continue. Somebody has learned from it. It is true that public officials have a different standard for spending public money than when they spend their own. Voters should make them pay heavily for it when that standard produces failures.

[Jud_T]

It's a public course in the U.S. that's F&F fescue for the world to see.  That's all I care about.  What the finances, local politics and fiduciary issues are is someone else's concern.  We could have an entire other blog about government and municipal mismanagement.  All I know is I heard Andy North on TV talking about how he thinks of the U.S. Open as tree lined, deep rough etc. and how this looked just like any other British Open and he sounded like a f*cking idiot.

[Ben Sims]

A page and a half of non-locals ranting about the public cost of the golf course and surrounding parkland. Color me surprised that golfclubatlas can blindly determine  exactly what's best for Pierce County WA. By the way, still no mention that Chambers Bay is far more than just a golf course to many who live here.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Personally, I'm glad the course was built.  It will show how a course can exist that conserves water. It shows what vision can do.  It was built to host an Open and it got it.  It is the kind of golf I love.  Nonetheless, for a municipal course it is expensive.  If it were a resort, with all the amenities that a resort has, it would not be considered too expensive. 

[Richard Choi]

And I still do not understand why people still are accusing this course of being too difficult.

A 36 handicap can get around this course without losing a ball. It is FAR easier to play for a high handicapper than Bethpage Black (or Red), Torrey Pines (North or South), Pebble Beach, or ANY other public course that has hosted a major.

And it is by FAR the easiest course to get on compared to any other public that has hosted a major.

How anyone think that's what is wrong with golf is beyond me.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, as I understand it, the USGA Open won't return there until at least 2022.  I think they are scheduled out to Winged Foot that year.  Is that really enough to justify maintaining and marketing a USGA Open venue for once every 15 years or so?  And, at those retail prices per round?  As I stated and asked above, if the operation is or has paid the County back for the intitial huge investment, then I am less negative about it.  If the residents of Tacoma and Seattle want to pay that amount of fees to play, fine.  But, if the thing is still subsidized by the taxpayer after all these years already open, then the average Joe paying his property tax and sales tax or whatever they use in the subsidy... they should at least have a very good deal for the residents pass, IMHO.  If a golf fanatic travels across the country to play it due to it being high on the ratings and rankings list and a US Open venue and the belt notchers seek it out, then go ahead and hit them over the head with the fee.   Doesn't Torrey Pines have a better resident fee than the belt notchers out of area golfer pays? 

[Mark Greer]

I played Chambers Bay last November and I loved it.  The wind was howling and a squall blew in for a 9 and still loved it.  It is not cheap but neither are several other wonder public courses at Bandon which in my humble opinion is quite comparable to Chambers.  And few complain about the cost there.  Harding Park, another muni, isn't inexpensive for an out-of-towner either.  I think Chambers Bay is what is right about golf.  Unpretentious.  Spartan clubhouse.  No golf carts.  Very playable for a higher handicaper with great short tee options.  It may have cost a lot to build and I don't want to get into the politics of it.  It was a local issue for locals to decide.  But the outcome is undeniable-an 8 year old course having hosted the US Amateur and now the Open.   

[jeffwarne]

  I think Chambers Bay is what is right about golf.  Unpretentious.  Spartan clubhouse.  No golf carts.  Very playable for a higher handicaper with great short tee options.  It may have cost a lot to build and I don't want to get into the politics of it.  It was a local issue for locals to decide.  But the outcome is undeniable-an 8 year old course having hosted the US Amateur and now the Open.

Good stuff.

[Brent Hutto]

I guess it also exemplifies a trend that if you want to walk rather than ride in a golf cart, here in USA you either need to play really, really cheap courses (under 20 bucks) or really, really expensive ones. Walking golf is slowly becoming a rich man's pleasure.

[jeffwarne]

I guess it also exemplifies a trend that if you want to walk rather than ride in a golf cart, here in USA you either need to play really, really cheap courses (under 20 bucks) or really, really expensive ones. Walking golf is slowly becoming a rich man's pleasure.

Good point.Even free golf is expensive at most "walking only" courses.
My favorite was listening to my Sirius XM PGA Tour explayer colleagues rant about how bad pushcarts "looked" in the NCAA, while they take caddies in events and ride carts at home

[JStewart]

And it is by FAR the easiest course to get on compared to any other public that has hosted a major.

How anyone think that's what is wrong with golf is beyond me.

I was out in the Seattle-area a couple summers ago, got a twilight tee time relatively easily, paid under $70 and had a blast. It's a beautiful setting and fun course. Not sure I came away from the experience thinking it was "US Open" caliber (though I'm open-minded to that and want to see how things go this week), but I certainly don't think CB is "what is wrong with golf."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, as I understand it, the USGA Open won't return there until at least 2022.  I think they are scheduled out to Winged Foot that year.  Is that really enough to justify maintaining and marketing a USGA Open venue for once every 15 years or so?  And, at those retail prices per round?  As I stated and asked above, if the operation is or has paid the County back for the intitial huge investment, then I am less negative about it.  If the residents of Tacoma and Seattle want to pay that amount of fees to play, fine.  But, if the thing is still subsidized by the taxpayer after all these years already open, then the average Joe paying his property tax and sales tax or whatever they use in the subsidy... they should at least have a very good deal for the residents pass, IMHO.  If a golf fanatic travels across the country to play it due to it being high on the ratings and rankings list and a US Open venue and the belt notchers seek it out, then go ahead and hit them over the head with the fee.   Doesn't Torrey Pines have a better resident fee than the belt notchers out of area golfer pays? 

RJ,

I don't know the details. It seems like an earlier article said they are starting to make money with the US Open pub, and are behind but catching up on paying off the debt.  Hopefully, Open revenues will balance the books and/or minimize the public subsidies.

I wouldn't expect the US Open to come more than once every 8-12 years, so whether or not that financial model works remains to be seen.  Even if there are manageable subsidies, is it any different than tax breaks to attract business? Govt fronting some money to increase the tourist biz for the benefit of related businesses? 

That idea has been around since the transcontinental railroad in different forms.  Overall, we should be glad golf is a strong enough player to be considered as an incentive.  You don't build these kinds of courses to cater to locals, you build something special and famous for the tourists, to help your hotels, restaurants, etc.  So, it is what it is. 

Maybe not my cup of tea, if I had to pay $100+ (I did play once and enjoyed it a lot, despite heavy rain) maybe not yours, but there are plenty of high end courses, hopefully just enough to meet market demand. 

[David Davis]

Agree the expense is a local governmental issue. However, I would like to reiterate the fact that it was a huge gaping hole in the ground that had been dug out. The community had to do something with it. Either a park or something to fix the eyesore that it was. I'll bet this would of cost a fortune no matter how you look at it. They would of had to fill it in. Perhaps it would of been done with garbage, who knows what. As luck would have it, good luck for all us golfers. It became indeed one of the most playable courses in the state and perhaps even the west coast if not the country.

Exactly what Rich said, equally as fun for a 36 hcp as someone that is a strong player and a unique experience on top of that.

Sounds better to me than 15-20 million to restore the area with the possibility of getting none of that back.

[Jud_T]

RJ,

Lawsonia Links $90
Whistling Straights $385*
Erin Hills $245*
(not including required caddie)

Do the math.  I prefer the former to either of the big names.  Granted slightly different locations, but the market has spoken.  People care about tournament venues, belt-notching, rankings, gear, views, difficulty and bragging rights.  If this Open is a big success, it will be worth tens of millions in revenue to the area for years to come.

[Niall C]

I wonder how much of the development cost would have been spent anyway in remediating the site ? Anyone any idea ? Maybe in that light the cost wasn't daft, I don't know.

I can also understand that as a public facility some might think it shouldn't make a financial loss but it is a recognised principle in the public sector (at least here in the UK) that getting best value isn't necessarily about making the most money for the authority, it can also include other social benefits. Getting a US Open with all the side benefits that brings to an area in both the short and long term probably makes sense when looked at in those terms.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure about the environmental remediation costs, but certainly huge.

And, another plus for golf, using golf courses to restore waste sites......... From the early pix, it also looks like it will be another testament to water conservation in golf, although a few pros have suggested it will only play well if they drench it.

Even at its cost, IHMO, it is an overall plus for golf.

[Carl Nichols]

I wonder how much of the development cost would have been spent anyway in remediating the site ? Anyone any idea ? Maybe in that light the cost wasn't daft, I don't know.

I can also understand that as a public facility some might think it shouldn't make a financial loss but it is a recognised principle in the public sector (at least here in the UK) that getting best value isn't necessarily about making the most money for the authority, it can also include other social benefits. Getting a US Open with all the side benefits that brings to an area in both the short and long term probably makes sense when looked at in those terms.

Niall

Niall--
I'm no Chambers Bay expert, but if I recall correctly from previous threads, the high number that gets tossed around may include both the costs of (a) remediation [which would've  occurred anyway if the site was going to get cleaned up]; and (b) other improvements to the area, which includes a park bigger than just the golf course.   

[Carl Rogers]

Are there reliable maintenance cost figures?  Could it be maintained relatively cheaply and brought back for big events?  With no carts, doesn't that cut down on maintenance costs?  What are the cost drivers at CB that are above and beyond the typical course?

[Tim Fenchel]

Not sure I have too much to add that hasn't already been asked or questioned.  All of the below from someone who lives on the opposite side of the country and has never stepped foot on the site.


I suppose overall I would say to the original posters question that I wouldn't align Chambers Bay with the problems of golf today...although I think there are some salient points to be made in that arguments favor. It does seem from what I have read and seen that it is very playable, even for the high handicapper. Yes it is walk-able...but at about 7 miles a round from what I understand...perhaps more hike-able.


First. My biggest gripe MIGHT be the greens fees.  I say might because I do not know what it costs for Pierce County residents to play the course.  If the rates are really affordable and reasonable for residents then I would drop this from my list of issues. Maybe Michael can provide the specifics.[size=78%]  [/size](Perhaps I'll start a thread some day on municipal courses and their resident rates.   Basically I think our friends across the pond do it right...make it really affordable for the locals and quite pricey for the tourists)[size=78%]



Second. I just watched the video piece on the Golf Channel that highlighted the whole process from start to finish.  One of the introductory comments from John Laddenburg, previous Exec of Pierce County, was that "We have to get this 1,000 acre site open to the public."  According to the latest demographic info...about 9% of American's play golf.  That hardly makes CB open to the public.  Now, I don't know the local vibe...maybe the public is allowed to recreate (walk, hike) on the property.  It would be really great if the Old Course rule would apply...closed on Sunday's for everyone to enjoy.  But if it is strictly a site for golf...and high end golf at that...I would hardly call it open to the public.


And then the list of questions about local property taxes, cost of developing the site as a golf course vs. alternative uses, etc etc.


Despite my disdain for an overuse of bulldozers in building a golf course...it should be some great spectating this week.


Whatever the case...I love the train and the tree.[/size]

[Tim Leahy]

Unpretentious = No golf carts. LOL.

[David Kelly]

And it is by FAR the easiest course to get on compared to any other public that has hosted a major.

Yes, but certainly that isn't by design.  I'm sure that they would love to have the demand that Bethpage and Torrey Pines enjoy.


Although it says a lot about municipal finance, I don't think think Chambers Bay says anything about the state of golf. 

[BHoover]

Haven't played Chambers Bay, but I'm looking forward to seeing how the players manage to play their way around the course under the pressure of a US Open.

Also, I would argue that if the course allows anyone to play upon paying the requested greens fee, then, by definition, it is a public course and open to the general public.