[Mark_Fine]

I made a post on the "extreme greens" thread but it might be better suited here.  Maybe a new trend in golf architecture will be to decrease the importance of "putting" and green surfaces.  More money has been spent on this, more golfers have quit the game over this, and until recently (relative to the age of the game) putting never was meant to have such high importance.  Golfers used to dig dirt/sand out of the hole and use it to build a tee to play their next shot     No one gave a hoot about putting.  Now it seems putting has almost become the essence of the game.  Maybe that will change (it might be for the better) 

[Forrest Richardson]

Nice idea Mark.

Tom D — The "course a day" comment has always been taken out of context. If you dig deeper, you can see what the NGF was commenting on, and how that comment became a snippet to bash the NGF as a whole. I suspect the poster who is painting tee markers is likely reacting to the same snippet.

It would be interesting to know more, but I understand you were not involved. I cannot imagine the NGF Consulting people not truly wanting to understand a project, or golf architect's proposed work approach. At least I have never experienced that — and I cannot imagine what good it would do their clients, or themselves!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have occasionally consulted with NGF, too.  I was even a small part of their survey in 2013, that showed nearly every public course in DFW that remodeled showed a positive revenue increase.  Lower costs had lower increases, but higher ROI, and higher dollar renos had higher revenue increases, but lower ROI.  I thought it was a pretty balanced assessment, perhaps leaning slightly to the cheerleading side.


I can tell you that if the situation arose that some free funding came about from members in Tom D's example, they would be glad to revise their numbers to support whatever debt was incurred, and why not?  If they figured a course could support, say $500K in debt, but the course was getting a free $2M in member contributions, then it would support a $2.5M renovation, because there was still only $500K in debt.  With a better renovation, they might even figure potential debt load higher, figuring a few more new members.


I see NGF being bashed for recommending spending too much on new courses then, and not enough now.  It would seem they are over-reacting to the market perception of past excess, but maybe they are just being more careful.  Even back in the day, most cities or developers would take a golf feasibility to their lenders, who ran their own studies, and invariably were more conservative on how much debt to take on.  One big problem was courses were built with maybe 80% of the budget they really needed to be successful and operational.  Bankers sure didn't take architecture and operations into account either.


Of course, there could be a great debate about how much architecture affects success.  I agree NGF generally figures all courses tend to regress to the local mean financially. They can't control the design, they can't control the marketing, so they sort of have to.  I have seen studies by others that try to "rank" the newly renovated course in the marketplace, and then forecast a revenue base higher than what has typically been achieved by others. 


Also, as more courses are renovated in an area, the "newly reopened" factor tends to diminish in general, which most studies that want to be positive don't recognize.


Lastly, it may be BS to really even try to predict golf success as an independent consultant.  I have never felt golf level feasibilities are as sophisticated as those for hotels or real estate, but do understand NGF and others have tried to make them more so since the course a day recommendations.  It is still a tricky business, but I can only name one feasibility firm that has been sued for erroneous conclusions. 


Can't recall the outcome of that, and most put all sorts of disclaimers in, sometimes longer than the report summary!

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Over the years, I've reviewed and analyzed more appraisals, feasibility studies, and CAPEX proposals than I care to think about.  Those involving investment real estate (and golf is in many ways just that) rely on numerous considered assumptions based on understanding many variables which can only be estimated at best.  As you know, in many states, prices of real estate are not recorded and most principals prefer keeping that information to themselves.  In estimating demand, it is difficult to get accurate rent/rounds surveys from operators, and though the professionals employ various techniques to get around the obvious problems, the data is probably only directionally accurate.  All users of NGF reports and independent feasibility studies know damn well the limitations.

Developers as a rule, especially during times when they weren't putting much of their own money into the projects, are an optimistic sort who roll the dice without proper restraint.  Lenders in particular, be it Textron in the past or a bond agent seeking to underwrite an offering for a municipality (you remember the meeting we had in Mansfield 20+ years ago?), take a fine tooth comb to the analysis, and a more sober look.

Unfortunately, even sophisticated players can be mistaken if the world suddenly changes on them and their considered assumptions no longer reflect the new realities.   9/11 was one such change.  Another was the housing meltdown at the end of Bush's term and the immediate response by the Fed which essentially destroyed most people's understanding of money and their outlook toward the future.

Had the NGF seen these two events in its crystal ball, I am sure its forecast would have been entirely different.  I am not an NGF subscriber, so I have not seen the mix data for rounds played by year, but I suspect that as interest rates on bank deposits and money markets approached 0%, senior golf was greatly impacted.  By the way, when we start treating forecasts by the "non-partisan" congressional budget office with similar derision, I might get my dander up on the NGF's bloops.

[Lou_Duran]

Below is a take on the NGF's "a course a day":

http://worldgolfreport.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngf-course-day-then-now.html

[Forrest Richardson]

If Bob Vasilak is now an expert to end all experts, we are perhaps going down a hole.

[Mike_Young]

To understand the NGF just check out it's Board of Directors....

[Peter Pallotta]

To paraphrase Quintin Crisp ('The Naked Civil Servant'): Every profession exists solely for the benefit of its practitioners. The world doesn't need 'the theatre'; it exists only because in every generation there are hundreds of people who want to make a living putting on plays!
I suppose no one actually needs the NGF either; it's just that every generation produces many more would-be consultants than it knows what to do with!
I may be wrong, of course - but I am almost sure this is the only time Quintin Crisp's name has ever been associated with golf course architecture! So that's something...

[Tom_Doak]

Likewise, the world needs people who can build golf courses, more than it needs golf course architects.  That's why I've never been too hung up on the title.

[Mike_Young]

Likewise, the world needs people who can build golf courses, more than it needs golf course architects.  That's why I've never been too hung up on the title.

You are so skilled a stating something in one sentence that takes me three paragraphs of rambling.....

[Mark_Fine]

Tom/Mike,
Do we really need more of either or do we need more who know how to help better maintain/improve/manage the courses we already have?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Over the years, I've reviewed and analyzed more appraisals, feasibility studies, and CAPEX proposals than I care to think about.  Those involving investment real estate (and golf is in many ways just that) rely on numerous considered assumptions based on understanding many variables which can only be estimated at best.  As you know, in many states, prices of real estate are not recorded and most principals prefer keeping that information to themselves.  In estimating demand, it is difficult to get accurate rent/rounds surveys from operators, and though the professionals employ various techniques to get around the obvious problems, the data is probably only directionally accurate.  All users of NGF reports and independent feasibility studies know damn well the limitations.

Developers as a rule, especially during times when they weren't putting much of their own money into the projects, are an optimistic sort who roll the dice without proper restraint.  Lenders in particular, be it Textron in the past or a bond agent seeking to underwrite an offering for a municipality (you remember the meeting we had in Mansfield 20+ years ago?), take a fine tooth comb to the analysis, and a more sober look.

Unfortunately, even sophisticated players can be mistaken if the world suddenly changes on them and their considered assumptions no longer reflect the new realities.   9/11 was one such change.  Another was the housing meltdown at the end of Bush's term and the immediate response by the Fed which essentially destroyed most people's understanding of money and their outlook toward the future.

Had the NGF seen these two events in its crystal ball, I am sure its forecast would have been entirely different.  I am not an NGF subscriber, so I have not seen the mix data for rounds played by year, but I suspect that as interest rates on bank deposits and money markets approached 0%, senior golf was greatly impacted.  By the way, when we start treating forecasts by the "non-partisan" congressional budget office with similar derision, I might get my dander up on the NGF's bloops.

Lou,


Yes, I recall those Mansfield TX meetings and was thinking of those as I posted. Not sure who did the pro formas, but recall Southwest Financial cut them down in size.


I agree with you on nearly every point.  I have never seen a golf study that didn't project first year revenues, and then add 2-3% from there.  Yet, we know the stock market dips and economy typically contracts about every three years, every third dip is more substantial, etc.  And we know there will be a war event or natural disaster that will affect the economy.  It would seem pro formas should include things like, not to mention consideration of actual potential rounds, as affected by hours of daylight, length of season, tendency of courses in severe floodplains to flood, with annual or semi annual closures (and reputation damage), attendant reconstruction costs, etc.  For the most part, golf studies ignore those, and just add a disclaimer that no one can predict unforeseen events.


In the monthly rounds report, NGF has taken to comparing weather year over year.  That is, they report rounds down at X% (or up) but note the number of rain days, etc. that affect the ability to play.  Like I say, they try to get more sophisticated every year, but as you say, it will never be an exact science, and investors are the ones who take the risk, as it probably should be. 


I believe the best predictor of future revenues come from the bids those who put up actual money to own or lease a golf course.   


Cheers and Happy New Year.  When it warms up, we should get together and play some golf.

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
I think Tom was responding to the Quinton Crisp qote from Peter.  I don't think he was saying we needed more.  Speaking for myself, we need more simplicity and less smoke and mirrors.  The term "golf course architect" can mean so many things and anyone can declare such.  Not everyone can say they have design/built a golf course.  That is the difference between a young person working for Tom or myself vs. working for a signature design firm etc. 

A few days a go I saw an architecture website where the guy had never had a single project built but he had over 80 projects listed ( with some being prominent courses) and  the rest were just smoke and mirror hype. ( I'm betting if one called some of the clinets they don't remember the guy.)  OH...and  the new cool thing to state now is either "in the field" design by some of the firms who used to strongly object to design/build. 

I just heard Lester George on PGA Tour Radio explaining the virtues of the ASGCA architect and how they could help a club with the changing game.  That's nothing to do with Lester's individual works or those of any other ASGCA member but it is more hype in an already hyped up industry...

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course, "hype" is not necessarily a bad thing — it conveys excitement and perhaps even enthusiasm taken to an extreme level. I recall reading once that its first use was about the same time America was building its Golden Age courses, e.g., during the Mackenzie, Hunter, Flynn, Ross, etc. years. The tendency now is to file "hype" as something overblown or bad. I am not sure it necessarily is. Maybe golf needs some hype, like the days of Tiger, being wow-ed by new equipment, seeing the first bright colored ball, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,
I think Tom was responding to the Quinton Crisp qote from Peter.  I don't think he was saying we needed more.  Speaking for myself, we need more simplicity and less smoke and mirrors.  The term "golf course architect" can mean so many things and anyone can declare such.  Not everyone can say they have design/built a golf course.  That is the difference between a young person working for Tom or myself vs. working for a signature design firm etc. 

A few days a go I saw an architecture website where the guy had never had a single project built but he had over 80 projects listed ( with some being prominent courses) and  the rest were just smoke and mirror hype. ( I'm betting if one called some of the clinets they don't remember the guy.)  OH...and  the new cool thing to state now is either "in the field" design by some of the firms who used to strongly object to design/build. 

I just heard Lester George on PGA Tour Radio explaining the virtues of the ASGCA architect and how they could help a club with the changing game.  That's nothing to do with Lester's individual works or those of any other ASGCA member but it is more hype in an already hyped up industry...

Mike,


So you don't believe golf course architecture can help courses?  Seems like an odd belief to me!


Now, I would grant that every case is individual, and that the remodel at course X should very likely be very different than the one at course Y just down the street.  But, I don't think ASGCA has ever said otherwise.


 Most of us echo the sentiments of Tom Doak, where we usually suggest the minimum possible. At the very least, we (or at least I) lay out low, medium and high options for them to consider, together with a reasonable estimate of potential benefits.  I have never been successful in convincing a club to spend a dime more than they wanted to.  Whether club or city, there are some pretty smart guys in charge who understand their own finances, despite a well spread rumor to the contrary.


 If it's hype to suggest there is value in a course having an architect out to have a look at its individual needs, I disagree. 


You seem to imply that the hype is to have every architect rebuild every course in America for $6M plus.  Some pitches can seem that way, and I can see where the cynic in you would believe that.......

[Peter Pallotta]

Edit:

Forrest -
your last post reminded me of a novel I read years/decades ago, "Wheels", by Arthur Hailey - a thinly disguised look at the Ford Motor Company and the Detroit auto industry.
What I remember is a passage recounting how the top executives from all the big automakers agreed to promote their cars in the best way they could -- *except* via mentioning 'good looks'.

So subjective did they think styling was and so eager were they not to compete on that front that they decided together that none of them would raise the issue of a 'better looking car' in their respective ads. 

[Forrest Richardson]

Peter — I have heard of that book, but not read it. My father was an avid collector of Cords (front wheel drive) and in 1930-something bought a car from Barbara Stanwick...her agent was Groucho Marx and my dad paid him cash on a Hollywood, California street.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Forrest, I love those kinds of stories.
And, as Joe Hancock might say on Groucho's behalf:
"I don't want to ride in any Cord that would have me as a driver!"
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Here's a photo of Lee Roy Richardson, somewhere in Burbank-Hollywood c. 1930s

http://www.automaven.com/Cord_People/wwwlrr/lee.jpg

[Peter Pallotta]

 
The golden age of American car design!
Nowadays everything looks vaguely like the same mid-size SUV

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

So you don't believe golf course architecture can help courses?  Seems like an odd belief to me!


Now, I would grant that every case is individual, and that the remodel at course X should very likely be very different than the one at course Y just down the street.  But, I don't think ASGCA has ever said otherwise.


 Most of us echo the sentiments of Tom Doak, where we usually suggest the minimum possible. At the very least, we (or at least I) lay out low, medium and high options for them to consider, together with a reasonable estimate of potential benefits.  I have never been successful in convincing a club to spend a dime more than they wanted to.  Whether club or city, there are some pretty smart guys in charge who understand their own finances, despite a well spread rumor to the contrary.


 If it's hype to suggest there is value in a course having an architect out to have a look at its individual needs, I disagree. 


You seem to imply that the hype is to have every architect rebuild every course in America for $6M plus.  Some pitches can seem that way, and I can see where the cynic in you would believe that.......

Jeff,
You are putting words in my mouth.  As Forrest mentioned hype CAN be a good thing.  All I said was the radio broadcast this morning was a hype of ASGCA and there is no substance to hype there.  Sure you can hype the work of many individual members but discussion of " "years in the business" and "average number of projects" and "experience" etc  is just hyperbole.  WHERE DI DID I IMPLY "that the hype is to have every architect rebuild every course in America for $6M plus."  nothing close to that was said...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom/Mike,
Do we really need more of either or do we need more who know how to help better maintain/improve/manage the courses we already have?

Well, they keep "better maintaining" courses so thoroughly that clubs are asking architects to flatten out the greens ... so I don't think we need them better maintained!


My comment was indeed a reaction to Peter P's story about Quinton Crisp.  My point being:  if I was building his courses, I think Peter would be a pretty good architect.  If he was building mine, I'm not so sure how they'd turn out.


That's why I try to be in charge of building my own.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
When I say "better maintained" I sure don't mean more pristine.  Better maintenance can mean "less maintenance".  I for one am a believer in courses looking rougher especially around the edges.  Also, my last resort is to "flatten/rebuild" an old green.  I've done it but mostly in rare occasions.  Better to first expand those greens (if possible) as most shrink over time and many of the best hole locations get lost.  This shrinkage also causes some older greens to become boarder line unplayable and expanding them back to their original sizes can sometimes alter this without rebuilding them.  I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but this is the kind of education/information many clubs could benefit from.  On another occasion, we had a club that wanted a whole series of cart paths put in because many of the holes were unplayable for cart traffic after a heavy rain.  We recommended fixing the root cause first which was a drainage problem as the course had become a catch basin with all the surrounding homes and hardscape that had been built up around it.  We not only improved turf conditions after fixing the drainage but never had to put in those ugly and expensive cart paths   This is where outside expertise can help clubs better maintain/improve/manage the course they have. 


The other thing that is important is to only provide recommendations, plans,...that are in the best interest of the course/club and not just in the best interest of the architect.   I could go on and on but there is a lot of value in having someone with an outside perspective and expertise help clubs with their existing asset. 


Mike,
I don't know what the answer is to eliminate the smoke and mirrors.  You probably never will and it is like that in most businesses.  You can for example hire a plumber who knows exactly what they are doing and another who is clueless.  Eventually these things sort themselves out and generally the work that gets done is the proof or not of competency.  I don't have all the answers or solutions but one thing I am sure of is a lot of known architects or committees or whoever, gave little to no respect to the past and that has not always been a good thing for older golf courses.   
 

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
When I say "better maintained" I sure don't mean more pristine.  Better maintenance can mean "less maintenance".  I for one am a believer in courses looking rougher especially around the edges.  Also, my last resort is to "flatten/rebuild" an old green.  I've done it but mostly in rare occasions.  Better to first expand those greens (if possible) as most shrink over time and many of the best hole locations get lost.  This shrinkage also causes some older greens to become boarder line unplayable and expanding them back to their original sizes can sometimes alter this without rebuilding them.  I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but this is the kind of education/information many clubs could benefit from.  On another occasion, we had a club that wanted a whole series of cart paths put in because many of the holes were unplayable for cart traffic after a heavy rain.  We recommended fixing the root cause first which was a drainage problem as the course had become a catch basin with all the surrounding homes and hardscape that had been built up around it.  We not only improved turf conditions after fixing the drainage but never had to put in those ugly and expensive cart paths   This is where outside expertise can help clubs better maintain/improve/manage the course they have. 


The other thing that is important is to only provide recommendations, plans,...that are in the best interest of the course/club and not just in the best interest of the architect.   I could go on and on but there is a lot of value in having someone with an outside perspective and expertise help clubs with their existing asset. 


Mike,
I don't know what the answer is to eliminate the smoke and mirrors.  You probably never will and it is like that in most businesses.  You can for example hire a plumber who knows exactly what they are doing and another who is clueless.  Eventually these things sort themselves out and generally the work that gets done is the proof or not of competency.  I don't have all the answers or solutions but one thing I am sure of is a lot of known architects or committees or whoever, gave little to no respect to the past and that has not always been a good thing for older golf courses.

Mark,

And I see the current trend heading in the direction of the design build for many of the reasons you state above.  Take a designer/builder  who has actually moved a dozer blade or lived on a site and not just had a photo-op on a sand pro; he  can actually walk down that hole with the drainage problem and know how to get it done efficiently and doesn't have to go back and do three pages of drawings and specifications and billing to justify his existence.  That is the smoke and mirrors I am talking about. 

As for the plumber example...doesn't exactly fit in my eye.  If it were related to the smoke and mirror effect of golf course design in some cases, it would be where one plumber could actually fix the problem and the other plumber had a business card that said he was a plumber but he had no tools BUT knew where to find a plumber who did.  He would find the plumber who did and mark him up and move on to the next.  It's the same thing as TD states in his reply to Peter above.......TD to Peter:  " if I was building his courses, I think Peter would be a pretty good architect.  If he was building mine, I'm not so sure how they'd turn out.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
We are on the same page.  I am not big on doing detailed plans.  We can and have but frankly I have never seen a good shaper use them    They are more for permitting etc.  I prefer working in the field with the contractors.  We just finished work/construction on three different courses in the past three months and other than a few sketches, we didn't use any detailed plans.  And the end result was three very happy clients who saved some money and love the results.  It is hard to do smoke and mirrors for example when you are building a bunker.  It either looks great and functions great or it looks like crap and poorly functions. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()