Design a BAM (bare a$$ minimum) maintenance cost course. What precepts to use?

[Peter Bowman]

It's difficult to make any serious money owning a golf course these days; it's a risky endeavor where risks may greatly out weight the rewards. I think most can agree this is the norm, and there ARE exceptions to this. 
Making a higher profit requires raising revenues and/or reducing expenses (I prefer "and"). So let's talk about how can this be done from a design standpoint that minimizes construction costs and long-term maintenance expenses, but is intriguing and fun enough to allow safe revenues from fair greens fees and memberships.[/color]I have no experiencing in designing and constructing a golf course, and only minimal experience in maintaining a golf course, but here are ideas of precepts that come to my mind in designs and construction.  I look forward to being corrected and enlightened[/color]I assume the largest expenses are:[/color]1) design and construction costs[/color]2) maintenance time and equipment[/color]3) payroll costs
[/color]Bowman's BAM Precepts (in no order of importance)
[/u][/b][/color]1) Land that needs minimal earth moving[/color]2) Creative, disciplined architect that uses the land as-is and is willing to forego ideas that could indeed make the course better, but realizes the costs outweigh the benefits[/color]3) design for 9 holes; maybe 12 holes that can be used in rotation for 9 at a time to keep things interesting for golfers. avoid the "standard" 18 hole design
[/color]4) Design for efficient mowing and bunker maintenance
[/color]5) Have a BAM pro shop (shack, really) like Sweetens Cove's[/color]6) Eliminate tee boxes.  Make extended fairways with room to vary tee positions in ways that makes the course different multiple times a week.  Anything that interrupts mowing and requires shifting of the reel height costs time and that costs money
[/color]7) Create larger but fewer bunkers that can be raked by car with an entry and exit point that don't need cleaning up.  Perhaps connect them to waste bunkers where possible[/color] Design with fewer bunkers in general.  Instead, make use of natural or man-made hazards in topography that require creative shot playing[/color]9) Put greenside bunkers close enough to green for only one mower width.  Laterally and beyond other bunkers, leave "eyebrows" that need occasional weed whacking and chemical applications[/color]10) employ more un-mowed long grass at borders of holes to reduce mowing grass not usually in play[/color]11) Roombas for greens.  I'm sure there already are or will soon be robotic greens mowers that can mow any wonky green design and do it autonomously.  The Super and greenskeepers would simply need to position them on the green and digitally babysit them, while they are doing other repairs and maintenance to the course.  [/color](this one is controversial.  I understand this will reduce golf course jobs, but at the rates golf courses are closing, it may be necessary to operate at a profit at all).
[/color]12) single row irrigation down the middle of fairways--rough be damned--and enough to cover all greens and approach turf[/color]At this phase in my career investing in/owning a golf course, I am here to learn more than to teach, so I look forward to criticisms and suggestions, as well as compliments in my current understanding of things.[/color]Thanks guys
[/color]

[William_G]

find a site where you only need tees and greens

[Ally Mcintosh]

If you have the right links land, you can design and build a top notch course for pocket money... By far the biggest expense will be irrigation / water supply for the tees and greens.


Given the grasses you are dealing with, you could then maintain that to a good standard on 2 or 3 full-time green-staff and seasonal help, a couple more if you are going to have full tee-sheets every day of the week.



(Note a lot of generalisations / variables in the above but this conversation will start from many bases.)

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Paging Don Mahaffey...


http://nuzzogolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2009/12/19-things-you-can-do-to-save-cost-on.html


Other required reading:


Overgrooming Is Overspending - USGA Green Section Recordgsr.lib.msu.edu › ...


I think most architects on here bristle at the idea of designing a course around maintenance practices and would say that it's ass backwards, but for the "BAM" course you speak of it simply must be at the forefront. Happily though, there are is a symbiotic relationship between ease of maintenance and great golf.


Here's a list of things I feel are important:


1) BUNKERS!: Minimal or none. I cannot stress this enough. Everything about bunkers is a maintenance hassle. That being said, they are a critical tool in terms of generating interest and strategy, especially when other features are unavailable. So make them small, well positioned, and not overly intricate and stylized. Do not under any circumstance flash the faces, and do not install pop up irrigation to make their grass faces uniform with other rough areas. Choose sparse dry bunch growing native grasses such as fescues to plant in the faces. These will survive under deficit irrigation, root deeply, and hold the faces together. They will require minimal fertilizer and minimal flymowing/string trimming.


2) Select the biggest goddamn mower you can find to mow each area. For greens, triplexes. For fairways, tow behind gang units supplemented by a five gang lightweight unit to trim out perimeters and approach areas. Walk mowing anything is out of the question. For rough: if you have to mow rough more than once in awhile, you are doing it wrong. This leads into the next one:


3) Rough: Make rough "rough" again. Irrigation: None. Fertilization: None. The rough will go through a cycle. When it rains it will need to be mowed and it will be lush and green. In times of drought it will need to be left alone and will be khaki dormant and wispy. Accept it's natural cycle. Hacking out of it when lush will be the challenge one day, managing hot flyers will be the challenge another. But it will be inconsistent by it's nature.


5) Height of cut (HOC): There are exactly three. Greens height, fairway/tee height, and rough height (only when it needs to be mowed, see above). There are no step cuts, lower walk mowed approaches, etc. etc. Also on HOC for fairways, select the highest tolerable height of cut. In most cases, higher=happier. The lower you mow the more you favor poa annua.


I'll start with that for now.

[Thomas Dai]

A good place to start would probably be to study simple, low spec courses in various parts of the world. Ones that have existed for decades and are still doing nicely will probably indicate how to be successful, ones that have failed, well I guess they won’t be around to be studied.
Atb

[Peter Flory]

Is it possible to only water the greens?  Spring valley seems to get away with that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter B:
do you know how actor Glenn Ford described the arc of his (and any actor's) career? It has five stages:
1. Who's Glenn Ford?
2. Get me Glenn Ford!
3. Find me a Glenn Ford type.
4. I want a young Glenn Ford!
5. Who's Glenn Ford?
I'm thinking that for your BAM model, the precept would be 'go directly to stage 4' in choosing the architect.
You get some of the craft, all of the bright new ideas, and the same hard work and dedication at a quarter of the price -- and maybe even less than that!

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Is it possible to only water the greens?  Spring valley seems to get away with that.

Depending on the vagaries of your climate, it is advisable to water both greens and tees at BAM, or have massive teeing areas where you can move them all around if not. Traditional type tee boxes will need to be irrigated for recovery, as the wear on tee boxes is the most intense of all golf course turfs, especially par 3s of course. I don't know about Spring Valley, but there's a course I know of in Maine called Abenakee that only does tees and greens. I follow the superintendent on Twitter and it's fun to see him post photos of perfectly green fairways making way for mottled green/khaki fairways, making way for utterly and completely dormant fairways of 100% khaki corresponding solely to weather. Really keeps the poa annua out of a fine fescue stand!

[jeffwarne]

[John Emerson]

The cost should be broken down further.  Cost to build vs cost to maintain.  If you don’t project enough of a maintenance budget to address course improvements as the years go by(drainage, tree work, bunkers etc), you will dig yourself into a deferred maintenance hole regardless if you have 10 bunkers or 110. 
If you did push-up greens, and center row irrigation, that would save tons of money by itself.  There is just so much to this and so many caveats. 

[Peter Bowman]

The cost should be broken down further.  Cost to build vs cost to maintain.  If you don’t project enough of a maintenance budget to address course improvements as the years go by(drainage, tree work, bunkers etc), you will dig yourself into a deferred maintenance hole regardless if you have 10 bunkers or 110. 
If you did push-up greens, and center row irrigation, that would save tons of money by itself.  There is just so much to this and so many caveats.

This is (would be if it was a real scenario) definitely factored into consideration. What good is a BAM course that deteriorates due to deferred maintenance within a few year.  The costs to rehab it would no longer reside within BAM.

I can’t imagine a course without irrigation at all, let alone for greens only.  Here’s a question: if you’re paying to route irrigation to all greens, is the cost to irrigate the fairways not significantly higher f you’re using the same pipelines?

I like to look at things in terms of The Pareto Principle aka 80/20 Rule. For comparison, I asked Whittinsville’s Super about their maintenance budget and it’s at least 5x ours at Hooper.  Their conditions are pristine on every square foot of turf. At Hooper, our greens are in excellent shape, our tees have improved greatly, but our fairways and rough are very dry and spotty due to lack or rain. But with that said, I feel at 20% of their budget, we’re able to accomplish 80% of what they have in terms of enjoyable playing conditions

[Bernie Bell]

Peter,


This thread may be of interest, if I understand your question correctly.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the basics have been mentioned, except that most courses can cover operational costs, but not debt.  Which is of course, the reason so many coursed got built in housing.  The developer built the course and almost gave it away.  Operations are probably still under $2 Million for a reasonable quality course.  30K rounds at an averages $67 total revenues per golfer, which isn't that much.


Yes, simpler construction that saves a few million off the current $8-9 Mil cost of a new or totally renovated course (plus another $2-3 clubhouse) helps debt, i.e., at about $60 per $1000, saving $2Mil equates to $120K per year less debt cost.  Better yet, buy one that has some extra land for real estate and move a few holes over there to offset initial construction cost.


The best current way to make costs work out might be to renovate a tired, but decent course with an existing clubhouse of moderate size.  Less permits, less cost (no need to clear trees again, might save some drainage, irrigation, paths, etc.)  As one biz consultant says, its hard to make money on more than a $4.5Mil renovation, but some cities continue to do just that.

[Peter Flory]

What about artificial turf tees? 

[Peter Bowman]

Peter,


This thread may be of interest, if I understand your question correctly.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67740.0.html

Thanks, Bernie.  I’ll read it.

@Peter Flory

I’m sure artificial turf tees could save money in the long run but likely at the expense of positive perceptions of the rest of the course if it has an appealing and fun design that brings golfers back again and again.

If I ever built a BAM course, I would pass in any artificial turf areas. 

But twhat I would like to see if one has been done: an appealing, fun course with clever and esthetic design that requires only a handful of crew members and only the basics in maint equipment. A place where golfers come for the pure golf experience and less for having a notable clubhouse, etc.

I think a lot of golfers already willingly concede ideal fairway, rough, and bunker conditions as long as they have good greens and a fun track. 

Maybe it’d be like the Aldi of golf. Low cost, unpretentious, pure enjoyable golf that’s worth revisiting most weekends

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've seen some movement to the idea of artificial tees and greens for that matter.  Some of the turfs are that good (well to the average player eye).  Haven't actually pulled the trigger on one.  Any more artificial turf, and I think the playing surface would get too hot.

[John Emerson]

FWIW the greatest courses in the British isles will use artificial tees often and most never even bat an eyelid at it.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I think most golfers would prefer a ratty ass natural grass tee than a lovely artificial grass tee. There are a lot of low budget courses with way too small tees on par 3s for example, where the tee is basically topdressing sand with some grass thrown in. I don't think this ruins it for players if the greens fee is cheap.


I do think for some alternate and all-the-way back tees players would accept artificial turf, especially if it created a super interesting or alternate look on a hole. Like a tee chiseled into a hillside where running a mower/sprayer/etc. up there and trenching irrigation lines in would be a hassle.

[Pat Burke]

Thank you for posting Don Mahaffey thoughts earlier!  I was going to post same


While not the “ideal” in this scenario likely, I was told Goose Creek in Mira Loma Ca got a great land deal and early in the process brought in Brian Curley and the many of the long term plans and costs were spelled out.
Size of maintenance crew.
Budget.
Minimal clubhouse .
Input on design aspects to limit as much”hand work” as possible.
Pretty much a long term game plan the design had to fit in to as I understood it


To me, they continue to pull it off offering a fun product at a great price (for the region) And they continue to net gain while resisting getting greedy


To me for SoCal. A place that shows how it can be done well

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Agree with Pat. If you want a club to be successful on the lower end of the budgetary spectrum, you absolutely have to design to the maintenance budget.


Some other great examples are Diamond Springs in MI, in addition to Wolf Point which was discussed in the links I posted earlier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bring back Robert Bruce Harris!  Other than gigantic greens, he built a pretty easy to maintain course.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Big greens require more resources for sure, but they also spread out the wear and tear, leading to less maintenance dollars per square foot. Fertility required correlates to the rate of recovery required.


Similarly, big greens can usually be triplexed and boom sprayed, while a small green with quick fall offs into bunkers and such might have to be walk mowed and spray hawked, which will lead to increased labor expense.


So in a sense, big greens might actually save labor, and offset the increased material requirements.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Bring back Robert Bruce Harris!  Other than gigantic greens, he built a pretty easy to maintain course.

Thanks Jeff, just found my new hero.

[Sean_A]

FWIW the greatest courses in the British isles will use artificial tees often and most never even bat an eyelid at it.

?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Big greens require more resources for sure, but they also spread out the wear and tear, leading to less maintenance dollars per square foot. Fertility required correlates to the rate of recovery required.


Similarly, big greens can usually be triplexed and boom sprayed, while a small green with quick fall offs into bunkers and such might have to be walk mowed and spray hawked, which will lead to increased labor expense.


So in a sense, big greens might actually save labor, and offset the increased material requirements.

That's one of those things where you have to define "big" for me.  I have run the math, and on a single "tilted plane" green, you can get 21 cup spaces in a bit over 4,000 SF.  Add a ridge to break drainage, and you might get a minimum of 5750 or so.  I often try to design a variety of green sizes from 4 to 8K.  Mostly supers look at me askance for any green over 6500 SF as being maintenance problems.  That seems to be the widely accepted industry standard as big enough to spread cup spaces out on a normally contoured green.  I start there, and often, budgets drive the average down to 6K.



Given my clients trend closer to the BAM mode, its one reason I don't do many "random contours,"  a la Maxwell Muffins or Doak Dimples(?) "Coore's Crests(?), or even "Diddel bumps" (a phrase which I presume was attributed to that architect's greens, LOL)  I understand their design benefits, but when you take out a 10 foot circle (i.e. 5 foot radius allows raising bump 3-4" at reasonable slope) for the actual dimple, and a 10 foot circle outside that where most supers wouldn't set a pin (knowing golfers would bitch) you end up adding 1250 SF to a green, making that 6500 "ideal size" green 7,750 SF to provide the same cup space.  And honestly, whenever I have put a knob in the middle of the green, most retail golfers (as well as better ones) bitch.  Their idea, which is hard to argue, is that if they hit a good putt, it ought to have a predictable roll, i.e., a chance to go in, rather than random deflections that might not distinguish a good putt from a bad one.


When trying to save money in construction to make green fees reasonably priced, even 1250SF (at $6-10 per SF) is about $10K you don't really need to spend, i.e., random contours are nice, but are then a nice idea HERE?  Very often, the answer is no from an owner predicting they will have a hard time of it, if not now, at some future point when the economy is down, etc.