All those big budgets!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would say the Golf, Inc thing is pure hogwash for most renovations, but in truth, I know of some drainage, forward tee, tree clearing, and maybe one new green projects where the owner insists on applying for the award.  I agree with Mark that the magazine would do us all a service if they added a low budget/critical fix only/practical, or whatever, category recognizing those who spend more wisely.  Not all total redos are unwise, mind you, but the days of rebuild it extravagantly and they will come, seem to be on the wane, based on my experience.  A 6 year old NGF study shows that total rebuilding and rebranding does raise revenues the most, in about 90% of the cases, but in all cases, lower cost, targeted renovations raise revenue less, but provide a greater ROI, which is probably the goal in most renovations.


I also agree with the idea that many projects are over feed with consultants of various kinds.  I get it in a way, as things have become specialized everywhere, but in others I don't.  When I started, I did my own irrigation plans, but I found irrigation consultants were both cheap and up to date as the nature of irrigation materials (i.e., controllers and sprinklers) changed every year and I wasn't keeping up as I should.  I still do small irrigation plans if we are rebuilding laterals around greens and tees, but I don't mess with mainlines any more.  I do often review my irrigation consultants plans, sometimes because my training was to shorten mainlines to save cost, while most of them now seem to prefer to run a large mainline aside every hole, when in reality, that sub branch or loop really only needs 4-6" to cover 2 holes, not 8-12" as if carrying half the holes on the golf course, but cost control doesn't seem to be an issue as much as it once was.


Also, turf consultants were usually not a thing, and now most projects have both, and sometimes many more.  It makes some sense with gca's working across the globe, and in most cases, not willing to take the advice of the seed salesman as their only source of grass knowledge, LOL>


A few well publicized lawsuits regarding greens forced many gca's into farming out the greens mix testing, and writing clauses in our agreements that we do not recommend greens mix, although I believe the impact of those lawsuits was probably overblown.  Some testing labs really seem to ratchet up negative consequences as their marketing tools, which doesn't help.


In a way, and I am part of the trend, since the 1980's, I joke that gca's have more pages of contract telling the owners what we don't do, as opposed to telling them what we will do for them on a project, LOL.


But, I will step off the soapbox now.....

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
All good points and thoughts as usual.  I do wish the lower end projects would get more exposure if only for the reason to demonstrate to other clubs/courses what can be accomplished with small well used budgets.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


As near as I can tell, and in general, courses that pick their 2-4 biggest problems and renovate those tend to get the best ROI results.  And those tend to be irrigation systems, greens turf, sand bunkers, and level/larger/better turf/better organized tees, with, in some cases, renovating the soil below the greens and tees included.  If Golf Inc., added an ROI component to the judging system, I think that would make more partial renovations winners.


I recall having a discussion on renovations with, of all people, Tom Marzolf, where he said Fazio was mostly in favor of long term renovations, because that is what is best for most clients, and many GCA's favor blowing it up because that is what is best for the architect in terms of fee, publicity, recognition, etc.  While there are some advantages in many cases of blowing it all up, I do think most of Tom's statement carries some weight.


As always, your results may vary, as they say in the TV ads for Rx.  At least, no one has gotten explosive diarrhea from a golf course renovation.

[Jim Sherma]

I had the pleasure of playing Bethlehem with mark last week. My history with the course goes back to growing up and then playing High School golf there in the late 1970's through the early 1980's.


I believe that the course was relatively original when I started playing there allowing for sand splash (significant as most of the bunkers were flash faced tight up to edges of the greens with only a couple feel of fringe between the green surface and the bunker edge) and top-dressing build up.


During the 19990's (I think this was the timing at lease, I was no longer playing regularly at Bethlehem) all of the greenside bunkers had their lips folded over and grassed. After this work the course really started to feel dated and under-maintained. Green shrinkage also became very noticeable once the green edges were divorced from the sharp bunker lips.


Mark's work significantly refreshed the course returning it to one of the better public options out there. It was always a good routing with a good set of greens. The work definitely added more interest to the greens and they felt like they played smaller due to more roll-offs with steeper slopes. Since the course plays shorter due to modern equipment and lower fairway heights this is reasonable if not appropriate. There is more variety around the greens in terms of the various recovery shots that get asked for. The two new fairway bunkers add to the course both strategically and aesthetically. There are a couple of spots that I would have done differently but they are minor. All in all the work was not significant to the point that the course is significantly changed from what was there. However, it plays better and he cleaned up a lot of the disinvestment and aging that had played out over time.


Playing with Mark was both informative and a treat (he can get it around the course and then some). Some of the build-up numbers (top-dressing plus sand splash) that he mentioned were insane. Hopefully he will chime in and discuss this, both in terms of the absolute amount of build up as well as how the greens changed from a playing perspective as a result of it.

[Tom_Doak]

I recall having a discussion on renovations with, of all people, Tom Marzolf, where he said Fazio was mostly in favor of long term renovations, because that is what is best for most clients, and many GCA's favor blowing it up because that is what is best for the architect in terms of fee, publicity, recognition, etc.  While there are some advantages in many cases of blowing it all up, I do think most of Tom's statement carries some weight.

Yes, but big clubs can wind up spending even more in the long term, if they keep bringing an architect back to make renovations year after year.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As I recall, they charged a pretty big master plan fee, which included some drawings for each area.  In theory, they didn't have to come back, but probably will, since their name is on it.


In general, I tell clients that long term cost more than single year project.  If the one year renovation will cost $5Mil, then each of smaller phases of $1 Million are probably more like $1.2M, after losing some scale efficiencies.  Then, you have an average of 5 years inflation at 3.25% or so, meaning that $5 Mil turns into over closer to $8 Million total. 


But, the smaller projects might be able to be paid in cash rather than loans, and the course remains in play, etc.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Thanks for chiming in.  It was fun to go around Bethlehem with someone like you who knew and understood what was there beforehand.  As you correctly stated, we changed a lot but not to the point where most golfers who play there on a regular basis would feel they don't know it any more.  That was never the intention.  It was more of a major refresh    As you learned walking around the course with me, there were a ton of factors that impacted what ended up getting built and not built.  You win some battles and lose others.  Cost and follow on maintenance expenses definitely impact the final design.  Most golfers will never know or understand that but so be it.  At the end of the day the golf course still has to stand on its own despite the challenges to get it to that point. 

I didn't want to just focus on one course on this thread but I used it to point out an example of what could be done with what I think is a smaller budget (definitely one much less than a million dollars).  Was hoping to see a list of other similar renovation projects in the same cost range.