[rjsimper]

I do not believe good architecture has much to do with the financial success of a public golf facility.  As I said in the Hendren thread, I think views/setting, conditioning, marketing, and as I think of it now, the facility as a whole (clubhouse, range, restaurant) have a much bigger role in appealing to the masses.

However, GCA is not without bearing on the success of a course.  In trying to think of examples where the architecture was the primary factor driving a course's success, the one that came to mind was Wild Horse.  Bandon's courses, for example, despite the great architecture I believe were put on the map and appeal to the masses in large part due to the ocean and the ability to put the 4th at Pacific Dunes on a full-color ad or brochure. 

All this said, I do believe architecture plays a role, even if J. Q. P. doesn't realize it.  There are features of good architecture that your weekend  duffer or bachelor party foursome will appreciate without knowing why (or even that it was intentional).  What comes to mind here are things like options (particularly on a par 5), multiple shots around the greens (chipping areas, contours and runoffs that allow you to play bump and runs), a good cape hole will likely be a favorite, and interesting greens are typically appreciated if they're not too daring or outside the box.

On the opposite side,  JQP will see things like a biarritz green and think it's "tricked-up", a green that slopes from front to back is "mickey-mouse" and heaven forbid, fast/firm conditions are "unfair". 

Some of my experience with this comes from hearing the various comments of my (former) fellow Southern Californian golfers when they would play Rustic Canyon paired with me, and over time I concluded that while the architecture there appealed to many people, most weren't quite sure why (not that they cared) but they'd always say something like "this is so different than everything else". 

While that statement is true, I'm left to wonder what is included in that "different" statement that pertains to architecture in a positive way...not for Rustic Canyon, just for any course - what is the limit on how much good architecture JQP can handle?

Part of Rustic's perceived success (and I say perceived because I have no idea what the books look like...but it's busy) is certainly it's value, but the complaints about it are often in line with what I said JQP WILL pay for (poor conditioning, lackluster clubhouse) and causes me to question whether the positive attributes in architecture would be enough to help drive success. 

And even if it did, would JQP know why?

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

I agree with you that the primary reason for Bandon's success is the oceanfront setting.  It is no coincidence that so far I'm 3-for-3 in designing one of the top 50 courses in the world on an oceanfront setting, and 0-for-20 in hitting that target without the oceanfront setting.  People pay a lot more for waterfront real estate, whether it's for their house, a hotel room, or golf.

I don't agree with you that "the ability to put the 4th at Pacific Dunes on a full-color ad or brochure" has had much to do with its success.  Yes, it is well capitalized, and most importantly Mr. Keiser could afford to build a nice lodge to go with the golf, instead of just running a public golf course and crossing his fingers that people would stay wherever they could to play it.  But he has never advertised all that much, and he didn't advertise at all until AFTER the course was all over the golf magazines and he felt some obligation to advertise in them.  Its reputation spread by word of mouth and was spread by people (including golf writers) genuinely excited by the setting and the golf.

Besides, it's the 13th at Pacific that goes on most of the ads.

[John Moore II]

I think the public's perception of architecture does not extend far beyond visual architecture. Big bunkers, flashy stuff. Probably why Fazio and Nicklaus have made fortunes, they design visual courses. People may not 'get' the architecture of Pac Dunes, or Pebble Beach, they just know it looks good. The public will apprectiate visual/flashy architecture, not subtle things.

[Jim Thompson]

8 strokes.  Anytime a player shoots more than 8 strokes over their average score they just to upset to get anything.

[Dan Herrmann]

Ryan - architecture, being an "art" is like any other art.  Some folks will love works by, say, Picasso, while others prefer Wyeth.

Art can be polarizing or it can rally people to a cause.  It tugs at emotions.

GCA is like that.  There is not a JQP.  There's the person that couldn't are less about the architecture and there are geeks like many of us that put it at the TOP of the reason we love an architect's work.

But keep in mind that JQP is entitled to spend his money any way he wants.  Don't fall into the elitist trap I've found myself in a few times - believe me, it's not fun looking like a pedantic fool

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure what John Q. Public "gets" but I think you may be underestimating the value that good architecture can bring to a project.   Rustic is a good example, as are the Bandon courses.

Does Bandon thrive with a Nicklaus, Fazio, and Jones (your pick) course?  Maybe if they had a real estate component, but I can't quite imagine it as just a golf destination.  Maybe now these guys would be smart enough to build something  like what is there now, but had they started when Kidd the Doak did, I am not so sure they would have.    The first time golfers make the trip it could be because of a brochure (I've met a few up there like that) but after a few plays I think they start to sense the difference in their bones even if they cannot articulate it.  And they end up going back.   Without the great architecture, I don't see that happening, unless you add a housing and/or private prestige component.  The place isnt exactly easy to get to, even from California, and it is not exactly cheap anymore.  Yet the people still go. 

As for Rustic, I cannot imagine a mediocre design doing as well as Rustic in the same location.  Think of the neighbors that were built around the same time.  Tierrable Rijada?  Haven't they been through a few owners and at least one bankruptcy?   Lost Canyons?  Weren't they trying to get the city to sign off on bulldozing 18 to sell for housing?   A little further down the road is TPC Valencia.  Last I heard charter members were organizing to try and get their money back.  Some will say these are not a fair comparison because Rustic is less expensive, but to that I would say is that Rustic is less expensive because the business model and the design. The eco-friendliness of the project helped with the permitting.  Move less dirt, No USGA greens.  Use the natural terrain.  No hokey water features (or any water features, except when golf holes are washing away.)   Let subtlety give the course character instead.   The golfers there may not be able to articulate it well either, but over time they appreciate it, or perhaps they just appreciate everything else less.  Plus, those who do appreciate it are very loyal, despite some other obvious shortcomings through the years.

[rjsimper]

Tom - I agree that I would not credit the brochure for it's success, but I was using that as more of a euphemism for the fact that the courses are so photogenic.  Whether it's a brochure or photos of a golf buddy's recent trip, the courses show well and 97% of that is the presence of the ocean in the photos.

JKM - I think it's more than that - I think JQP DOES appreciate good architecture from a playability standpoint, I am just wondering what they are actually aware of.  If a hole is unfairly narrow or forces a silly layup, JQP will complain about it, and they'll be able to pinpoint exactly why.  However, if they play a low draw and come to a good redan and can access a tucked back left pin, are they going to realize that there was more going on there (a credit to the design) than just them pulling off a good shot?

Jim - What if the course is 7500 yards?  What if it is 5900 yards?

Dan - I am not talking about architecture critics - every golfer out there "likes" or "doesn't like" a course, and I am trying to get to the bottom of why.  I think my theory is that many of us here are just so detached from what makes a golf course successful...not a BAD thing, but when reading people being surprised at the failure of well-designed golf courses (Beechtree, for example) it seems to me that we're over-valuing the things that matter to us in the context of a business landscape where most people could not care less about 80% of the things that any GCA member knows.

David - I don't think I am underestimating it...I definitely think it's important, but I think only to a point...world-class architecture does not a successful course make.  While I think you can credit the ocean setting for a large part of the success at Bandon, certainly the architecture has a role in the repeat visit numbers.  I'd actually be curious to see at this point what the breakdown is between new and repeat visitors.

I think you are off base, though, that Bandon has no prestige component.  I think there is absolutely some prestige to going - maybe not the same version of prestige as a CPC or a Sand Hills, but it's remoteness gives it something of a mystical status amongst people who have heard of it, and most have dreamed about going (and I'd be willing to bet most of that is not because they heard that the 6th at PD is a great short 4, but rather that they've heard it's stunningly beautiful).  It's more of a prestige along the lines of "I was at Woodstock..." etc.

Rustic - agree 100% that the architecture/business plan/cost structure plays a role in it's success, and I'm glad that you recognize that Tierra Why-bother, LC, and TPC aren't apt comparisons, but the point I'm getting at is that we don't have much of a way to know which course would succeed if prices were equal.  I am honestly not sure that Rustic would be the success if both Rustic and Lost Canyons Sky were each 75/round (I'd actually probably bet against Rustic). 

If Sand Hills was somehow magically public and located in Simi Valley or Moorpark and everything was the same about it, and it was $125/round, do you think it would be a business success?

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for Rustic, I cannot imagine a mediocre design doing as well as Rustic in the same location.  Think of the neighbors that were built around the same time.  Tierrable Rijada?  Haven't they been through a few owners and at least one bankruptcy?   Lost Canyons?  Weren't they trying to get the city to sign off on bulldozing 18 to sell for housing?   A little further down the road is TPC Valencia.  ...

What about more equitable comparisons. When I played with JQP there (a retired school teacher), he told me he had (as I remember) a 4 course rotation of courses that were of comparable cost in the area. Rustic was not his favorite of the four, although he said he liked it well enough. Any idea what his 4 were, and what other members of JQP think about them? Perhaps one of the 4 was the one Forrest did the redo on since it is not to far away.

As for me, I have only played a couple of courses where I couldn't miss a fairway (Rustic and Chambers Bay), so of course I loved it.

[DMoriarty]

Rustic - agree 100% that the architecture/business plan/cost structure plays a role in it's success, and I'm glad that you recognize that Tierra Why-bother, LC, and TPC aren't apt comparisons, but the point I'm getting at is that we don't have much of a way to know which course would succeed if prices were equal.  I am honestly not sure that Rustic would be the success if both Rustic and Lost Canyons Sky were each 75/round (I'd actually probably bet against Rustic). 

If Sand Hills was somehow magically public and located in Simi Valley or Moorpark and everything was the same about it, and it was $125/round, do you think it would be a business success?

But setting the prices at equal would skew the experience toward other non-golf factors that just are not possible with a $75 business plan (in LA.)    because part of the comparison for Lost Canyons Sky is the CCFAD experience, the nice clubhouse, etc.  These are certainly factors but they are factors that are impossible at too low a price point.  Also if you actually take into consideration discounts, passes, quasi-clubs, and included carts, the prices are not nearly as different as they used to be.     If you take away social tournament play I don't think Sky can survive at $75 where Rustic is at that (with cart) and seems to be doing fine despite a natural disaster or two and other issues.

Yes I think Sand Hills would be a success if you could move it to Moorpark.   The nice thing about a course close to a city is that it takes a much smaller percentage of those who appreciate it in order to keep it going.

[Dieter Jones]

Setting and Wow factor can sure pull in JQP. Having said that, one mans "wow" is another man's "beige".

I have a mate who lives in Sydney and plays at The Coast golf club. This quirky little course has some very ordinary golf holes (along with a couple of really good fun ones) but dollar for dollar you will not find a much better visual setting for JQP to put down his $35 public green fee. The course is just along from the famous NSW Golf course but sits atop high cliffs (sometimes playing across them) and is exposed to the same winds as it's famous neighbour.

I brought my mate down to Barnbougle and although he enjoyed the experience (despite spending too much time in the Marram - and the Bar for that matter) he commented that he was disappointed that you don;t see the ocean from every hole etc. He would prefer to play The Coast GC to Barnbougle. So here we have someone who found Barnbougle more beige than Wow compared to his own little patch of cliff top. To each their own.

PS the 8 balls he lost in the first 9 holes may have influenced his opinion somewhat also 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()