[RJ_Daley]

I know I am straying slightly away from the original question, but:  What do you fellows think of municipalities providing adjuncts to their other sports facilities like soccer and baseball/softball fields, in the form of just golf driving range-practice facilities?  Nice facilities can be built on 20-35 acres and offer practice putting-chipping greens and adequate teeing lines and range for not too much expenditure.  One fellow can easily take care of the turf care end of the deal, and with a clubhouse that has games and maybe a mini-golf operation, it would probably be filled with kids in the summer.  Is that a far less expensive and likely profitable venture (if the city has the land) and a reasonable recreation-golf operation for a muni to be involved with?  

I personally feel that it is a far better vehicle to grow interest in the game and a better match for muni recreation management and rec department budget.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Good question.  I guess if the market lacks such facilities, it might not be a bad idea.  At least it works for all types of players, i.e., the very best down to entry level.

Near my home is a privately owned, year round practice facility that has a real nice atmosphere to it.  Many good players hang out there.  Several local high school teams are there all the time.  Even better, there are at least a half dozen teaching professionals, including several that are really good with kids and other entry level type players.  Their schedules are typically booked solid.

As Cleveland is blessed with affordable public access golf, I think this place really filled a void.

And, being from Green Bay, I'm sure you can appreciate the year round part.

[Tim_Weiman]

Kelly Blake Moran:

If you can, it might be interesting to share your thoughts on design for the project you mentioned.

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

Great idea! Many communities do have a sports complex where golf can fit in as well.

I only wish those who control the purse strings of recreation understand that golf is not the elite game is used to be.

That's changing in many places in the USA.

Lou:

The market place doesn't assist the pent up need that exists for public golf in places such as the metro NY area unless you have a Visa / Mastercard to play. I see a role for taxpayer owned facilities in my "neck of the woods" and you can provide flexibility for ALL TYPES OF PLAYERS. The governmental jurisdiction can use parcels of land that often times have no other purpose as is being contemplated for the Meadowlands in Bergen County.

[Lou Duran]

Tim,

Contrary to popular opinion, not all government entities operate under tight budgets and low-cost bid requirements.  Also, in growing areas, there is quite a bit of competition among the various cities to build trophy facilities (stadiums, arenas, golf courses, convention centers, theaters).  In this part of the country, many municipalities built upscale golf courses targeting the more upscale golfer and the corporate market.  Surprisingly, there has been relatively little taxpayer concern.   From the standpoint of the city staff, developing a high-end golf facility is great fun.  They get to play big time developer with no financial risk.  It is pretty heady stuff to be courted by high profile PGA Tour types for the design job and to award multi-million contracts for construction.

Our concept for the same property would have cost $5 to $5.5MM, including the land.  How did the city spend $3MM more?  To some extent, that is a mystery to me, though the fact that motivations in terms of conserving capital and earning a fair return to the investor are diametrically different.

For example, I was working with a local architect who is arguably more technically competent than the "name" chosen by the city, and he would have cost me a fraction of the fee paid to the higher profile designer.  The city opted to acquire additional land and spread the course over a larger area, a luxury that a private developer could not afford for this type of golf course.  The city chose to build large, beautiful wooden bridges to cross a small creek four or five times.  Our design used the creek more strategically (laterally), with one or two crossings only and relatively minor bridge work.  The city imported large rocks to build walls on the creek on a few holes, purely for cosmetic reasons, and built 8' continuous concrete cart paths.  The contract for the clubhouse was awarded to a "low-cost" bidder after consideration for minority status.  This contractor walked off the site after collecting much of the money and completing only the foundation and some steel work on the building.  The city completed the clubhouse with other funds some two years later, and is still involved in litigation with the bonding company which has refused to pay on the claim.

BTW, the city's two other 18 hole courses are reasonably priced (under $20 gf) and run some 60,000 to 65,000 rounds per year each.  In comparison, the upscale facility is having trouble generating 32,000 rounds with rates of $38 to $45 plus cart for the locals, and $5-$10 higher for out-of-towners.  While it is a much, much better golf course, it is clear that price is a major factor for the average golfer.  

[Lou Duran]

Matt,

"Affordable" golf is impossible in areas where real estate and land prices are astronomically high.  In the past one could build a golf course in the flood plain without too much trouble, but the current environmental climate makes this less than ideal option next to impossible.

Asking the taxpayer to subsidize green fees is probably as reasonable and equitable as many other demands we place on government, but because relatively few people play golf and due to the game's public image, it is unlikely to garner much suppport.  If enough land is available in the NY/NJ metro area for golf, it must be in need of seriously expensive reclamation or remediation.  A joint venture between the public sector and a developer may be a possiblity, with the former providing a clean site on a discounted long-term lease and the latter putting together the financing package to build and operate the course.   After the lease expires and the developer enjoys his financial returns, the golf course reverts to the govenrment land owner.   It seems that Dick Daley's practice facility suggestion would make more sense.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

You got my attention with mention of the Meadowlands.

What is that all about?  Are we talking about another Lido in the shadows of Giants' Stadium?

[George Pazin]

I'm sure my political views are well known enough on this site that it won't come as a shock to anyone that I am dead set against government doing any sort of development like this, so I'll let it slide & simply revert to my normal mode of asking questions:):

Matt Ward -

Didn't Golf Digest run an article maybe 2-3 years ago about a community in NJ that chose to build a muni course in an effort to make some $$$ for the locality? If I get a chance, I'll try to dig through my back issues to find it - I remember keeping it because it had cost info on golf course construction. (I can probably pitch it now - I've got Jeff Brauer to answer any questions:).)

------

Okay, I can't resist:

One question to those in favor of muni golf devlopment: don't you see a slight potential (insert heavy sarcasm smiley here) for conflict on interest on developmental issues, such as the one Lou Duran ran into?

[Matt_Ward]

George P:

The answer to your question is a course called High Bridge Hills in the town by the same name in Warren County. The course was designed by Mark Mungeam and he did a wonderful job in designing a course that has plenty of strategic interest and is still affordable. In my mind High Bridge Hills proves what can be done if the will is there.

Tim W & Lou D:

Lou, in regards to development of golf in expensive places like the greater NY / NJ metro area your assessmen tis right on target but I will say that land is being used in places previously not considered or just not worth the effort for residential or commercial development.

The situation in the Jersey Meadowlands is a simple one. Previous landfills are going to be closed so that golf development can take place under the auspices of Bergen County and the State of New Jersey. Bergen holds the dubious pleasure in being named (rightly so in my opinion) by GD as one of the worst places to play public golf in the nation.

A private company (En-Gap in Tampa) is being used to remediate the sites and eventually there are plans for 72 holes of golf to be built. Phase I from what I understand will include 36 holes and I believe both 18-hole courses will be open to the public. The designer for the courses from my what I have been told has not been finalized.

Neither greens fees nor how strategic the designs will be are known thus far. More information will be forthcoming in the next few months. The State of NJ is commited with the County to get rid of the landfills and use the land as an opportunity to build golf as an investment tool for related projects (i.e. hotel, mall and residential development).

Keep in mind NJ had a plan a few years back for a potential course at Liberty State Park in Jersey City within a short distance of the Statue of Liberty and Lower Manhattan. Brian Silva was tabbed to design the course and there were initial hopes the course might be able to host major events. The course idea was dropped because there could not be any guarantees that fees would be kept in check so that the course would not be a de facto private enclave for the Wall Street gang.

I will be posting more info on the Meadowlands proposal tomorrow after I check a few of my sources. Hope this helps.

[Doug Wright]

To revert back to Matt Ward's original question on this thread, "Can taxpayer owned facilities be designed today that really test all levels of players or must they be just recreational layouts that get people started wth our grand game?" Here in Colorado, the answer to this question clearly is the former.

In many respects, as Dick Daley knows, it all comes down to location, location, location and land, land, land. Here in Colorado we are blessed with abundant, relatively cheap land that allows municipalities to construct golf courses that are anything but "dumbed down." The suburban Denver courses provide multiple examples of municipalities viewing golf and golf courses for the municipal assets they can be. As Bill V (Redanman) and others know, there are some terrific municipal courses done by recognized architects throughout the metro Denver area. To name a few: Buffalo Run (Commerce City--Keith Foster); Legacy Ridge (Westminster--Arthur Hills); Murphy Creek (Aurora--Ken Kavanaugh), Broadlands (Broomfield--Rick Phelps), Riverdale Dunes (Brighton--Pete Dye, with an assist from Tom Doak on bulldozer). My sense is the municipalities here viewed these golf courses as competitive advantages to attracting businesses, residences and related tax dollars to their communities and real sources of community pride, and thankfully the stakes have been getting higher as each community tried to better its counterpart. Now, I will admit that these courses are relatively new, and perhaps over time they may be made more "user-friendly," but for now they are good, solid, very reasonably-priced  tests of golf that compete fairly and well with non-municipal courses. And there are more in Colorado outside Denver such as Walking Stick (Pueblo--Keith Foster/Arthur Hills ) and Devil's Thumb (Delta--Rick Phelps) that make us truly fortunate to live here. Matt, if you came out here and played these from the tips I don't think you'd feel cheated or that they are "dumbed down" at all.

All The Best,

[redanman]

Doug

I echo your above post (Or are you echoing my echo echo echo echo  ) (Lots of open space in Colorado!) and Matt Ward's comments on High Bridge Hills are right on.  It (HBH) is unfortunately in New Jersey's new market an orphan.  Land is a different story in NJ.  Colroado is very fortunate now. Land costs have a tremendous impact, Colorado's land prices may have hit alevel where it may be getting tougher now, but there's still a hell of a lot of open space left, even in metro Denver.

But Doug, no course can contain Matt.  You have no idea how far he hits it!  I saw John Daly once watch Matt hit balls in awe!  

In all seriousness, the altitude hurts design in Colorado in particular and at altitude in general.  Don't you agree that a good par 5 in Colorado is a rare thing? But Colorado also can show you how important a short game is for scoring and that strategy still matters.  It makes a difference in people's games.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a really competitive player from there.  I know most qualifiers for the USGA Mid-Am from Colorado never make match play at the national, you just can't develop your game to that level there. (Notable exception:  Bill Loeffler-a true pro masquerading as an amateur-won after re-instatement, later became a pro again).

I must say though that I haven't played in Colorado since the introduction of the ProV1.  Doug, have you seen as much impact on distance in Colorado as we have seen at sea level?  I'll find out later this year, I think, but I wanted your opinion.  Played the Revolution last I was there and the V1 and A10 are a bit longer than that at sea level.  I found the Revolution about the equal of the Professional distance wise.  Distance is never much of a concern at altitude for a solid ball striker.

[GeoffreyC]

Matt

Good call with Highbridge Hills.  I played there a couple of weeks ago.  Its a wonderful low budget course with plenty of interest, strategy and challenge for all level of players. Unfortunately, the pace of play was soooooo bad that I had to walk in after the 16th hole.  Too bad because the 17th, a drop shot 220 yard par 3 with a sloped false front green looked like the best hole on the course.

I'd love to see more efforts like that for public golf. I wonder if anyone knows what the budget was for building Highbridge Hills?

[Doug Wright]

Bill V,

No question the altitude makes courses here in Colorado play shorter, and I'd agree that distance is not a real concern here for a solid ball striker but then again isn't that universally true these days? But (a) you still need to hit it straight and (b) for the vast majority of players (ie excluding you and Matt, for example   ) who may not be "good ball strikers," I don't think the altitude makes a material difference. For me here in Denver it's about 10% or one/one and a half clubs. The mountains (about 8000' or 2800' higher than Denver) are a different story. If you want to feel like Superman make a trip up there and let er rip--talk about hang time!   The courses I mention generally have "tiger tees" that can stretch the courses to 7300-7400 yards, which evens it up  too. As you say, distance is less critical here; but in many respects the designs are still solid, from routing to bunkering to greensites, and I'll stand by that.

Concerning the ProVI, for some reason I've never seen the big boost here when I've played it that I've heard about. In fact, I don't even play it that much because I don't like the "feel" as much as some other balls like the "Lady."  

I heard a rumour that Matt may be paying us a visit this year to do some ratings. If so, I look forward to witnessing some of his prodigious feats personnally. And Bill, lemme know when you're headed out too...

All The Best,

[Lou Duran]

Matt-

Converting a dump site to a park with golf courses makes some sense.  I guess they must have a plan to overcome the settling problem and the release of methane and other gases.
I hope that smokers there are more careful when discarding their cigarette butts!

The City of Industry near Los Angeles built a 36 hole golf course on the site of a former garbage dump.  A major flagged hotel, possibly a Hilton, was built adjacent to the course. When I played one of the courses (possibly called the Eisenhower), it was being marketed more like a CCFAD.  The course was extremely difficult, riding was mandatory, and the routing was rather tortured.  I recall having to take the cart in an elevator to move to another part of the course.  Hopefully the topography in NJ is more conducive to golf and the authorities will choose to build courses which appeal to a wide range of golfers.

[BV]

Bill V,


A) I don't like the "feel" as much as some other balls like the "Lady."  

B)  Bill, lemme know when you're headed out too...

Doug

A)  The aforementioned Mr Loeffler is credited with popularizing the "Lady" starting there in Colorado from what I have heard.........

B)  Will do!

[Mike Cirba]

Matt Ward is right on with his question.  There is absolutely NO reason that a municipally-funded, public course cannot be a strategically interesting, challenging design.  

Kelly Moran answered in a similarly affirmative fashion.  And, I think his course at Hawk Pointe bears many of the trademarks of what exactly is required for affordable, challenging, strategic golf.

Here are the guidelines that I believe are important in creating such a course (using Hawk Pointe as an example).

* Move as little earth as possible.
* Create wide fairways, where the most advantageous route is protected by perhaps a single threatening bunker
* Leave room for run up shots on most holes
* Let the natural terrain dictate shot placement
* Practice minimalism in the number of bunkers and other created "hazards"
* Create a good mix of hole lengths
* Create daring green complexes that challenge the better player (as does the strategic fairway bunker placement).  The fact is that the worst players will still three-putt even the most mundane greens, so they are less adversely affected by wild greens than most architects think
* Stay with a maximum of 3 tee areas per hole, but really add some length to the back tees to some holes for the best players.
* Remember that golf is supposed to be "fun", so don't be afraid to create daring or unusual challenges that are controversial.  Those most likely will be the most memorable and "talked about" holes on the course.

Somehow, the original Augusta National and even Pinehurst seem to exemplify these design criteria tremendously.  Certainly, a public funded course could not be maintained quite so meticulously, but something firm and fast and a little scraggly can be wonderful, as well.

[Doug Wright]

Mike Cirba,

Great post! I think you;'ve captured the essence of good municipal golf, though it could be easily extrapolated to CCFAD, private and other venues as well. Though not as erudite and comprehensive as your description, I view a quality municipal course as challenging yet playable. And there is absoluty no reason  a muncipal course can't fit this description. My suspicion where the munies fall down is that they are administered, maintained and funded by non-golfing municipal functionaries; where there are people who both know and care in charge, the result is good golf and good design. In looking at your summary, Keith Foster's Buffalo Run in Commerce City meets many of your criteria. When you mention Commerce City in Denver, you think of a down in the mouth, poor cousin of a suburb that no way no how could envision, create or support a good municipal golf course. But lo and behold, Buffalo Run fills the bill, with a minimalist design in a rather uninteresting site that nevertheless brings me back again and again. What, a fairway bunker smack in the middle of the fairway (#3)? What, a 250 yard par 3 with a ramp on the right that funnels balls into  the green (#12), followed by a driveable par 4? What, a pair of 450+ par 4s on each nine as solid as you could want anywhere? The ability to play the ground game on many holes, and interesting recovery shots? This is good, solid municipal golf, the kind that we are blesed with here on the Front Range of Colorado.

All The Best,

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

FYI -- I believe Hawk Pointe is a privately owned daily-fee course now that will soon become private, I believe, later this year. High Bridge Hills is owned by the town of High Bridge.

However, I do agree that taxpayer owned courses can bevery strategic. Too bad the powers-that-be can do something with Cobbs Creek in the Phillie area because it does possess so many of the attributes you mentioned in your post.

Strategic and challenging taxpayer-owned courses can be accomplished with the right vision and determination to keep it that way once built.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()