[Gary Sherman]

If the game is to continue to expand, then good, publically accessable, golf courses are required for new and casual golfers.  These courses must be affordable, playable in less than 4 1/2 hours, visually enticing, offer strategy that even a layman can contemplate and be agronomically inexpensive to maintain.  I am interested in your best and worst experiences.The criteria are:1. Daily fee less than $502. Must be a public course, no resort courses.3.Built in the last three to four yearsTo kick off the discussion, I offer two examples here in New England.Best:  Waverly Oaks, Plymouth, MA.  Designed by brian Silva (OK Silva bashers, here's your chance!).  Waverly Oaks opened in May 1998.  The course features wide fairways, large greens, a classical style of bunkering and numerous tee settings to accomodate players of all ability.  The course is very well maintained and has people returning to play again and again.Worst:  Widows Walk, Scituate, MA.  Designed by Michael Hurdzan.  The daily fee course opened in 1997.  This course may have won environmental awards being built on a former hazardous waste site, but wins no awards for playability.  The course has extremely narrow fairways with forced carries over waste/brush areas.  Missed fairways are completely unforgiving.  You don't dare go into the brush to look for a ball...who knows what genetically mutated creature is lurking there.  Stories abound after the first week it opened of golfers making the turn and heading to the pro shop to buy a dozen balls to finish the round!  This is a course people play once for novelty, but never return.

[Ron Silberstine]

New Jersey National is the worst in the east.  I am embarrased to even claim to be a native of the Garden State after shelling out my $50 (reduced fee because of bad conditioning).  How can the USGA even have their hq nearby?  The place is not even worthy of being a goat ranch.  The staff was lazy and rude.

[JohnV]

My choice for a good new course that meets your criteria would be the Oregon Golf Association's Member's Course at Tukwila in Woodburn, Or.  Green Fees are $35 for OGA Members, play is usually quick.  The course has some very interesting strategic holes, but also has plenty of space for the average golfer to make his way around.  While it probably doesn't offer enough challange for the very best in the state (witness a winning score of 201 in the state Stroke Play this year), it still is a fun course to play for everyone.Designed by Bill Robinson, the course has been very profitable since opening and seems very maintainable.  It is also one of the driest courses in Western Oregon.We definitely need more courses like this, but it doesn't seem like a lot of people are interested in building them.

[Ran Morrissett]

John V. brings up the point that we certainly need them and therefore is there a rewal niche for an architect to try to occupy?Who is the architect that is the "best" at building such courses? I understand there are plenty who make a great living charging 100K per course and just keep moving. But who has the knack of quickly (but with some meat to it) building these courses?As for Gary's question, I am of no help down here in Australia - I am out of the loop with such US courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The problem is that no one wants to build a low-end course, because of ego and because of the profit motive.  Even if you build one cheap, like High Pointe, how many owners would charge $35 if they thought they could get $65 ?I've built 3 or 4 courses which could have made it on $50 green fees, but only one is less than that -- Quail Crossing, because the Evansville market wasn't ready for higher prices.We're trying to figure out a way to promote more affordable golf, without damaging our reputation as outstanding architects.  Any suggestions?

[JohnV]

Tom you bring up a good point.  When the OGA opened their course, they were critisized by a number of other owners for not charging enough and under-cutting their business.  The guy who runs the place keeps wanting to raise the rates because the place is full.  Others on the board keep trying to keep the price down to keep it affordable.  If it was privately owned, it would probably be $50 or $60.

[Bill Vostinak]

In answer to Tom Doak's question, I think that you are already on the right track, the problem is that you only have artistic control, not cost control.If you had at your disposal, the right priced land in an area with enough golfers, the quality of the golf would  take care of it for you.The idea of golf as it had been intended, played hard and fast with challenge for the skilled and enjoyment for the "handicap man" is the ticket to this solution.You already know how to build such courses.   And as you allude to in Confidential Guide, this may be your own chance to build another Pinehurst #2, if you can get theland.You apparently just have no say in the cost of the finished product and you don't have a deep pocket to acquire the land to do it.e.g.From another side, Apache Strondhold is just in the butt end of nowhere and is now going to suffer from the conditioning.  But at $35, poor conditioning not withstanding, it truly is on the short list for its type of terrain. It's just not close enough to population tomake the impact that it should.Maybe someone on your staff should win the next big Powerball jackpot ;-)

[Tom Naccarato]

Recently, Brian Curley and Lee Schmidt opened a golf course here in the Southern California area called Goose Creek which I have sung the praises about at the other website.With green fees set at $57.00 on weekends, $47.00 without a cart and weekday rates of $35.00/$25.00 it can't get much better then that.  All of this on a par 70 layout that is what I would call strategic design for the public masses.  I have finally found golfing heaven in the land of mediocrity.But......... It only takes the strategic minds of a few assistant pros to destroy all of this.  They have been getting on the case of the owners and the director of golf to raise rates because most think that the course can handle $75.00 green fees with no problem. The course has been such a success that they are currently in discussion to add another 18 holes on land that is perfect for golf right along the Santa Ana riverbed.  Sadly, they are getting to the owners as now they forbid walking till after 11:30 on weekends on a course that is such a breath of fresh air with green to tee walks of less then twenty yards on every hole.When someone finally got it done right, it only takes a few of the PGA's finest to want to ruin it all.

[rkg]

Gary makes a great observation and points to a  predicament that I am sure we all wish was easily solved.  It reminds me of something I ponder at times. When this unprecedented economic boom ends, and if the historical cyclical pattern of economic cycles continues, it will, what will happen to the high end ccfod market, and golf in general?Obviously well designed courses, built for a reasonable amount (how many of these are there though!),  that can afford to charge $35 or $40, will fare better than those costing 8 to 10 million with marginal design. Will many of the expensively built courses be sold when they can't meet their loan obligations?  If so what will the demand for this type of golf be?  Will the corporate outings slow?Will the courses be sold for such a discount that the new owners will be able to charge much less and still make a profit?  Will the courses still be maintainable with a lower budget?Will golfer demand drop? Will the number of players continue to rise, plateau, or plummet?  I wonder how many of the cigar chomping, beer cart chasing players, who have been a big part of the recent expansion will continue with an interest in the game,and to what degree? The game obviously has a tremendous pull, and is a lifetime endeavor, but I wonder how many among the newly aquainted will drop the game when their pockets are not so flush.For the true golfer there may be a much greater opportunity for affordable(?) golf, but at what cost, and will growth of the game continue. I guess, looking in the crystal ball,one bright side to this will be an eventual darwinian elimination of practicing architects.   I am sure Tommy Naccarato has a thought or two on who he would wish to go the way of the dinasaur.  Anyway, a lot of questions for the group.  Lets hope the economy keeps on chugging, and we keep churning out courses.    In case it does not go on forever, maybe some of you who are older and wiser than me can give a viewpoint based on experience.  I was in high school the last time we had an extended recession that I can remember.  What do you all think? I could use some perspective other than Dr Mackenzie pleading for work during the 1930's.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,It seems to me that there is an opportunity to introduce or re-introduce affordable golf to the inner cities of America.With Tiger Wood's great success has come an  increased emphasis on introducing the game to the under privileged of our cities. The USGA and other organizations and foundations have started programs for that expressed purpose. I'm not sure how successful they have been, it sometimes appears that the closest these kids get to the game is a driving range.If these groups could be brought together, Woods(hopefully IMG would not look at it as potential money maker), USGA, NGF, misc. foundations and Corporate funding, I believe a 'chain' of affordable inner city golf courses could be built.No doubt it would be a challenge to find sights; city dumps, abandoned industrial areas, burned out neighborhoods, flood planes, etc. would be far from ideal but with your creativity and a reasonable budget, you would be up to the challenge.Most projects would probably have to be 9-holers, which I think would actually be a benefit (less acreage needed, cost of maintenence and ease of businesmen playing a quick 9).I think it would be important for experienced golfers, who maybe work in the city to also play. And a caddy program would be essential to the success of the project, because caddying is still the most effective way to learn and appreciate the game. Like all caddy programs there would be a day or two of free golf and the money earned would help pay for clubs and green fees.There are probably many other obstacles that I have failed to think of, but greenbelts in our inner cities and the lessons that the game would teach, sounds very appealing to me. And maybe you could design the next Royal Worlington & Newmarket or should I say Royal Worlington & New Watts.

[JohnV]

This has been one of the most interesting discussions to date here.  Kye questions what will happen when the demand for high priced golf courses ends and the desire for people to pay those prices evaporates.  Well, that is how National Golf Properties/American Golf makes its living.  They have never built a golf course, perferring to buy courses that have spent too much money building courses that can't return enough to stay in business.  They buy them for pennies on the dollar.  Then, they frequently cut maintenance and green fees  and make a pretty good profit.A friend of mine who owns one of the older public courses in Portland and was involved with the OGA in the building of its course, told me that if you build a new course today, you need to charge $10 in green fees per $1,000,000 of cost in order just to break even.  So, if you want to charge $35, you better not spend more than $3,500,000 to build the course.  He told me this a couple of years ago and I don't know how accurate it is today.

[Ran Morrissett]

If the greens fee is low, then the course will (virtually need to) be packed (unless it is a Wild Horse in Nowheresville built at miniminal expense). The quality of the experience will be tempered - may be a little but may be a lot.That lost sense of exaltation when you "feel" you have a course to yourself is a feature that is rapidly being lost in all but the most remote outposts. This is a great, great shame that future generations will miss out on.Grandpa Morrissett

[JohnV]

Ran, I think you have two choices.  Either you pay a little and put up with lots of other players or you play a lot and get the course to yourself.  Or your experience can be like Pebble Beach where you pay a lot and still put up with lots of other players.I for one would like to see a lot more courses where you pay a little and have crowds to deal with.  It is good for golf to attract more players and the cost of many CCFADs is getting way to much for most of them.  I'm just grateful that we have a great set of Municipal courses in Portland.  Even if I don't get to them very much, at least they provide good places for the average Joe to play.  I'd rather play a five-hour round at Eastmoreland for $20 than a lot of these $100-$150 a round courses that I see around the US.If you want privacy, join a private club and be the first one out like I was both days this weekend.  Played 18 holes with 3 others in 2:45 yesterday.  It was a real treat.

[Gary Sherman]

I have been away this week in Southern Pines (Pinehurst), NC at a meeting (tough duty!) but am glad to see this topic evolving.  Public courses built with private funds must by necessity push the daily fee to the maximum market price in order to accelerate the return on the projects investment.  With the current economic boom, real estate is extremely expensive and construction costs are high.  Unless you build a course in the the middle of nowhere (ie Crump 'n Fox in Bernardston, Mass)the numbers just don't work.  As such, developers bring in a high profile architect to build a "field of dreams" to attract the golf tourist.  The result is the $150 greens fee with a staff of fresh faced assistant pros catering to your every need.  (Doesn't that wear on you after a while.  They are so polite, I'd like to smack them sometimes!)The key, in my opinion, is to develop "investors" who are willing to build good courses at as low a cost as possible and be shown that they can get a good or better return on their investment than the expensive development model discussed above. Investors could be private developers, the PGA or towns and municipalities.  Private investors could afford to do this by working with towns and municipalities to acquire land at very attractive prices.  The town could get a piece of future profit in return.  Towns and cities own a great deal of land that is slated for development or conservation use. If there was an economic model that showed them there was a way to receive a small profit and deliver a valuable service to the community, this could ignite more affordable golf course development.  The town could help the developer keep construction costs down by offering town equipment and personnel for land clearing, stumping, some drainage work...  The developer quid pro quo is to offer low daily fees to the local community and charge more for outside guests.This has been done in some communities, but it just hasn't taken off.  I don't think there is a model of how to do this.The USGA and PGA could also play a roll here in offering assistance for development (publications, free consulting...).  These organizations could also offer economic assistance (loans?) or grants to qualified community/developer applicants.  It makes me sick to see the money that The Country Club made on the Rider Cup - like they need it!  Some of this windfall could be made available to support these types of programs.  The PGA could even be the developing and managing agent in working with towns.  I think we have enough private TPC courses, how about some CPC (Community Players Clubs).As a by product, this could be a great program for young aspiring architects to showcase their talents and launch a career.  The PGA could subsidize some of the architect fees.  (Wait a minute, I'm starting to lose my mind here, this is the PGA I'm talking about!)Does anyone know of programs like these? Comments.

[Pete Buczkowski]

An old thread that I thought was worth resurrecting.  Are we seeing this situation improving or worsening over the last 5 years?  

For example, in Orlando, Mike Dasher (former Art Hills associate) is doing some good work with total construction budgets of less than $1M.  Of course these layouts won't appear on any magazines' lists in the future, but there is definitely a market for them.  Dasher's work includes Highland Reserve, North Shore, and Eagle Dunes - all with reasonable fees for the local resident.  I believe all of these were opened after 2001.  I hope to put a mini-profile of HR up sometime next week, especially since our own FBD and Mike Sweeney have played it.  

[cary lichtenstein]

Best new public course course:

Lakota Canyon: absolutely terrific

[Tom Dunne]

The worst new public course I saw in '04 was Hudson Hills, the county government's take on the "high end daily fee", in Westchester, NY. The site is way too small (or at least so it would seem by this routing) and hilly. It's unwalkable unless you hire a Sherpa as your caddie. You have the potentially deadly combination of blind tee shots from elevated tees and parallel fairways. There are several holes that send my bad design detector screaming, and mine isn't especially sensitive, to be perfectly honest.

For all this, you have the privilege of paying $75, and that's IF you're a county resident. Don't count on it putting Westchester public golf on the map. In other words......just a crummy course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Dunne;

Is that the new course by Rick Jacobson?  Or is that something else?  I seem to recall the word Patriot in the name.

Who designed this one?

[Jay Cox]

Mike Cirba -
Hudson Hills is designed by Mark Mungeam.
Also, while the course certainly isn't great, it's MUCH better than most of the public competition in Westchester, and not that much more expensive.  Then again, I'll still play Van Cortland instead if I'm limited to public courses...

Jay

[Tom Dunne]

Jay Cox,

That's a low bar to hurdle, but I admit it's better than say, Maple Moor. If I'm not mistaken, the Hudson Hills site has been host to a number of ill fated courses for more than half a century...it's kinda like the Pizza Hut that becomes a bank, then a church, then a bail bondsman's, etc. I certainly wouldn't blame Mungeam for what happened there, I just think the land is ill-suited for golf.

PS: HH is twice as much as any other course in the county system....

[rgkeller]

We're trying to figure out a way to promote more affordable golf, without damaging our reputation as outstanding architects.  Any suggestions?

Put up your own money.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Dunne:

Good call on Hudson Hills. The site is poorly conceived as a golf course. I mean how many silly forced lay-up par-5's must one play during the round. I mean all four feature the same pattern -- the worst culprit -- easily the inane 15th hole!

Mark Mungeam usually has a creative eye for publicly owned facilities -- see Charleston Springs in Monmouth County (NJ) as an example -- ditto his work at High Bridge Hills also in the Garden State.

Hudson Hills has AT BEST a few holes of note -- the long par-4's at the 4th and 12th are solid holes -- especially the approach shot to the 12th. Overall -- the site simply tied the hands of Mungeam and the result is mixed bag of sometimes good and more than like bad holes all thrown together in one package.

The sad part is that Westchester County could do so much more with the existing courses it has. Likely, I'm smoking some heavy duty weed to believe that will happen though.

On the best public course side -- I have to say that Cary's choice for Lakota Canyon Ranch in Rifle, CO by Jim Engh makes for a good choice. I'll have to give some thought to a few others that have opened within the last 12 months.

[Mike_Young]

We designed WolfCreek  www.wolfcreekgc.com in Atlanta a couple of years ago and it was built for 1.65 million.  IMHO it has done well.  It is only 5 miles from Atlanta International Airport.  Of course due to budget there are some blind shots etc but it makes money.  It might not make any list but it will survive for a long time.  Small clubhouse , smart owners and a very good supt are what makes it.

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. Keller:  Thanks for that suggestion.  Actually, I have put up some of my own money, by deferring my fees on a couple of jobs; now if about a hundred people here would match me dollar-for-dollar, we'd have a public-course revolution on our hands!

This thread started in 1999, and I was intrigued to read the speculations of Kye Goalby from way back then.  I guess he should get off the dozer and replace Jeanne Dixon!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

For the record, let's throw Rod Whitman into the "deferring fees" category. It's happened too often in Rod's career, because he simply loves his work. As a result, there are some pretty damn good affordable golf courses by Whitman out there today.

Unfortunately, things don't change... as I've worked on recent proposals in which fees have been cut for what have been considered to be the "right reasons".  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()