We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Are course architects and real estate developers responsible for golf's decline?

Howzat

Howzat

I'd Rather Be At The Hideaway
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
24,294
Reaction score
61
Location
Minnesota
I heard a blurb on NPR this morning that made some interesting points about the decline in the popularity of amateurs playing golf. I will try to find a link but it basically states that big name course architects and real estate developers are a big part of the issue. The architects making the courses more difficult and the real estate developers for making the courses longer. For each extra 15 yards of fairway you add 4 houses which could be close to $1 million for the developer in some places. Of course this leads to the longer rounds. What are your thoughts?
 
I've read some articles on the same subject. I'd have a hard time saying it's a major cause of the decline though. I do think the building outraced demand at some point.
 
Hawk said:
I've read some articles on the same subject. I'd have a hard time saying it's a major cause of the decline though. I do think the building outraced demand at some point.
Click to expand...

For both houses and golf courses.
 
Hawk said:
I've read some articles on the same subject. I'd have a hard time saying it's a major cause of the decline though. I do think the building outraced demand at some point.
Click to expand...

Maybe saying major cause of the decline is not the right way to look at it. Major cause of longer rounds and fewer enjoying the game. It seems it always comes back to the amount of time it takes to play a round. Movies, dinner, your kids baseball game etc. typically only take a couple of hours.
 
There are a few course in the area where they built the course and the housing market crashed so the course is lined with empty lots
 
I do think people have some pretty big expectations of what courses should be like now thanks to the boom.
 
I don't buy the "making the course longer for more houses" discussion personally. There are a lot of factors that lead to decline. Cost and time are the two main reasons.

If a developer had their way, there would be no golf course communities, because that's thousands of acres of land they can't have houses on.
 
I can't see it being that large of an issue. With community design and planning, the costs and zoning would play a larger role than simply just adding more houses. There are some places where developers can basically do what they want, but so many other places have regulations and limitations, so can't see it being large enough to affect the entire game of golf.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
There was a trend about 10 years ago where longer and more difficult were desired, but most of the courses that prized those characteristics were pricey and probably attracted those who were already sucked into the game. Maybe there is a small percentage of folks where one of these courses opened up near them so they decided to take up golf, then played said course a number of times in frustration before moving on to tennis or marathons. Nowadays architecture has moved back to a lot of classic tenets, such as making the course accessible for all skill levels, so a scratch can play side by side with a 20 and both can have an enjoyable yet challenging round, so hopefully that encourages more play.
 
Philly Golf Guy said:
There was a trend about 10 years ago where longer and more difficult were desired, but most of the courses that prized those characteristics were pricey and probably attracted those who were already sucked into the game. Maybe there is a small percentage of folks where one of these courses opened up near them so they decided to take up golf, then played said course a number of times in frustration before moving on to tennis or marathons. Nowadays architecture has moved back to a lot of classic tenets, such as making the course accessible for all skill levels, so a scratch can play side by side with a 20 and both can have an enjoyable yet challenging round, so hopefully that encourages more play.
Click to expand...

That is the argument I think they are trying to make I think. Did that time of tough courses and barriers to entry really stunt the game's growth? Did we lose a lot of smaller courses that were less expensive and easily walkable because of a new expectation of what a golf course should look like?
 
Howzat said:
That is the argument I think they are trying to make I think. Did that time of tough courses and barriers to entry really stunt the game's growth? Did we lose a lot of smaller courses that were less expensive and easily walkable because of a new expectation of what a golf course should look like?
Click to expand...


I don't think the length of the course has anything to do with whether it will be successful or not, at least where I live. One of the most popular courses where I live is also one of the shortest.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
I don't think the length of the course has anything to do with whether it will be successful or not, at least where I live. One of the most popular courses where I live is also one of the shortest.
Click to expand...

I think you helped make the point. People seem to have a better time playing shorter courses. Takes the ego thing away about teeing forward as well.
 
Howzat said:
That is the argument I think they are trying to make I think. Did that time of tough courses and barriers to entry really stunt the game's growth? Did we lose a lot of smaller courses that were less expensive and easily walkable because of a new expectation of what a golf course should look like?
Click to expand...

Probably a little, but not significantly IMO. One example I can think of is Whistling Straits. Opening in 1998 and costing a ton, I think the only golfers going there are already firmly entrenched in the game, so even if they went there and were totally killed (like my dad), they just went home and told everyone they played the course and kept plugging away at their local places. Maybe there were a few folks that lived close to WS and decided to give golf a go, then abruptly gave up after playing that course a few times. Maybe there is a small number that are affluent, decided to take up the game by only playing the latest and greatest courses, got killed, and then decided to try out scuba diving instead. But I think most beginners stuck with the munis that are no doubt a lot more accessible, so I just don't know how much the trendy longer/tougher courses impacted those who left the game.

Your second point reminds of the "Augusta syndrome," where golfers expect every course to look like Augusta. A great example is Pinehurst 2, where they moved in that direction until C&C dialed it back to how Ross intended. Many courses tried to keep up with the watering and other maintenance to meet the demand a lot of golfers expected with Augusta conditions and I'm sure some of those courses fell apart because of it. I think a lot of courses have closed or are about to because they built ridiculous clubhouses and realized pretty quickly the costs going into those are astronomical. So in both instances, these courses could have spiked up the green fees, making a lot of beginners and possibly others walk away because their golfing options became $50 instead of the usual $25 to play the overcrowded below average muni or the $130 latest and greatest 188 slope confidence killer. So maybe in that respect, it made another number of folks walk away.
 
As a former real estate professional in residential new home developments in Southern California, I can say that there is some merit to this theory, but it is offset by a larger concern. The theory that a real estate developer wants to squeeze as many homes into a development as possible is correct, but when you make a course longer you don't necessarily increase profit by creating more course-side lots. Making a course longer also uses up more land for the course -- land that could be used for more overall homesites with a shorter routing. The land available for the routing is usually fixed before design begins, so the golf course architect has to work with what he's given and the developer fills in the rest. Both parties in this balancing act usually want more land in their half of the split.

The developer chooses the type of architect and course he wants based on the clientele he hopes to attract. If he is building a Del Webb-style retirement community, I guarantee you the course will be short, generous and easy. If the development is supposed to be a prestige second home luxury enclave like they have built so many in Park City recently, then you hire a Tom Fazio and go for extreme length and drama because you are competing with other such communities for bragging rights in a limited market. In these prestige communities the lots are spread out, not squeezed together, but you want a lot of them to be course-side

Still, I think that the lengthening of these "prestige" courses is more about fashion and trickle-down copying of longer tour courses than it is a nefarious calculation among real estate developers. If Doak is the architect du jour, you try to hire Doak so you can say you have a Doak course. As the fashion moves to more artificially-natural style courses like Bandon, Whistling and Pinehurst, we'll see more brown native grasses. But still it's fashion. And these "natural" courses aren't shorter. Pinehurst is 300 yards longer than last time as it purports to be a return to Donald Ross's vision. Ross never envisioned it at 7600 yards.
 
I don't think it is so much the added length as the routing of the holes. When a golf based housing development is proposed, the community and course are planned out together with an eye towards maximizing prime lots. This is preferable if you are the developer however the golfer gets treated to a bland course across uninteresting terrain. You can just feel the compromise and are looking at the house lots and wondering why the hole couldn't be over there. People play those tracks once and aren't compelled to return. A good book to read about the subject is 'Driving the Green' by John Strawn. Covers the entirety of the process of real estate course.
 
I think it's a small part of the equation. When a course is built with other considerations in mind it creates a less compelling product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I don't think so. I think there are very many golf course communities built with shorter courses too. As a matter of fact with less and less land available in more populated areas I bet we would find more of such communities with shorter courses vs longer ones. Sometimes even squeezed in where one might even feel it wasn't really practical that they even built it in the first place. Most the ones I know of in my area are all shorter than my local munis.

Most developers are going to figure out how to make the most money with the least expense. If some extra land is available they would simply add a few more homes before lengthening the golf course. Think for the moment, if I (as a hypothetical developer) had a choice of adding 50 yards to the 380yard hole #3 or putting in another house/lot I will build the extra house/lot. That's another home sale and another monthly fee to collect. I think the whole idea is to put as many homes as you can not putting in as much golf as you can.

But I also think this depends on exactly where this is being done and the type of social status one wants to attract. In very rich areas where astronomical amounts of money can be obtained then you may find the opposite. Less homes (or we may even call them small estates) lined along a prestigious type of golf course. In that case there could be much more money coming in from less residents but I think that is the more rare of the two types of golf communities. There is the mid and upper mid classes community and also mixed with a fixed income retired types vs the exclusive rich type of community. I think the later is far more rare. I don't have any real stats to back this up but I would believe the shorter courses with more houses types of golf community is far more the norm vs longer ones with less homes.
 
Hard to say if it contributes at all or not. My opinion is the decline is mostly economy and time constraints when rounds take longer than 4.5 hours. I would wager the decline of Tiger has implications as his rise is attributed to the increased popularity of the sport amongst golf mortals by most experts. Whether the increase in golf by amateurs was truly related to Tiger or just a coincidence is open to interpretation.
 
I have yet to go to a golf course that didn't have multiple sets of tees for every range of golfer. I also have yet to play a course that is tough from the forward tees. I think golf is on a decline because people don't put the time in to get lessons or play the right tees. Frustration sets in and they leave the game.
 
Are course architects and real estate developers responsible for golf's decline?

Wouldn't an even longer course have shorter tees for the average player. Personally, I think it's somewhat cyclical. The economy hasn't been great, golf costs money, even if you do it cheaply.

Also, what's driving people to the game? Exercise? Most don't even walk anymore. Players that inspire? The last is past his peak and upset a lot of people.

I don't know. Personally I like to play funky old munis with big trees, small greens, and crappy clubhouses. I loath houses on the course. Golf needs the masses to be successful and that wasn't the focus during the last boon.
 
mark blanchard said:
The developer chooses the type of architect and course he wants based on the clientele he hopes to attract. If he is building a Del Webb-style retirement community, I guarantee you the course will be short, generous and easy. If the development is supposed to be a prestige second home luxury enclave like they have built so many in Park City recently, then you hire a Tom Fazio and go for extreme length and drama because you are competing with other such communities for bragging rights in a limited market. In these prestige communities the lots are spread out, not squeezed together, but you want a lot of them to be course-side

Still, I think that the lengthening of these "prestige" courses is more about fashion and trickle-down copying of longer tour courses than it is a nefarious calculation among real estate developers. If Doak is the architect du jour, you try to hire Doak so you can say you have a Doak course. As the fashion moves to more artificially-natural style courses like Bandon, Whistling and Pinehurst, we'll see more brown native grasses. But still it's fashion. And these "natural" courses aren't shorter. Pinehurst is 300 yards longer than last time as it purports to be a return to Donald Ross's vision. Ross never envisioned it at 7600 yards.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with the prestige factor and who they are trying to attract being a huge factor in the type of courses that have been created. There will always be those that want to build the super exclusive, big name architect course, but I think developers, architects and course owners are going to be more forward looking from here on out, citing the need for lower maintenance costs, less environmental impact, etc.

Also, don't forget that there is no golf course for the public at large without a corresponding development.
 
once again I dare to say. Why does golf interest have to be in every household? Golf is on the decline as many say, due the economy and all the relative things associated with our busy lives in this economy that affect us. But also in part due to the fading tiger influx. Not everyone has to have an interest in golf. Do the skiing, surfing, hunting, fishing, four wheeling, bowling, tennis, whatever etc.. communities feel they need to force the rest of the population to get on board with their favorite activity?

I don't really understand it. The golf industry and golf community swallowed up the Tiger influx and better economy at the time. New course opened and the sport expanded. Business people took full advantage of the influx and rightfully so. A lot of money was made. But the infatuation has since faded. Like any other fad at it's prime time it does eventually come to an end and go back to normal. Any businesses that once prospered from any influx or fad ends up expanding as more and more get involved but just like any other thing when that fad fades away your left with some emptiness and a feeling of "where did we go wrong". But imo nothing really went wrong. Its just a cycle like any other fad. Why would or should golf be any different or somehow immune to this vs any other thing? Especially when an economy plays its part too it just becomes even more detrimental and golf is an activity that does require money. The general population simply does less than it did before. That holds true with everything and not just golf. There does not have to be a golfer in every house nor should there be.
 
rollin said:
once again I dare to say. Why does golf interest have to be in every household? Golf is on the decline as many say, due the economy and all the relative things associated with our busy lives in this economy that affect us. But also in part due to the fading tiger influx. Not everyone has to have an interest in golf. Do the skiing, surfing, hunting, fishing, four wheeling, bowling, tennis, whatever etc.. communities feel they need to force the rest of the population to get on board with their favorite activity?

I don't really understand it. The golf industry and golf community swallowed up the Tiger influx and better economy at the time. New course opened and the sport expanded. Business people took full advantage of the influx and rightfully so. A lot of money was made. But the infatuation has since faded. Like any other fad at it's prime time it does eventually come to an end and go back to normal. Any businesses that once prospered from any influx or fad ends up expanding as more and more get involved but just like any other thing when that fad fades away your left with some emptiness and a feeling of "where did we go wrong". But imo nothing really went wrong. Its just a cycle like any other fad. Why would or should golf be any different or somehow immune to this vs any other thing? Especially when an economy plays its part too it just becomes even more detrimental and golf is an activity that does require money. The general population simply does less than it did before. That holds true with everything and not just golf. There does not have to be a golfer in every house nor should there be.
Click to expand...
I can't quite get on board with your characterization. It isn't about making every household is a golfing household. It is about dealing with the real numbers which show golf is in decline. Perhaps some of that is the Tiger effect. Regardless, it isn't healthy for anyone when a sport's participation numbers go the wrong way. Discussing causes and solutions is a good thing.
 
The game shrinking isn't good any way I look at it. Less players = less money = fewer courses, more crowded courses, worse conditions, less opportunities for careers, etc.
 
I think we'll see a trend towards more Bandon-style fake natural courses going forward that require less water to irrigate, thus saving costs. It's the fashion, if nothing else. I just played at one in Utah, Sand Hollow, and it's very well designed. But these courses do confuse and frustrate the average golfer as to what is hazard vs bunker vs natural area. The sand in the hazards is the same as the sand in the waste areas, which is the same as the rattlesnake-infested, protected crypto-gammic soil everything else. What do you do when the ball strays? You end up agreeing on your own rules that say, "Hit it if you can see it, call it a lateral hazard if you can't." We had another such high-gorse, fake-natural prairie course here (Eagle Mountain) that they had to simply mow down the gorse because the regulars hated losing so many balls ten feet from the fairways.

But when you think about it, this style of architecture could be a cheap way to sculpt courses into shorter but challenging tracks by inserting scary "natural" hazards right at the 300 yard mark that dials back the bombers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top