The past 18-24 months have been a time of considerable soul searching in the golf business, generally, and the course design field, specifically. We’re all struggling with the effects of an economic downturn and the realization that our course stock, here in the U.S., has clearly outpaced demand these last 15 years. Golf course architecture has been especially hard hit, naturally. Hell, the idea of developing new courses is pretty much out the window. Renovation is now the core of our business.
We at Lohmann Golf Designs have seen another related paradigm shift, a major one, at the most basic level of our course renovation work: the Master Plan.
CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT BOB'S BLOG
As most of you know, for decades, when an architect engaged with a golf property re. its potential renovation, the Master Plan served as THE key document for everyone involved. Traditionally drawn up by the architect, it served as a sort of catch-all for everything the architect and the club would, in a perfect world, do to make the course more strategic, more aesthetically pleasing, more agronomically sound. It was both a checklist of design and maintenance issues, combined with plans for how those issues might best be addressed. Because the architect ultimately created this document, it also included the architect’s views on what else could and should be done to improve the golfing experience.
But here’s the thing: The Master Plan traditionally emphasized what should be done to improve the playing experience, while never really spelling out exactly what sort of money would be saved (if any), in terms of operating costs, if these changes were implemented.
In times like these, this is completely backwards.
Here at LGD, the Master Plan is dead. We don’t do them any more. Instead, we work with renovation clients via a Cost-Benefit Action Plan, or CBAP. It’s got sort of a nice ring to it, and it’s a vast improvement when it comes to describing how architects and clubs need to approach renovation work today.
The major innovation of the Cost-Benefit Action Plan is its emphasis on economic efficiencies, enabled by design. Here’s an example: When we talk to a club about renovating its greens, our first priority now is spelling out exactly how much money will be saved, year over year, in maintaining the refurbished greens — in comparison to keeping the old ones. If we can show that regrassing will save a club significant $ per year, per green, in water, chemical-use and man-hours (and in most cases we can do exactly that), then we are providing the sort of renovation service clubs really need today.
Of course, the “Benefit” part of the plan does not always have to be realized in immediate dollars saved. In the process of rebuilding or regrassing greens, we might address contour or reclaiming of lost square footage around the edges or bunker positioning. We’re architects! That’s what we do! But in the context of a CBAP, these changes might be justified by their impact on, say, pace of play – which directly affects user satisfaction and return business.
The priorities of a CBAP match the priorities of 95 percent of the green committees and course operators out there today. So selling them on the concept is easy. But to have lasting power, it’s imperative that our clients take ownership in the process. This means they define the standards they want to achieve as a facility, with our help, and we include a written description of those definitions directly in the plan.
And it doesn’t end there: We insist upon continual follow-up to determine if goals are being met or need adjustment. That’s the real key to long-term success.
Let me give you a recent example of why we have made this significant shift in our thinking. About 18 months ago we engaged with officials in Kenosha County, Wisconsin, re. the renovation of a 45-hole facility it owns and operates. Brighton Dale Links in Kansasville has the footprint and topographical potential to be a first-class municipal facility — and making that a reality was the underlying thrust of the Master Plan document LGD first prepared for County officials.
The existing White Birch and Blue Spruce layouts at Brighton Dale are both 18-hole, par-72 routings that measure 6,977 and 6,687 yards, respectively. Red Pine is a 9-hole, par-36 of 3,512 yards. Our old plan? Take the Red Pine routing and pluck nine holes from the Blue Spruce to create a single, 7,000-yard, 18-hole “premier” course. The remaining 27 holes would all be upgraded as well, but they would operate as three separate nines of a quality and difficulty lying somewhere below the premier 18. By reconfiguring the course routings, LGD would also create enough room to build a 25-bay driving range and practice facility, to include a short-game area, practice green and a junior routing located within the range itself — an innovation LGD had pioneered at several different facilities across the Midwest.
Well, everyone at the County loved this Master Plan. However, when the economy went sour, the idea of spending all this taxpayer money to create a premier golf course with elevated maintenance standards (and costs), despite its potential drawing power, was no longer defensible — not to taxpayers nor the County officials who have to keep the taxpayers happy, of course, but who are also experiencing furlough days to keep their own jobs.
Accordingly, we have reworked the old Master Plan for Kenosha and have re-engaged the client with a Cost-Benefit Action Plan. There is no fancy new 18-hole course in the CBAP. Instead, we’re proposing the removal of out-of-play bunkers, the regrassing of greens that would cost more to maintain if we left them alone, and the reconstruction of tired, old, maintenance-intensive bunkers. For each item, we will assess the cost and benefit, and determine the pay-off attached to the investment.
When we do rebuild greens, are we going to equip them with better contour and playability? You bet. When we rebuild some bunkers, are we going to create an attractive new style with strategic positioning and pleasing aesthetics? Of course.
But we recognize that renovation decisions are being made today based on cost or value benefits, not necessarily design.
You may well ask whether this depresses me, as an architect. I say no. For everything, there is a season. Ten years ago, when the money was flying, we built brand new golf courses for top dollar. My design at The Merit Club in Libertyville, Ill., hosted a U.S. Women’s Open, and my 18 at Canyata in Marshall just cracked Golf Digest’s Top 100 Courses in America. I get a charge out of designing and building golf holes that serve my client’s interest, full stop. Today, that means paying the highest attention to cost.
To be honest, The Merit Club and Canyata weren’t typical jobs for us. We’ve always made our nut working with cost-conscious private clubs, course owners and municipalities. This sort of experience has prepared us well to provide the cost-benefit approach our clients want today.
But there has been soul searching. I have to tell you, we have thought long and hard, as a company, about these issues over the past 24 months. The same process that we’re proposing for clients — prudent long-term planning aimed at streamlining operating costs — is, in fact, the same process we have undergone here at Lohmann Golf Designs and our sister construction division, Golf Creations. We’re trying to operate our own companies according to a CBAP. There are a lot of design firms that resisted this paradigm shift, and a lot of them are no longer around to ignore it.
So, to recap: The Master Plan is dead. Long live the CBAP.
