|
Building And Maintaining The Truly Affordable
Golf Course
by James Francis Moore, Director, Construction
Education Program
With good planning and common sense,
"affordable golf" can be more than a catchy phrase
|
|
Like the economy, and at least partially because of it, golf has
enjoyed tremendous growth in recent years. More people than ever
are taking up the game and are shelling out more money than ever
before to play it. Golfers all over the country are paying $50,
$60, $70 and more to play a round of golf. At least they are now,
in an economy that has flourished. What will happen if/when we have
less disposable income to spend on recreation? Also, golf has been
marketed hard to socioeconomic groups that historically did not
have access to the game. If golf is not truly affordable, where
will these new golfers play?
With average golf course construction costs typically ranging from
$1.6 to $4.5 million, and the total cost of putting a new course
on line frequently exceeding $10 million, just getting the course
opened is extremely expensive. After opening, the facility obviously
must be maintained. Annual maintenance budgets have increased steadily
for many years, reflecting golfers' desires for high quality course
conditioning. The 1998, 18- hole average maintenance budget for
private courses is $635,930, it is $576,423 for resort courses,
and it is $383,819 for municipal courses. Looking at it another
way, assuming 30,000 rounds of golf per year on the private course,
more than $20 in maintenance is expended for every round. Given
these costs, it is no surprise that the phrase, affordable golf,
is on the hopeful lips of everyone in the golf industry these days.
There are many courses across the country that already offer golf
at very affordable prices. Although they don't make the cover of
anyone's magazine, and they often have playing conditions that are
far from perfect, they do offer millions of golfers a place to play
and enjoy the game at a reasonable cost. What makes these courses
so affordable to build and maintain? They have employed some or
all of the following principles and practices.
Heavy earth moving is expensive. This
operator is making a cut of at least five feet
|
|
Site selection has the greatest single impact on the eventual cost
of building a new golf course since heavy earth-moving tasks are
the most labor-and equipment-intensive. These tasks include general
clearing, stockpiling and purchase of topsoil, excavation of the
subgrade, rock removal, rough shaping, and fine grading. Although
there are a few notable exceptions, the majority of sites selected
for the construction of new golf courses are less than ideal in
terms of contouring. As a result, it is now common to move tremendous
amounts of dirt in the form of cuts and fills. At one time, moving
more than 200,000 cubic yards of earth was considered unusual if
not excessive. Today, it is not uncommon to move over 1,000,000
cubic yards to build and shape the new course. As a result, the
cost of the heavy earth-moving tasks alone can easily exceed $1,000,000.
Obviously, hole routings that result in large cuts and fills add
greatly to the cost of construction, as do design features such
as excessive bunkers, mounds, and hollows.
Selecting an appropriate site and developing a good design that
requires as little earth-moving as possible will go a long way toward
making the course truly affordable. Agricultural lands usually are
excellent choices for such courses. They typically have plentiful
topsoil, good surface drainage, and a minimum of trees and brush.
When combined with a design that requires only limited earth-moving,
such courses may be unremarkable in their overall appearance. They
also are far less expensive to build and maintain, and therefore
less expensive to play.
Steep slopes created during construction are not just costly to
build - they are also expensive to maintain. Slopes in excess of
3:1 (for every 3 liner feet the elevation changes by 1 foot) almost
always require specialized mowing equipment or must be mowed by
hand, using line trimmers or hover-type mowers. They also are more
difficult to water and fertilize, adding further to the cost of
maintenance. While softer slopes offer less dramatic visual accents
to the course, they can be mowed with large, riding equipment. Since
labor is the most expensive aspect of golf course maintenance, layouts
that can be maintained properly with smaller crews result in long-term
savings that can be passed on to the golfer.
Although obviously beautiful, these
natural areas require minimal trimwork.
|
|
Trim work is the most labor-intensive aspect of golf course maintenance.
This is particularly true in the southern portions of the country,
where bermudagrass is the predominant turfgrass used on courses.
Perimeters of lakes, creeks, bunker edges, sidewalks, and cart paths,
and around the base of trees, signs, and ballwashers, all require
near-constant trimming. On highly maintained courses it is not unusual
to find 6 to 8 crewmembers devoted solely to trim work throughout
the entire growing season. Bunkers and water features are particularly
labor-intensive, so the more they can be kept to a minimum during
the original design of the course, the greater the labor-savings
will be each year thereafter.
Although sand bunkers are not overly expensive to build, they are
second only to greens in terms of the labor required to maintain
them to the standards today's golfers have come to expect. Unfortunately,
the trend in golf course design over the past couple of decades
has been to increase the number of sand bunkers placed on the course.
Today, it is not uncommon to find 50 or more bunkers on a course,
where in the past, 20 to 30 would have been considered sufficient.
Each of these bunkers requires labor-intensive tasks such as edge
trimming, periodic addition and replacement of the sand, frequent
raking (both mechanical and by hand), and the shoveling of sand
back onto the bunker faces following heavy rains. The affordable
course should keep bunkers to a minimum. Twenty well-placed sand
bunkers can provide plenty of challenge without overwhelming the
maintenance staff.
Without question, bunkers such as these
are beautiful assets to any golf course. However, they are
far more expensive to build and maintain than a grassy hollow
|
|
The style of the sand bunkers also affects the amount of maintenance
required to keep them in good shape. Steep, flashed faces are attractive
but invariably result in the washing of sand from the faces during
heavy rains. Grass-faced bunkers with relatively flat sand surfaces
are far less intensive to maintain and the sand will last longer
because there is much less chance for soil to mix with the sand.
Softly contoured grassy hollows can provide plenty of challenge
to the player. In fact, the flop shot required from a closely mown
grassy hollow to an adjacent elevated green can be even more difficult
than a shot from a sand bunker. Unlike bunkers, grassy hollows require
virtually the same maintenance as the other turf areas around the
greens or fairways and therefore require no additional cost to maintain
properly. The combination of challenge, beauty, and low maintenance
requirements make grassy hollows an ideal choice for the facility
striving to provide affordable golf.
Like irrigation systems and drainage, the construction of greens
is not an area in which corners should be cut in the effort to save
money. Well-built greens are much less expensive to maintain throughout
the remainder of their lives than those that are built poorly. Recently,
there has been something of a trend to reduce the cost of building
greens by leaving out such critical components as drainage tile,
the gravel drainage blanket, and organic matter from the rootzone
itself. Yes, greens can be built for less money without these components,
but at what cost ultimately? For nearly 40 years greens have been
constructed to the admittedly stringent USGA guidelines. Since greens
are expected to last a minimum of 20 years and in most cases much
longer, and since greens are easily the most critical physical component
of every golf course, the extra effort and expense to stay with
this time-tested and scientifically sound construction techniques
is well-justified. The fact is, well-built greens are not expensive
in the long run. A good analogy can be made to building a house.
There are houses that look great when they are new, but are constructed
using substandard plumbing, wiring, and foundation materials. Such
houses soon become maintenance nightmares for the owners. Then,
there are houses that are solid as rock from the bottom up and are
simple yet functional in their design. These houses provide years
of trouble-free living and are unquestionably the better long-term
investment. Likewise, greens that are constructed utilizing proven agronomic principles are better investments.
It is more expensive initially to build
a green properly. But, well-built greens are good investments
that will provide years of reliable service. This benefit
more than justifies their initial expense.
|
|
This is not to say that money cannot be saved during the construction
of USGA greens. Most communities have multiple sources for sand
and gravel. In many cases, it is possible to identify (through laboratory
testing) lower-cost materials that meet USGA guidelines. In 1993
the USGA modified the guidelines to provide the option for leaving
out the intermediate layer. By selecting properly sized gravel and
sand, the intermediate layer can be omitted, resulting in significant
savings.
A new and potentially promising aspect of green construction is
the utilization of inorganic amendments in the rootzone mixture
as a substitute or complement to traditional sand/peat mixtures.
However, these amendments are extraordinarily expensive. For example,
a typical 19-green construction project requires approximately 7000
cubic yards of rootzone mixture. Assuming the 12-inch deep rootzone
mixture will be composed of 85% sand and 15% either peat moss or
one of the inorganic amendments, the cost of that mixture varies
dramatically. The cost of the peat would be approximately $32,000,
whereas the cost of either of two of the most popular inorganic
amendments easily exceeds $200,000. Incorporating the amendments
in the upper few inches of the rootzone instead of through the entire
profile can reduce their cost. However, this results in rootzone
layering that is inconsistent with the USGA's guidelines. In addition,
there is little research available on the long-term stability of
the inorganic amendments and their impact on the rootzone. For these
reasons, the USGA does not currently recommend the use of inorganic
amendments in the construction of new greens.
Avoiding extreme contouring of the greensite itself also can significantly
reduce the cost of building greens. In addition to the large quantities
of fill material and topsoil necessary to construct such sites,
the steep contours often preclude the use of riding equipment for
greens mowing. This permanently increases the labor requirements
for green maintenance. And, although such greensites are dramatic,
they contribute nothing to the development of a top quality putting
surface.
Reducing the total square footage of the putting surface also reduces
the cost of construction and maintenance. There has been a trend
toward very large greens over the past 15 to 20 years. At one time,
a 5000 square foot green was considered large. Today, greens are
frequently in excess of 7000 square feet. Obviously, greens must
be large enough to endure the traffic they receive. However, a small
green that is located in an area with good growing conditions (particularly
adequate light and air movement), has plenty of entrance and exit
points, and has contours that allow a wide selection of hole locations,
will out perform a large green that does not have such attributes.
Perhaps no aspect of the potential for affordable golf has been
more overlooked than the choice of grasses for the course. Thanks
to the efforts of turfgrass breeders and scientists, and the support
of many of these programs by the USGA, the industry has a greater
selection of grasses for golf course use than ever before. Many
of these grasses have very low maintenance requirements. However,
since they seldom provide the level of perfection today's golfer
has come to expect they are underutilized. For example, improvements
in buffalograss have yielded varieties that are perfectly suited
to golf course roughs, typically the largest acreage of the course.
Once established, buffalograss requires miniscule amounts of water,
fertilizer, and pesticides. It seldom needs mowing, and provides
a turf canopy that fairly penalizes the errant shot without making
it difficult to locate the ball. If there was ever a grass that
personified the concept of affordable golf, it is buffalograss.
So why is it not extensively used on today's new courses? First,
it is slow to establish (two to three years from seed) - a trait
not well received in today's instant-everything society. Secondly,
when properly maintained, buffalograss does not provide the lush,
green color desired by so many golfers. Buffalograss turns brown
when under drought stress, and depending on the variety, develops
seedheads than some find unattractive. In other words, in spite
of the fact that the grass provides excellent playing quality for
the rough, at a very low price, many golfers find it too unattractive
for widespread use.
An even more glaring example of how choosing the wrong grass can
impact affordable golf is the trend all across the southern portion
of the country to establish bentgrass instead of bermudagrass greens.
Maintenance costs (particularly for pesticide, water, and labor)
increase dramatically when bentgrass (a cool-season plant) is planted
in a climate that is far better suited to bermudagrass (a warm-season
plant). At one time, it was difficult for the bermudagrass golf
course superintendent to provide a putting surface comparable to
his bentgrass brethren. However, thanks to the development of better
equipment, improved bermudagrass varieties, and the expertise of
today's highly-trained superintendents, bermudagrass greens can
and do offer outstanding putting quality.
To put it bluntly, today's golfer is spoiled when it comes to course
conditioning. Expectations of the daily player have risen with each
televised tournament displaying hand-mown greens, tees, and even
fairways. Perfectly manicured flowerbeds are timed for the ultimate
tournament-week display. Fairway and tee divots are filled by hand
with sand dyed to match the undamaged adjacent turf. Every lake,
creek, bunker and path is perfectly trimmed. There are no weeds
(anywhere) and few plants of any type grow with anything less than
perfect symmetry. Even bunkers are expected to provide a level of
consistency that suggests we should reevaluate their classification
as hazards according to the rules of golf.
Such perfection on the golf course is perhaps justified for those
with large maintenance budgets. For those who seek to keep golf
affordable, there are many options to reduce the cost of maintenance.
For example, instead of hand-raking bunkers four to five times per
week, labor hours can be greatly reduced by machine raking twice
per week. Of course, this assumes that golfers will actually smooth
the bunker after their shot and that they will once again recognize
the fact that bunkers are indeed hazards. Another labor-saver is
to reduce the mowing frequency of roughs that seldom come into play.
On most courses, there are many acres of such areas. Granted, there
probably are few places on any course that sooner or later will
not be hit by someone, the savings in fuel, labor, and equipment
justifies the effort. As stressed earlier, keeping trimming to a
minimum can also significantly reduce labor-hours. Although frequent
trimming of bunker edges is important to define the boundaries of
this hazard, lakes and creeks need not be so manicured. By staking
and painting the water hazard boundary well away from the edge of
the lake or creek, the player is able to quickly determine whether
or not the ball is in the hazard. To speed up the search for lost
balls and still reduce labor hours, trim only the portion of the
hazard that frequently comes into play.
Trim work can further be reduced by utilizing herbicides instead
of labor-intensive line trimmers around trees and alongside boundary
fences. By using a combination of non-selective and pre-emergence
herbicides, the interval between sprayings can be greatly extended.
Since line trimmers do provide a more manicured look, consider their
use only around the highly visible areas of the course such as near
the clubhouse.
Regardless of the choice of grass for the greens, placing less emphasis
on speed can save money. In many parts of the country, those interested
in affordable golf must recognize that the quest for lightning-fast
greens is counter-productive. Quite simply, it is much more expensive
to maintain extremely fast greens than those of a more moderate
pace. Greens rolling 7 to 8 feet on the stimpmeter can provide very
enjoyable playing conditions to players of all levels. Such speeds
can be produced at higher cutting heights, which invariably result
in an overall healthier turfgrass plant. Healthier greens require
less intensive care and are far less prone to failure of all types.
Like the greens, the irrigation system should not be compromised
in terms of quality. Irrigation systems are critical to the success
of most courses in this country. Like almost every aspect of golf
course construction, the cost of purchasing and installing an irrigation
system has risen dramatically in recent years. With today's heavily
computerized systems and the trend to wall-to-wall coverage (where
virtually every area of the course is irrigated), it is not uncommon
for the cost of the irrigation system to exceed $1 million.
Again, as when building greens, the key to saving money on the irrigation
system is to reduce quantity, not quality. Component quality (including
the heads, controllers, pipe, and pump station) should be nothing
less than first-rate. However, great savings can be realized by
reducing the total acreage irrigated. In some areas, very low-cost
manual heads can be employed in roughs that require a minimum of
supplemental watering to survive dry periods. This is particularly
true when the roughs are planted to water-efficient turfgrasses.
Most courses have many acres that seldom come into play and therefore
need little if any supplemental irrigation. If future expansion
of the system is anticipated, the pipe sizing and pump station can
be designed accordingly.
The degree of control of individual irrigation heads also affects
the cost of the system. Hilly courses with a variety of turfgrass
species being employed require a greater degree of individual head
control and result in higher installation costs. In contrast, courses
that can utilize block designs (multiple heads controlled by a single
valve) in large turf areas such as fairways and key roughs can realize
significant savings. In areas of the country where the cost of water
is high, computerized control systems often result in tremendous
savings. However, in parts of the country where water is more plentiful,
the control package can be less sophisticated and significantly
less costly.
Another means of making golf more affordable is to design courses
than can be easily walked. Unfortunately, many of today's courses
are designed under the assumption that virtually all the players
will utilize riding carts. Vast distances often separate the green
and the following tee, taking the enjoyment out of walking the course.
Some courses even prohibit walkers altogether in order to generate
greater cart revenue. Obviously, revenue is important and it is
a fact that many players prefer riding to walking. However, on courses
that are conducive to walking, players can save $10, $15, or even
$20 dollars per round simply by hoofing it. Assuming the goal is
affordable golf, this simple step has a tremendous impact on the
player's pocketbook.
All of these suggestions will result in significant savings in the
construction and maintenance of the golf course. If these savings
are passed on the golfer in the form of reduced green fees, more
people will be able to enjoy the game - even during less favorable
economic climates. However, it is very important to stress that
many of the suggestions will result in a reduction in the overall
appearance of the facility. While a high level of playing quality
can be maintained, the course that is designed, constructed, and
maintained in an economical manner will seldom compare favorably
in terms of appearance to those facilities with deeper pockets.
As a result, one of the most important aspects of achieving the
goal of affordable golf is the willingness of the golfer to accept
significantly less than perfection in terms of course conditioning.
Fortunately, this does not mean the game itself must be any less
fun or challenging - just less expensive.
James Francis Moore is Director of the USGA Green Section's Construction
Education Program. Based in his office in Waco, Texas, he scours
the country for new technologies and maintenance practices that
can help to make golf more affordable.
|
|
|
|
