Planning for Success: Your Questions Answered

The Spring 2026 issue of Club Trends, the quarterly publication produced by McMahon Group and the National Club Association (NCA), was featured on June 2nd in a special webcast, “Planning for Success,” that was hosted by the NCA and included comprehensive presentations on keys to effective facilities master planning—and how to avoid costly missteps.

Specific presentations by McMahon group principals included:

• The Case for Master Planning: Building the Infrastructure of Community – Frank Vain, Chairman
• The Essential Facilities for Modern Club Success – Glen Selligman, AIA, Director of Club Architecture
• Where Master Plans Go Wrong—and How to Optimize the Essential First Steps – David Dew, CCM, CCE, Vice President of Club Consulting
• “Surveys Say”: Members Must Drive Facility Master Plans – Scott Fairbairn, CCM, CCE, Vice President of Club Consulting
• Exclusive Pulse Survey Results on Planning Practices Within the Club Industry – Christian W. Coulter, CCM, ECM, Vice President of Club Consulting

(All presentations were based on articles in the Spring 2026 issue of Club Trends; for a copy of the issue and subscription information for Club Trends, as well as a link to a recording of the webcast, contact Alison McMahon at amcmahon@mcmahongroup.com)

The webcast drew unprecedented interest, with nearly 450 club managers and Board members registering. An extended Q&A session was conducted after the presentations; here are some of the questions that were asked and the responses that McMahon Group presenters provided:

 

FOR FRANK VAIN:

Q: When working with an established club, how do you recommend creating or sustaining a community feeling and effectively integrating new facilities with existing ones?   

The architectural vernacular and traditions of a club matter deeply, and a good plan extends them into new facilities, rather than competing with them. Merion Cricket Club, founded in 1853, is a wonderful example—the club has thoroughly modernized its member experience, adding world-class fitness and building the first swimming pool in its history barely a decade ago, yet these additions feel as though they’ve always been there. 

That’s the standard. Achieving it takes a strong Master Plan, implemented by local professional firms who know the marketplace and an interior design team with native sensibilities to carry the vision through execution. 

Above all, the key is planning itself—not rushing to complete a project, but thinking through options, evaluating alternatives, and paying close attention to what works today. That discipline is what produces a plan your club will still be proud of in 50 years.

Q: Amenities are important, no question. But how do you go about having programming that brings them to life—isn’t that what drives real engagement and community? What are the best ways to be sure you’re committing to effective programming that’s as intentional as the design itself?

You’ve hit on one of the key reasons to improve a club’s facilities: to make it possible for the management team to plan and execute the programming that engages members. Staff can incubate programs in substandard spaces for a while; we’ve seen clubs run fitness classes in event rooms during off-hours, for example. But if a club truly wants to meet evolving demand for functional training and wellness programming, it eventually needs purpose-built space to do it properly. 

As for what to offer, the answers come from member surveys, committee dialogue, and attention to industry trends—in short, staying in touch with your members. In nearly four decades of this work, we’ve rarely seen a well-planned space sit idle for lack of programming. Far more often, clubs and their members know exactly what they want to offer—they’re simply prevented from doing it by lack of space.

Q: Should clubs also think about creating community through other means, such as member trips? Golf trips are common, but they don’t meet the needs of all members. We are seeing social clubs in our area that are attracting member interest through trips to sports games and other experiences.

Absolutely. One of our clients, a historic club in the Northeast, runs member trips to battlefields and other historic sites—a natural extension of the club’s identity. Galleries, shows, and sporting events all make sense too. This approach is especially powerful for city clubs, which can serve as a gateway to everything their city offers—a meaningful way to leverage location at a time when downtown clubs face real post-COVID challenges.

Remember, a club membership is a bundle of value—so anything that adds to that bundle is worthwhile, especially when it builds community. Members join a club for access to a certain type of social or athletic experience, but they stay for the people. Trips and shared experiences like these are among the best tools a club has for creating those bonds.

 

FOR GLEN SELLIGMAN:

Q: What’s a good strategy for effectively expanding facilities/amenities when there’s limited available land or space? 

Almost all of our projects face this exact challenge. There are very few clubs that have the excess property to accomplish their facility-expansion goals without some compromise. In these cases, the right strategy is to develop, through research, a detailed program of spaces and member priorities, so that underused and underutilized spaces could be abandoned in favor of new, higher-priority demands. 

Understanding these needs and studying the potential solutions should be assigned to a special ad hoc committee drawn from the general membership and Board.  The General Manager will sit on the committee as an ex-officio member to make sure the plans are operationally feasible. The committee should then be led by outside professionals through a series of meetings to first develop the programmatic needs of the club, and then study alternative planning solutions for how those needs can be met. It is the committee’s responsibility to develop a consensus around the best way to expand facilities and amenities at the club, and then report those findings to the Board.

Q: What factors need to be evaluated to determine if the wrecking ball is the right solution?

Great question. It typically comes down to four things: 

• structural/code assessment (can the building be retrofitted at reasonable cost?)
• cost-benefit analysis (renovation vs. new—including hidden costs)
• program requirements relative to the existing site (does the footprint allow your future vision?), and  
• member timeline tolerance (can you phase work, or do you need full closure?)

Only when existing conditions make a renovation prohibitively expensive or physically constrained—and member expectations demand a complete transformation—does the wrecking ball become the right call. It is usually a monumental task, and it must be built on a vital foundation of research.  

Start with understanding your club from the members’ perspective. Research what members believe the club to be now and what they believe it should be in the future. Then build a program of spaces, indoor and outdoor, that support the mission and vision for your club of the future.  

This research step also requires a careful evaluation of the current clubhouse’s existing conditions. You will need to study your existing site to understand how new or existing elements will support your new clubhouse, including consideration of entry drives and parking, event lawns, and recreational elements like pools and tennis. The study should also cover specific issues such as, How will the location of the bag drop and pro shop support the golf mission and experience?  

All of these factors, and many more, play into developing a new clubhouse plan. Your members are going to want to know answers to many key questions, including: Why can’t our existing buildings be fixed up to support our needs? Where will our new clubhouse be located? How long will my membership experience be disrupted?  How much will this all cost and how will we pay for it?  Will our new clubhouse respect our club’s traditions and pass them forward to future generations?  

Only when you have all the answers and have taken the time to develop a genuine dialogue between your members will you be in a position to build your new clubhouse of the future. 

Q: Do you have any recommendations for how to solicit club-experienced architects If none exist in your market?

Make sure you have the right kind of architect for the project that you are going to develop.  In fact, it might not be an architect at all—in some cases, the right design leader may be a landscape architect, interior designer, or design/build firm. 

How do you know—and where do you go? Start with a plan—a Master Plan, if you will. And once the project is thoroughly understood and agreed upon by your membership, use that plan to guide you to the professionals you’ll need. Use all of your resources—national and local, and including fellow club managers, consultants like McMahon Group, local contractors and club members—to identify the best design lead for the project your members have approved. 

After that, develop Requests for Proposals to send to at least three of the firms you have identified through this research. You will then need to have general in-person meetings with each firm to have them present details about their staffing, experience, process, fees and timeline. 

Following all of these steps is the best way to be sure you’ve assembled the right team for the right project. 

 

FOR DAVID DEW:

Q: What key differences do you see in planning for residential country-club communities, vs. those that are not residential? 

Residential club communities can often be more complex because the club is not simply a place members visit; it is often viewed as an extension of their home. The members live within the community, entertain friends there, raise families there, retire there, and measure part of their quality of life by the condition, reputation, and vitality of the community around them.

That often creates a higher level of emotion and attachment, especially when the residence is a member’s primary home. In a non-residential club, members feel strongly about service, facilities, traditions, and value. In a residential community, those same issues are often tied to daily life, neighborhood identity, personal property values, and represent a significant real estate investment.

Planning must therefore consider more than club usage alone. It must account for the resident experience, real estate expectations, governance structure, community standards, infrastructure needs, and the overall lifestyle promise of the community. 

That is why research and planning are so important in residential club communities. The process must identify what residents value, where there is consensus, where there is tension, and what improvements will strengthen both the club and the broader community. The best plans protect the club’s relevance while also supporting the long-term identity, livability, and value of the residential community.

Q: How can you control “scope creep”?

Scope creep is best controlled through a disciplined facility master planning process. Too many clubs fall into a project mindset, addressing one short-term fix after another without first understanding how each decision affects the whole club.

A thoughtful master planning process creates discipline. It begins with purpose, member input, facility needs, operational realities, and financial context. It then organizes priorities into a roadmap so leaders can determine what should happen now, what should happen later, and what should not be pursued at all.

This discipline is especially important because scope creep often starts with reasonable requests. One added space, expanded amenity, or extra improvement can quickly affect cost, timing, operations, and member expectations. Without a plan, a well-intentioned project can drift from its original purpose.

Taking time to plan well at the beginning can save money, reduce rework, improve sequencing, and ultimately produce a better result. A strong Master Plan allows leaders to remain flexible without losing focus.

Q: A major focus of our Long-Range Planning Committee is on our technology and communication capabilities—we are upgrading our website, mobile application, communication channels, social-media presence, and brand identity to create a more consistent, engaging and effective experience for both current and prospective members, as well as the management team. How should we think about this to ensure that everything applies as well as it can to all ages, demographics and membership types? 

Technology and communication should be viewed as part of the member experience, not just an administrative function. The goal is clarity, consistency, ease of use, and stronger connection across all member groups.

Different members engage differently. Some prefer mobile apps, push notifications, online reservations, and social media. Others still value e-mail, printed materials, personal communication, and the ability to speak directly with staff. The best approach is to not force every member into one channel (such as a weekly e-mail blast), but create a coordinated communication system where the message is consistent and the delivery method meets members where they are.

Brand identity is also important. The website, app, newsletter, social media, signage, and member communications should all feel like they are coming from the same club. Consistency builds trust, improves engagement, and creates a stronger impression for both current and prospective members.

This is why many clubs need a true Communications Director. Great communication is no longer something that can simply be added to the workload of an already busy administrative person. It is a full-time responsibility requiring strategy, writing, brand consistency, digital coordination, and close alignment with management.

A club can have the right vision and priorities, but if members do not understand the message or trust the process, support becomes much harder to build. Strong communication is now a core part of successful club leadership.

 

FOR SCOTT FAIRBAIRN:

Q: How do you manage “survey fatigue”?

Survey fatigue is a legitimate concern, but it is often misunderstood. Members rarely become tired of surveys that are purposeful, well-designed, and lead to visible action. What they do become tired of are frequent surveys that ask repetitive questions, take too long to complete, or disappear without any meaningful follow up or action.

A comprehensive Facility Master Planning survey should not be viewed as an annual exercise. It should be conducted when the club is preparing to make significant decisions regarding its facilities, amenities, or long-range capital investments. Between those major planning efforts, shorter pulse surveys can be valuable for measuring satisfaction or gathering feedback on specific operational issues.

Perhaps the best way to avoid survey fatigue is to close the communication loop. Members should see that their input influenced priorities, helped to shape the Facility Master Plan, and played a role in future investments. When members know their opinions matter, they are far more likely to participate in future surveys.

Q: If you are building a club for the future, can you get bad information from current members who may not fully understand the competitive landscape?

This question highlights the proper role of member surveys. Members are experts on their experience at the club. They are not expected to be experts on industry trends, demographic shifts, competitive positioning, or facility design. That is why successful Facility Master Planning brings together several important perspectives.

The Board provides governance, leadership, and long-term stewardship. Management contributes operational expertise and an understanding of the competitive marketplace. Architects and professional consultants provide planning and design expertise. Members provide invaluable insight into how they use the club today, what they value most, and where they believe improvements are needed.

The purpose of a survey is not to ask members to design the future. It is to help leadership understand member priorities so those priorities can be balanced with market trends, financial realities, and a long-term vision for the club. Member surveys should inform decisions, not dictate them. 

Q: What is the proper threshold for “consensus” among a membership—51%? 60%? 80%? It will never be unanimous, so won’t you always have to deal with a sizeable group that’s unhappy as you move forward with projects?

One of the biggest misconceptions in club governance is that consensus means unanimous agreement. It does not. There is no universal percentage that defines consensus, because every club, project, and governing document is different. A clubhouse renovation may require a different level of member support than a new fitness center or golf course improvement. Some projects may require a formal membership vote, while others may be approved by the Board.

A good rule of thumb comes from McMahon Group Founder Bill McMahon, Sr., who has long maintained that clubs should strive for at least a 60/40 level of support before moving forward with a significant capital project. In his experience, a narrower margin often indicates that the club has not yet built sufficient alignment around the vision, priorities, or funding approach. While a project may receive the required votes, proceeding with only a slim majority can leave the club divided long after the vote is over.

More important than any specific percentage is the process used to reach that level of support. Clubs that engage members early, communicate openly, and incorporate survey findings into the planning process generally build stronger consensus than clubs that unveil completed plans with little prior member involvement.

Consensus does not mean every member agrees with every decision. It means a clear majority understands the vision, believes the process was fair, and has confidence that leadership listened before acting.

Q: Do members really know what they want? They don’t think about the issues as much as the Board and management.

Perhaps this is the most fundamental question of all. Members may not know whether the clubhouse should expand by 8,000 or 12,000 sq. ft. They may not know where a new fitness center should be located or how building systems should be designed. Those are decisions for experienced professionals.

What members do know is how they experience the club every day. They know whether dining space feels overcrowded on Friday evenings. They know whether they struggle to reserve a tennis court. They know whether the fitness center meets their expectations. They know whether their families have enough opportunities to gather, socialize, and enjoy the club together.

A well-designed survey does not ask members to become architects or planners. It asks them to describe their experiences, identify priorities, and evaluate potential directions for the future. That information, combined with the expertise of the Board, management, architects, and professional consultants, creates a far stronger foundation for decision-making than assumptions alone.

 

FOR CHRIS COULTER: 

Q: For clubs that require member approval for major capital expenditures, what is the typical dollar threshold that triggers a membership vote, and what percentage of the membership is generally required to approve a project?

The numbers really range based on the club, but typically a vote will be needed for projects of $250,000 and up. Like the dollar threshold, the requirements for approval can also vary, from just a majority of the quorum at a meeting to needing two-thirds in favor. At McMahon, we recommend not moving forward unless the percentage in favor starts at least with a “6.”

Q: Is there a typical ratio that clubs should strive to achieve between an annual operating budget and annual capital expenditures?

No—that should be driven by what the club can afford, based on having completed a reserve study with useful-life assessments of its existing facilities.   

Q: What is the percentage of membership that should be playing tennis and/or pickleball as it relates to a need to improve those facilities? 

The answer is more strategic than numbers-based. All facilities should be at the same quality level, and all amenities should be offered at a consistent standard. So if your golf course is the gold standard, tennis and pickleball facilities and programming should match that quality level, even if participation is not as high as for golf.   

Q: What trends are emerging in regard to dress codes? Is there evidence that members want a more relaxed style of dress? Can too rigid of a dress code affect member recruitment?

More casual is definitely the trend, but it still needs to be within the parameters of the club’s mission and vision. A club must evolve but still be true to what it is. This can lead to avoiding wholesale changes and adapting change at a slow and steady pace, where perhaps only certain parts of the club have a relaxed dress code. A good example is all white clothing on the tennis courts—if that is a key part of the club’s culture, it may not change, even if things are more relaxed elsewhere.