Very nice to see a potential resolution that saves the golf course without changing it to 9 holes and possibly only distrubring the 12th hole. At first glance of this report I can only wonder what cash strapped CA residents have already had to pay for all these surveys, studies, and reports to be completed to recommend what amounts to a solution based on simple logic and managing costs going foward. Was all this time, effort, and money really necessary?

Ari:

Yes it was a waste of money but in the end it got the city of San Francisco off its ass and now hopefully the golf course will be restored. Without it the city would have done nothing.

The question is now are they going to use Doug Nickles as the architect or can the San Francisco Golf Alliance bring in a better name architect and make it special. If the use Nickles, the course is destined for mediocrity.

Does GS = a better name architecht?

I bet he would do it as a resume builder and a service to the greater good?

There are 3 or 4 architects who have experience restoring Mackenzie courses. If they want the job done right and create something special, shouldn't they choose one of those architects???

Doak has worked on Pasatiempo and Valley Club and is a member at Crystal Downs.

Devries has worked on Meadow Club and Green Hills.

Kyle Phillips did an excellent job at Cal Club.

Hanse and Shack have not worked on a Mackenzie course but may be the most thoughtful on classic restorations.

Its up in the air who would be the best???

Sounds like you might make a good consultant...