Friday
Dec182009
SF Rec And Parks Votes To Restore Sharp Park
Rachel Gordon reports on the latest positive development for the beleaguered MacKenzie design.
The commission considered three proposals, including one that would return the coastal golf course to its natural state.
The alternative backed by commissioners would keep the course whole but move several holes to guard the most vulnerable wetlands habitat for the San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged frog.
The estimated cost ranges from $5.9 million to $11.3 million. Funding has not been identified.
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Reader Comments (10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRwm0mVW18
Some people are trying to raise the money privately, one is in bed with Robert T Jones Jr. organization which may be more of a disaster than leaving it alone. Another has architect Forrest Richardson and then the city's plan uses architect Doug Nickles (who).
Hopefully Geoff or a Mackenzie expert (Doak or Devries) will get involved.
Most of the entire blame for all of this can be placed on the inaccurate report generated by the National Golf Foundation. They basically opened the door, exposed Sharp Park and Lincoln--another course which is might still be in harms way in terms of its existence--a course that has been there since before the turn of the 20th Century.
These clowns... Wait! Let me uppercase that: "CLOWNS" thought, by putting in certain data and specifying change, would enable certain parties the "IN" (so-to-speak) to get the job of "restoring" Sharp Park at the expense of Lincoln. What the NGF and its consultants didn't realize is that they were entering a whole new realm which they are complete amateurs: San Francisco Politics. they used the obvious tool which to open the door--the cost and expenses of Harding Park. (which there should ahve been an investigation of where that money went too)
The entire thing is a joke; a bad, bad joke, especially when considering the cost and energy to save Sharp Park could have gone into restoring it; at the very least maintaining it to a better quality which it deserves. Now, funding will have to come from out of nowhere.
We should all be saluting the hard efforts of Jeff Phillips, Bo Links and all those that stepped up to the plate to save this gem.
With that, I think it is best to now call into question the motives of the National Golf Foundation. correct me if I'm wrong, but they are NOT a Foundation, as much as an Organization comprised of people; lobbyists, out to create commercial interests in the golf industry. A Foundation, by definition, would be something out to create something for charity. As an organization, the NGF represents, and has overstated the need for golf in this country--to the point that they made it a dirty word in the marketplace.
This is your National Golf Foundation at work.....
Good stuff. Well thought out and well written. I look forward to reading more of your stuff. Thanks.
Back in the beginning, like all things, Pacifica was a much smaller town and hence, the road was built according to the use of that era.This should demean Sharp Park in anyway. the balance of nature and golf, along with the highway is very doable. So doable, its hard to believe such a fuss was made over it!
Environmentalists must learn that there is a movement which some--not all--but some architects want to design with the very essence of nature in mind. GOLF is not a dirty word!
How great it would be to see a Red-Legged Frog or Garter Snake while playing this sport! I don't know about you guys but I would much rather see that kind of nature then say, 240 houses ringing the course in an effort to justify the cost of the golf course itself! We are taking real quality of life stuff here!
Getting back to the subject:
Part of the NGF report laid blame on the unionized workers and staff that are employed by the City of San Francisco. Much blame for the cost was pointed at them. Once again, this is a very cheap and easy way to point the finger. I don't doubt that the conditioning of all of the courses is/was bad. But someone is in charge of these employees who work under a union agreement, which, the NGF didn't include in their report. Should anyone need proof of a Unionized crew working their agreement to their fullest; under the management that supervised them AND created superior conditions... Well, take a bow Craig Currier and the staff of Bethpage Park, site of this year's US Open.
There are a lot of other suspicious things in this report. When reading it, ask yourself, if your the one writing the report, that it doesn't favor you and your services--which is the real issue here. Not to mention that he might be one of the least representable architects in the scheme of making something old, new again... He is making his living selling his services, and frankly, he might be the least capable of doing the job.
I thought at the time that this course was doomed. The San Francisco politicial scene doesn't seem the most qualifed to comprehend how to deal with an Alister Mackenzie golf course. How many of these people realize what they have?
I am not educated enough on the topic to understand all the different players who have a vested interested concerning seeing the course stay or go. But I think I can say that if people want to see Sharp Park make it and make it with some of its Mackenzie roots, they need to step up and raise that money and, preferbly, buy it outright from the city/state and run it privately.
Otherwise, this bad boy will go the NLE route or maybe even worse it will be rennovated and loose its Mackenize roots.
At least that is what I think...for what it is worth.
This is fact: the two firms responsible in this debacle, are in fact eligible to compete for the restoration of Sharp Park! that's right, the two guys that would have just as soon put it in harms way, can now have a shot at making money off of it! (at least when the RFP goes out.)
One was working against Sharp Park, for the environmentalists and the other--a complete nincompoop--is the one that compiled the information. He advertises himself as a "Restoration" expert, yet, when one sees the work that he has done at the course he lists as restorations, it is anything but that. You might as well go out and get a landscape architect major from one of the local community colleges and give him a shot at it, he is that bad.
He is in fact a salesman--a very good one in some sense. At least when looking at the people and places that have actually given him the opportunity, which is even more confusing. Expect me to get really mouthy when these two particular architects start doing there thing...