News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sharp Park
« on: September 26, 2006, 02:04:01 PM »
I'm curious if anyone knows if the SF has any plans to restore, renovate Sharp Park considering what a success the Harding Park project was. Considering it was an Mack. design it would seem it could be a money making asset to the city. Maybe Doak can comment on whether the course still has a fair amount of Mack. still in it to pull it off, or is it too far gone.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Tom Huckaby

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2006, 02:09:45 PM »
David - it's mentioned in one of Daniel Wexler's Missing Links books - seek that out, those are really cool.  But there's about as much MacKenzie there now as on my front lawn... Daniel didn't include it in the book by mistake.

Plans to restore?  Good lord, it would cost gazillions.  The main thing that makes it non-MacKenzie is a HUGE dyke holding back the Pacific Ocean.  Any faithful restoration would have to have that removed, AND come up with some way to hold back the ocean also.  Don't hold your breath.

 ;)

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2006, 02:14:52 PM »
Tom- Just curious. I've never played there and I remember reading that Mack had done it so I thought it might be something the city (sorry guys, I thought it was technically in SF) might want to explore. Too bad it's so far gone.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Tom Huckaby

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2006, 02:16:20 PM »
David - no hassles.  And you are far from alone in wondering about that course - they market the hell out of being a MacKenzie course... which is really dishonest....

In a perfect world that does get restored.  But we know how imperfect the world is.
 ;)

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2006, 02:23:35 PM »
Tom- Just curious. I've never played there and I remember reading that Mack had done it so I thought it might be something the city (sorry guys, I thought it was technically in SF) might want to explore. Too bad it's so far gone.

Sharp Park, despite its location in Pacifica, is part of the SF Recreation and Parks dept.  The work involved to restore it would be substantial, and as others have stated, is unlikely.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2006, 02:49:36 PM »
David S. -

I have not played Sharp Park in at least 5 years. There are the bones of maybe half a dozen very good golf holes still there and   3 or 4 holes do have a links-ish/seaside feel to them.

Unfortunately, the renovation of Harding Park has been anything but a success financially for the SF Park & Rec Department, so it is doubtful they will embark on a similar venture at Sharp Park any time soon.  

Personally, I would love to see Lincoln Park get a major face-lift. Correctly done, that could be turned into a really fun place to play.

DT    

johnk

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2006, 03:04:26 PM »
Re: David's point...

I just played Harding on an incredibly gorgeous day last week.  Greens had been punched recently.

The two annoyances that I chalk up to the city's Parks & Corruptness division:

- There is at most 1 rake per bunker.  And there are some big bunkers there...

- You can walk a VERY long way and not find a sprinkler with yardage numbers on it.  You can see where the numbers once were, but they have passed into memory for some reason.

Other than that (and the odd, ugly and somewhat cheaply built) clubhouse), the course is fine.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2006, 03:19:39 PM »
Other than that (and the odd, ugly and somewhat cheaply built) clubhouse), the course is fine.


I think you should substitute the word "poorly" for "cheaply", it was anything but cheap ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2006, 03:23:17 PM »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2006, 03:27:50 PM »
Thanks for the photos, Mike. That really gives me an idea about the dyke that Huck mentioned.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Gib_Papazian

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2006, 03:54:25 PM »
I had occasion last week while waiting for the Redhead to wander over to Sharp Park - still one of my favorites even if it is normally in horrendous condition.

Some thoughts:

The management company (a mom & pop arrangement) is currently on a month-by-month basis with those feckless, bumbling pukes at City Hall.

This is the same mistake they made with Crystal Springs and the current lease-holders (expired) are at loath to make any improvements because the rug could be pulled at any moment.

The Pro Shop is a joke. There is no merchandise to speak of except a few cheap shirts and hats with the course logo. I cannot blame them for being afraid to carry any inventory.

My vote would be to forget entirely about a restoration as the land and course boundaries have changed. There are all sorts of remnants of the past if you look closely; have a look at the grassed-over bunker in the middle of the 1st fairway.

That stated, there is nothing left to save, so it would be best to bring in DeVries or Eckenrode - or even Ron Forse to try and recapture the "look" with a new golf course.

The land on the back nine has excellent potential. The wetlands are visually interesting and could be incorporated into all sorts of  strategies if the course was intelligently rerouted.

Some of the putting surface contours are quite good. The green complex arrangements on #13-18 need no more than some expansion and a couple of well placed mounds/bunkers.

#5 and #8 are both horrible par-3's. #8 needs to be abandoned as it was a practice hole when I played high school tournaments there. #5 needs extensive tree removal, the tee moved to the left and a Punch-bowl green with the back tee at 210 yards.

The greensite on #6 is intimate and has enormous potential. Of course, we need to pull out the chainsaw, but if the green is pushed out, and we restore the bunkers already in place, it would be fine.

Stripping the course and laying down a foot of sand is cost prohibitive. However, at Olympic, Pat Finlen has had an agressive aeriation/sanding program for five years and our fairways are firm and run.

The berm on the western perimeter is unsightly, but no more so than years of dead turf from the tidal wave-like conditions we get every so often.

The berm can be hydoseeded with whatever Dave Wilbur thinks will grow and left alone. It might be a good idea to vector off a landform from the berm and have it wander across #16 and #17 fairway to tie everything together. I love the idea of creating a partially blind shot for poorly placed tee balls.

Another hole (to replace #8) can be added between the green on #12 and #13. #12 could be a really interesting, drivable par-4 in the "Cape" style if you moved the green left. The next tee could be placed behind the new putting surface to create a par-3 that straddles the berm.

Sharp Park can be drastically improved with some fairway bunkering. Close your eyes and envision what could be done to #4 if the Eucalyptus trees were removed on that right hand landform sticking out into the fairway.

Take #3 from the tee. It is a short par-4 that looks ugly as sin. Ditch the cartpath on the left and create some really abrupt, tall and rough looking mounds on either side of the putting surface in front (i.e. Mae West - Bel Air).

Now, leave a narrow opening directly in the center where the only clear view of the putting surface is from the middle of the fairway.

Litter nasty pot bunkers in the landing area slightly astride of the optimum place to land the tee shot.

Sharp Park has more potential than Harding. Much more. All it will take is some creativity. . . . . .
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 04:32:22 PM by Gib Papazian »

Tom Huckaby

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2006, 04:00:05 PM »
Gib:

That is great stuff.  I fully agree that Sharp Park has a hell of a lot of potential... and as much as I rip it, it's one of my favorite places also.  For a brief shining few years it was my home course...

As much as I love your suggestions - and love them I do - do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that anyone does anything to that course?

I don't... but I am as much in touch with SF City politics as I am with JM Olazabal's sexual preferences.  Which means, I don't know jack.  Is there any chance of them making any improvements at Sharp Park?


David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2006, 04:03:36 PM »
That was great info, Gib. Thanks alot! :)
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Gib_Papazian

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2006, 04:27:50 PM »
Huckster,

There is whining from every quarter and a feeling of betrayal about Harding because affordable tee times seems to get scarcer by the day. The whole thing was mishandled from a P.R. standpoint and frankly I think they spent far too much money for what they got.

The trick to getting the Sharp Park deal done is simply to communicate and have a realistic goal in mind in terms of fees and expectation.

We did Poplar Creek and there has been not a single whimper about fees, tee times or value for taxpayer expenditure since the day it opened.

If the Mayor would take time out from grandstanding, marrying homosexuals and demanding more 5'2" 103lb women get hired at SFFD Rescue, all he has to do is look South and see how to impliment an intelligently thought-out remodel that services its loan and turns a profit.

For about 1/2 the cost of the jing blown at Harding.

I am not demeaning the job that was done by the construction crew - it was excellent excellent excellent.

The architectural decisions and overall Masterplan I have issue with, but that is not the point.

If the people have assurances this will not turn into another inexcusable bait & switch like Harding, it makes economic sense to take out at 5 million dollar bond and straighten the golf course around.

A remodeled Sharp Park is never going to have a PGA event. Good. Who cares?  

The craggy tres and windswept nature of the property screams for a rough hewn golf course a little raggedy at the edges, with slowish, highly contoured putting surfaces and a fun factor of "10."

Right now, a beautiful piece of property is languishing in disrepair. To me, that constitutes a violation of fiduciary duty by their elected officials.

I mean, c'mon, get a bunch of lesbian agitators in golf spikes to march on City Hall and demand Sharp Park be brought up to snuff. Have them all join the women's club there and then file a lawsuit against Park & Wreck for discrimination . . . . .

 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 04:30:29 PM by Gib Papazian »

Tom Huckaby

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2006, 04:32:00 PM »
Gib:

That's more great stuff... and I remain with you, brother... but you really didn't answer my question:  which remains not SHOULD it be done, but WILL it get done?

And I'm still very negative about the prospects... hoping you know better... because I too have wistfully thought forever about what might be at that spot....

TH

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2006, 04:33:11 PM »
Gib, I had no idea there were that many issues in regards to the Harding Park redo. Reasonable green fee's becoming more scare? Sounds like what's going on in my neck of the woods in reagrds to Torrey Pines. What a mess! We were at one point in danger of losing the Open because of all the backlash from the locals and I doubt afterwards if it will be be back.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Gib_Papazian

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2006, 04:38:30 PM »
Like the United States, all Sharp Park needs is a forceful and passionate leader to take the torch and charge forward.

I cannot answer your question until I know where the next Sandy Tatum is coming from. I'm thinking of another former USGA President down in Palo Alto with left-leaning, egalitarian views who might be just the man for the job.

Instead of pissing good money after bad on that stupid First Tee Program, how about taking that dough and renovating forgotten gems like Sharp Park and Lincoln and letting the kids play there for, like, $2.

And give them a set of sticks. Kind of like the razor blade companies. They give you the razor and then sell you the blades forever. Those kids are all going to grow up one day.

   
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 12:21:55 PM by Gib Papazian »

johnk

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2006, 04:39:44 PM »
Great stuff Gib.

And Mike, I'll stick with "cheaply built" to describe the Harding club house.  It may have required $10M+, but I think they only used about $3M on building materials.

The other $7M probably left the premises somehow, just like the numbers on the yardage markers...

Gib_Papazian

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2006, 04:41:59 PM »
Grant Spaeth.

Great speaker with gravitas, class, education and leadership abilities.

Heck maybe we ought to make him President (i.e Oval Office)  . . . . . after the last three idiots, we cannot possibly do any worse.

He drips decency and fairness out of his pores. Even the S.F. wackos would have a hard time diss'ing him.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 04:43:56 PM by Gib Papazian »

Tom Huckaby

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2006, 04:46:29 PM »
Cool.

So is Mr. Spaeth interested?

This seems a crusade worth fighting... Tatum had his... seems natural for Spaeth to follow.

TH

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2006, 05:04:06 PM »
Reilly, you know-it-all!  Thanks.  :D

Tell my wife...she's still unconvinced.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2006, 05:15:00 PM »
#8 needs to be abandoned as it was a practice hole when I played high school tournaments there.

It was a practice hole in my high school days as well (along the same lines as the short hole between #2 and #3 at Tilden.  I can't remember...what hole did it replace?

(Must have happened in the 1982 El Nino).
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2006, 01:57:56 AM »
To put some things into perspective...

Note: Hole numbers can be easily confused as I have at least three different mentions to routings over the years. It helps if you have Wexlers book! and some familiarity to the course.

The first mention that I have found of Sharp Park and the possibility of a golf course there was in 1925. The course opened in April of 1932, so even back then it took ~7 years from start to finish. We better get started soon because I would like to see the finished product!

In 1929 the first plans would be drawn up and Egan would walk the proposed site.

The first routing was closer to 6500 yards before it finished at just under 6200.

The front nine must have been awesome in how it played around Laguna Salada and along the beach. I have a really poor photo that shows a golfer teeing off on the third hole and it looks like a wave is lapping at his ankles. I was told by an old timer that during a low tide one could still see the old irrigation system piping out along the beach. I have not been out at low tide, but I can say the ocean there is very angry and the waves are impressive on a flat day any where else. Laguna Salada looks to be quite a bit smaller then it was around the time the course was opened, and had a lot less plant growth ie. the 15 tee shot over the cattails etc.

The Flemming holes current 4,5,6,7 make up for the loss of the old 3,4,7,8 holes. The current 8th makes up for the old 6th.

They could get away with restoring some of the lost holes out there, but that brings the Costal Commission into effect. The old 8th and 4th holes could be brought back without losing too much of their original design ideals. From what I could tell walking around the 8th hole the green was very near where the berm is today near the current 12th hole greensite. They would have to abandon the any idea of getting rid of the berm which leaves the old 3rd and the 7th out of the equation. The current 16th(near the old 7th) would still work but it occupies the area that was between the old 5th and 7th fwys.

The hole that needs to go is the current 8th as previously stated it was a practice hole as well as a temporary hole for the old sixth hole that was being rebuilt after a storm(most likely in the 1980's). But even earlier, before Flemming added the holes on the other side of Hwy 1 it was the old 14th hole it has lost about 40-50 yards due to Hwy 1. If they can regain some length and interest, maybe. The old sixth was in the NW corner of the property near where the current 16th tee is.

I have one decent photo from the papers that shows a view of the 18th green and it is very big, much bigger than what is there today(10th green).

From what I have gathered the berm was built around the early 80's after the winter of 1982-3.

The sand the was used in some of the areas was dredged from the beach. Laguna Salada was originally a saltwater pond that would get flooded during big storms. John McClaren the SF Parks Supt. oversaw the transition of the lake from saltwater to its current state as a freshwater pond. He is also given credit for all of the trees that were planted out there in preparation for it to become a park before it was to become a golf course.

They had problems growing turf as the situation was very similar to Lido. They added manure to the sand and moved the wells further from the ocean to get away from the saltwater contamination.

Knowing the site, routing and, all the people involved it is hard to go out there and see it in the condition that it is in now. I would love to see some work done to the course, but would also love to see some restoration/renovation of Lincoln Park too! It is a short course, but with some unmatched views in golf. All in all, SF has two run down golf courses that need to be treated with a little more respect.

Google maps
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=37.626978,-122.484641&spn=0.014581,0.028882&t=k&om=1

Tully

Gib_Papazian

Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2006, 12:57:23 PM »
Sean,

As usual your recitations of history shed invaluable light.

The permutation I played in high school matches had a par-3 - I think, if memory serves - right behind the current #13.

My recollection was the hole ran straight west and if you peeked through the bushes behind the putting surface you were literally on the beach.

That was a long time ago and I only played it about five times in high school when we tangled with Terra Nova.

Once again, we are stuck with the immovable force of stupidity in S.F. - I see no hope unless somebody with inside connects can get the machine moving in the right direction.

Or even out of the way, so intelligent people can come up with a workable plan.

Before my writing career came to a screetching halt, I attended many many hearings (at different times) on the disposition of Crystal Springs, the reconstruction of San Mateo Muni (Poplar Creek), the fight for control of Presidio and the Harding Park nonsense.

The Coastal Commission "I will block the Olympic Club's plans until they change their bylaws to specifically mention discrimination against homosexuals" still stands as the low water mark - but that is a story for another day.

In San Francisco, reason, ability, experience and vision take a back seat to politicized ramblings. Any idiot with an axe to grind or issue to vent upon is given unlimited access to the microphone.

Decisions have nothing to do with reality, but seem to hinge on which angry activist the PUC or Stupidvisors are in the mood to mollify.

Let me throw out a name I believe in with no reservations:

CourseCo

http://www.courseco.com/bios/html/tom.html

My friend Tom Isaak is extremely intelligent, runs a clean and able management company and knows his way around City Hall because of connects with several former mayors.

Plus, he has won so many environmental awards, CourseCo is nearly bulletproof from attacks from environazi wackos.

He's managed to build that company into a powerful force and I love the way he runs his facilities. I think they have 12 tracks right now . . . . doesn't hurt he is a HUGE C.B.Macdonald guy and NGLA is his Mecca.

If not Spaeth and/or Tom Isaak, I have little hope. You need a lot of gravitas or political ability to deal with those skunks and he has the magic touch.

Five million - and maybe another mill for a clubhouse/kitchen renovation.

Maybe this can be the beginning . . . .  
 
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 01:00:52 PM by Gib Papazian »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2006, 11:33:56 PM »
$5 million sound low but it depends on the scope of the work.  The key is how technology in drainage and irrigation have changed and could they build it to keep the water out at Sharp Park.

Noboby ever talks about the late Robert Muir Graves and how and why he destroyed Sharp Park in the early 1970's.  After a few courses that I have seen him work on including Sharp park and Contra Costa CC his legacy is going way down as an architect.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back