San Francisco Golf.....the saga goes on

[Joel_Stewart]

I just don't see it at Sharp Park.  I have been up there twice in the last month, both times with marginal weather and the place is full.  They are doing between 50,000 and 70,000 rounds per year and its the only course making a profit.  The current GM has made an offer of $10M to run the place on a 30 year lease and others are preparing for the RFP which supposedly is going to happen this summer.  They have no driving range which is a negative, the pro shop is a dump so I doubt they have much income from that either.  Most people walk and the carts are 20 years old so again slim revenue from those.  Regardless, many people see it as a diamond in the rough.

[Matt_Cohn]

It just boggles the mind that the City can't figure out how to turn


into a little bit of

[Mark Bourgeois]

The apparent decision-making process perhaps is unsurprising given the city's Harding Park fiasco.

1. Citizens lack playing-field capacity
2. Part of capacity problem is that current playing fields are unplayable after rains
3. Golf courses lose money
4. Therefore, convert golf courses to increase capacity

Why don't they maintain the current fields and fix the courses' fiscal problems?  Then take all that money that would have been earmarked for converting golf courses and convert Candlestick parking lots or other unused property.

They ought to turn over the courses to someone who knows how to run them.

[Sean_Tully]

Ok

A quick look at Sharp Park for those that think it can’t be restored and that there are very few of the original holes still there. The first number represents the course as it is today and the second represents the course as it was in 1932. Yardages are added for a reference.

I took the yardages off www.sharpparkgc.com  for the current holes and for the 1932 version the yardages from a course description by Jack Fleming in 1932. At the most there were two tees and most had only one. I will use the blue tees as a reference in both.



1-370 16-363
2-336 15-330
3-366 13-345
4-462 Hole added by Fleming
5-196 Hole added by Fleming
6-416 Hole added by Fleming
7-412 Hole added by Fleming
8-91  14-134   Hole shortened by PCH 1
9-481 17-471
10-422  18-443
11-411 1-400
12-208 2-262 (Par 4)
13-564 9-538
14-386 10-382
15-137 11-142
16-386 7-383 Hole shifted inland to make room for berm
17-352 5-327 Lost some of the double fwy  when current 16 was shifted
18-498 12-488

Sharp Park today 6494
Sharp Park then 6114

The Lost Holes.
These are the old hole #’s.
Now consider the holes that were lost; #3,4, 6,and 8. I have a very poor photo of a guy teeing off on #3 and it looks like the waves are lapping at his cuffs. An old timer told me that the old hole can still be found during a low tide. Or I should say the “remnants of it.” During a low tide one can still see the old irrigation pipe sticking out from the beach. I have yet to see if this is true. #3 is lost but the holes at #4 and #8 can still be found. The 4th has been washed away, but for the simple fact of tee placements on #5 one could easily figure out its general location and rebuild it there.  The 6th hole was most likely taken out of play when the berm required the old 7th to be shifted inland.  I think that I can make out some contours of the old green complex and it could be rebuilt. A small problem for some would be back-to-back par 3’s.  Some care would be involved so it would be safe as it could get a little congested there. As for The 8th hole, one can easily see the corridor the hole played down, but I believe that the green is underneath the berm. There is more than enough room for a green to be built and bring that hole back into play.

Are you still following all of this?



Is there enough of a course to warrant a restoration?

Yes, as one can see from my info above there is number of holes(more than half and closer to 13 depending on how technical some of you guys want to get) that are still intact and some of the lost holes can be restored. It would be a challenge to make the routing work and have the necessary flow and essence. It could(maybe) be possible to take the holes out of play across the PCH 1 and they can play soccer and do Tai Chi there!

I have an idea for a routing that would keep all the holes on the original property, but I have to take a walk around and see if it could be pulled off. It would require one long walk from green to tee, but it would be made along the ridge of the berm and allow for a view of the ocean!

There is a lot of potential at Sharp Park and I can only hope that my dream of seeing the course get some of its roots back will come true in some form or fashion.

Tully

[Kalen Braley]

I'm following you for the most part...but as you say with so many of the original holes and rounting lost.  Combined with all of the ocean view now being lost, how about a compromise.

Blow it all up and start over.  Use half of the land for an all-star regulation length 9 holer, and the other half for the thai chi and soccer people..

[Sean_Tully]

Kalen-

There is more to be said for the routing that they are not using at the moment. As is, they are incorporating the holes across the road. The original back nine is still intact except for the old 14th which has been shortened. The front nine with the exception of the 3rd hole can all be put into to play with some issues that may come into play with returning the old 6th hole. It is a matter of adding a hole to the front and having a walk from the 2nd green to the 4th tee that could be along the berm and offer a view of the ocean and the property.

That is quite a lot of the original course that could be utilized and restored to the larger greens and Mackenzie style bunkers. There again you would have the four holes across the road for some soccer and even the possibility of a driving range for some added revenue.

Tully

[Bill_McBride]

Paging Forrest Richardson to see what became of his survey of the San Francisco muni courses.......

[Kalen Braley]

Paging Forrest Richardson to see what became of his survey of the San Francisco muni courses.......

I thought I read in here or one of his books, but Tom Doak said essentially nothing remains of the original course in terms of greens, fairway countouring, bunkering, hole routing etc, even if a few of the hole corridors are still there.

[Forrest Richardson]

The NGF study was partly prepared by our office. We spent a week working with SF and the course managements to try and arrive at priorities for the city-wide system.

It is really a sick baby. Having conducted several appraisals and studies, I cannot think of one with such a clear picture: The City has simply allowed these assets to go down the drain. And, at Harding, they put 60 eggs into a basket that was designed to hold — maybe — 35. result: $$$$$$$$ spent on Harding. The jury is out on whether that was money well spent.

Pacifica is interested in Sharp. This has been well covered in the media.

I cannot say what will happen. Our position is simply that we tried our best to issue a report that was truthful and had good options. Beyonf that, we would enjoy helping SF or others unravel the situation — one course at a time.

- - -

P.S.   I think you can all access the NGF report on the SF City website. But, for the life of me, I cannot help you do this!

[Kevin_Reilly]

P.S.   I think you can all access the NGF report on the SF City website. But, for the life of me, I cannot help you do this!

Forrest, is this the report you mentioned?

Golf Report by SF Budget Analyst

[Forrest Richardson]

I think that is part of the internal responde to the NGF study. But, that does not appear to be the study itself.

[Sean_Tully]

Paging Forrest Richardson to see what became of his survey of the San Francisco muni courses.......

I thought I read in here or one of his books, but Tom Doak said essentially nothing remains of the original course in terms of greens, fairway countouring, bunkering, hole routing etc, even if a few of the hole corridors are still there.

There is a huge opprotunity at Sharp and the attitude that nothing there is worth restoring is widely off the mark.The original routing is there with the exception of the 3rd hole. Yes some of the holes have been shifted, taken out of play, rerouted, and holes added. But, there is more of the old course there than most will give it credit. They still play(could play) in their original corridors and have similar yardages with some exceptions as noted earlier. If restored this course would be hard to recognize from its current presentation. Isn't that the point of a restoration. The course needs its soul back!

Why not have a little fun with this and see where some of us can make a routing that could work and give us the most of the original course!

To see the original course over the current course look here...
http://site.comhttp://maps.google.com/maps/ms?t=k&om=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=114466554021776421209.000001135bc148fc9b107&ll=37.625721,-122.490327&spn=0.013596,0.028474&z=16

Click on the hole number on the left to get around the course.

Tully

[Bill_McBride]

How is it possible for Harding Park and the Fleming nine to host over 115,000 rounds of golf in FY 2004??

Sad to see play so drastically reduced at Lincoln and Sharp Parks.  

[Bill_McBride]

Paging Forrest Richardson to see what became of his survey of the San Francisco muni courses.......

I thought I read in here or one of his books, but Tom Doak said essentially nothing remains of the original course in terms of greens, fairway countouring, bunkering, hole routing etc, even if a few of the hole corridors are still there.

There is a huge opprotunity at Sharp and the attitude that nothing there is worth restoring is widely off the mark.The original routing is there with the exception of the 3rd hole. Yes some of the holes have been shifted, taken out of play, rerouted, and holes added. But, there is more of the old course there than most will give it credit. They still play(could play) in their original corridors and have similar yardages with some exceptions as noted earlier. If restored this course would be hard to recognize from its current presentation. Isn't that the point of a restoration. The course needs its soul back!

Why not have a little fun with this and see where some of us can make a routing that could work and give us the most of the original course!

To see the original course over the current course look here...
http://site.comhttp://maps.google.com/maps/ms?t=k&om=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=114466554021776421209.000001135bc148fc9b107&ll=37.625721,-122.490327&spn=0.013596,0.028474&z=16

Click on the hole number on the left to get around the course.

Tully

Tully, it appears that #4 and #8 share the same corridor and space.  And I couldn't see a hole number assigned to the split fairway. Isn't that the hole that was always covered with goose guano?

I share your enthusiasm about Sharp Park as an opportunity.  I never liked the odd holes across the road, it would be great to squeeze in 18 holes in the original territory.

Thanks for all your work on this.  That's a cool technique with Google Maps and the hole number links.

[Matt_Cohn]

Were Lincoln and Sharp in significantly better condition around 2000?

Are decreasing rounds there due to worsening conditions, general declines in the golf industry, or both?

[John Keenan]

This discussion has raised another question for me, on a course such as Sharps Park, it has been left untended for a very long time. One option is to restore it as close as possible to its original condition. Quite costly and would drive up greens fees. My question is in most markets there are high end offerings as well as low end ones. Restaurants go from Michelin 5 star establishments  to fine mid range establishments to greasy spoons and fast food outlets. All sever a specific niche. Are golf coursed not unlike that? As Sharps as aged ,and none  too well ,might it be a better place with a small amount of improving with an eye to low greens fees so seniors, juniors an those of more limited means have access?  Promoted as such and not trying to be another Harding? I would suggest that another course in SF is just such a place the 9 hole course in GG Park. Certainly not maintained extremely well but great for the many seniors and children who frequent it.

just a though

[Tom Huckaby]

Great work, Tully.

But I don't think anyone ever said the land ceased to exist; although the addition of the sea berm does complicate things.  No, the point all along made about Sharp Park was that Mackenzie's HOLES no longer exist- thus it would have been / has been quite false advertising to call it a Mackenzie course as is today.

I can't get your link to work, but I sure recall the maps and diagrams from Wexler's book.

So sure, it COULD be restored/renovated... the question is, who would have the will and the means?  It sure doesn't seem to be the city of San Francisco.

TH

[AndrewB]

I can't get your link to work, but I sure recall the maps and diagrams from Wexler's book.

Using this link should work.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andrew - thanks!  That is great work by Tully.

But again, my doubts remain with the will and the means to do this... not with the land possibilities.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

That was pretty cool, but I think Huck hit the nail on the head.  Renovation would be a massive undertaking and green fees would go thru the roof....

I think after the debacle of Harding, they wouldn't stomach or pony up for another costly renovation.  And for such a small piece of land, I doubt it would have enough length to host any big tournies like harding...