If I could redesign Presidio

[Matt_Cohn]

without any interference from the National Park Service.

Obviously all the greens, bunkers, tees, etc. would be rebuilt, and you can assume that thousands of trees would be removed. Beyond that, here's what I might do:



1. New green pushed further up into hill long-right of current green. Bunkers inside of dogleg, more fairway outside to get shots further away from driving range.

2. Recover old 525 tee, remove trees to make room, not much else changes.

3. Push green back 15-20 yards to create 400+ par-4 with difficult elevated green.

4. Chop down several dozen fully-grown, National Park Service protected trees to build new tees up to 175 yards. Create new green bringing hazard into play on left side of green.

5. More fairway over right bunker. New bunker left of fairway near green. Not too many changes.

6. Get rid of general store and road. Create new back tee where store used to be. Move green back by 30 yards near 10th green. New hole is 440 yards playing into flatter part of fairway.

7. Use back tee at 240. Something like #4 at Riviera.

8. No huge changes.

9. Clear trees left to make a legitimate dogleg right hole with bunkers protecting ideal line from tee. New green is partially tucked behind trees on the left. Create carry or lay-up bunkers short-right of green.

10. New green and bunkers to create more interesting choices.

11. New back/lower tee left of 10th green.

12. Move green to edge of precipice on left. Move tee back where store used to be. New hole is 465 yards with small, scary green.

13. No big changes.

14. Change fairway bunkers to reward carry over left bunker from tee. Similar green shape.

15. No major changes.

16. New back tee at 400 yards. No other major changes.

17. Clear trees, road, etc., to tee off from just above #16 green. New green but similar to old one. New hole is 415 yards.

18. Tee off from top of reservoir behind current tee. Eliminate fairway bunkers, it's narrow enough already. New green similar to old one. New hole 550 par-5 from reservoir or 490 par-4 from below.


These changes add about 300 yards and would bring the course to just under 6,750 par 71 or 72.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Pretty cool ideas.

One critique I have is that 12-13 get pretty cramped together as it is... moving that green left would make issuance of hard-hats required, would it not?

Also, is it possible to allow shots over 19th Avenue?  I'm not sure but you're creating at least one of those, no?  That seems to be asking for litigation....

I also don't get the real need to lengthen that course, as it plays damn long as it is given how freakin' wet it always is.  But if you removed thousands of trees and firmed it up, then I understand.  I gather that's the assumption?

I've always enjoyed Presidio other than how long it takes to play there... but I think I'd enjoy your revised version more.  These are all just questions trying to figure out your plan.

TH

[Matt_Cohn]

Tom, the current 12 green is only about 10-15 feet from where I want it. Actually, we could cheat and move the bank to the right, instead of moving the green to the left. I think that one would be fine.

The road in the course is just an almost unused service road that I don't think is really necessary. Look in between the fairway bunkers on 5 and 12 and you can see the big road disappear into a tunnel that goes under the 16th green. No problem there!

As far as the length, it has a lot of 350 yard holes that play like 400, but there aren't any legitimately long ones. My plan would make 3, 6, 12 (and maybe 18) all legitimate long par 4's. Meanwhile holes 16 and 17 would both be 400 playing like 440 so those would be challenging holes too from the tips. I wouldn't bulldoze the front tees though!

By the way, I don't know how, but the pace of play at Presidio has improved dramatically. It's not really a problem anymore - never over 5 hours.

[Evan_Green]

Tom

I believe that shot is over a surface street, not over Park Presidio/19th Ave which disappears into a tunnel (I believe its called the McArthur tunnel) - if you look closely- you'll see the big road dissapear- around the 5th green... thats it going into the tunnel...

Still even a shot over a surface street is iffy, esp. with Nat'l park status and all...

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt/Evan:

Got it!  Reading aerials and descriptions is not my forte, obviously.  

I get the lengthening thought also. I just will leave those tees to young guys like you, Matt.  I assume you'll leave some up tees for us oldsters?

TH

[Gib_Papazian]

I would convert the new clubhouse into a combination homeless shelter/methadone clinic, confiscate the old Presidio club across the street from the members and rent it out for racial sensitivity classes. For the golf course, I would hire a cross-dressing hermaphrodite as head pro and mandate gender-neutral tees because there is no difference between men and women except what our male-dominated society forces upon them.

All greens would be Punchbowls so every shot on the putting surface would go in the hole - this eliminates the inequalities of the game and assures everybody wins and nobody suffers a loss of self-esteem if some privileged, non-handicapped golfer happens to be better.

Actually, that is pretty close to the charades that went one when it came time to decide who would get the contract to manage the golf course.

In all seriousness, Presidio is in a windy cold corner of the city and the topography is too severe. The first thing to do is cut down every single eucalyptus tree and 3/4's of everything else out there.

What it needs is an overview of the entire property - without regard to the current routing and rethink the entire golf course. This is what ought to have happened at Harding Park on the front nine (integrated with the Fleming Course), because there was nothing on the front worth restoring in my view.

I'll admit conditions have been drastically improved since the military moved out, but it still amounts to a band-aid on a brain tumor. The bones of the current routing suck eggs and like Lincoln Park - another sacred cow that blows - I would start all over again from scratch.

#9 is the only hole on the golf course that works except for that perpetually soaked drop-shot par-3 with the cool bunkers. The rest are mundane and hardly worth playing . . . . . .  

[Bob_Huntley]

Gib,

You have just been delisted from Gavin Newsome's choices for SF Parks Commissioner.

Bob

[John Keenan]

I would suggest prior to any redesign that the issue of drainage be addressed. Playing the course in winter is an adventure in dampness.

I would like to hear David Tepper views given the amount of times he has played the course when he was a member.

[Gib_Papazian]

Bob,

If I had stopped writing after the first paragraph, Newsome would short-list me for Chairman of the PUC . . . . .

Does Newsome play golf when he is not cruising the mens rooms looking for love?

[Patrick Kiser]

Matt,

Hmmm... why does this one sound like groundhog day?  Could it be that we hashed this one pretty good a few weeks bac??  Me thinks so.

I love that par 3 :-) ... not.

Otherwise, I hear you.  Could definitely use some help.  Some good ideas there.  Especially for those ridiculous fees.  Maybe they'll see what Rich did for Peacock.  Nah...  I''m too optimistic.

Gib,

Lol!  You sure sounded like one of the stupidvisors...  Back when we had this Presidio topic I said the same think about the topo.  It gets old falling on one's ass... and being wet.


To all,

All in all though....

If you had to choose between renovating or restoring the Presidio, Lincoln or Sharp Park ... where do you think it makes better sense to spend those hard earned dollars?

To me, no question ... Sharp Park.  Not because of the once pedigree of the doc either.  Forget that and forget restoring what's been long gone that simply can't be recovered.  Fees wil go crazy with Alister anything on it.  Rather, start from a better piece of topo.  And no that doesn't mean making it flat either.  Just no 30 degree steep inclines / declines with yourself falling over half the time trying to make a swing.

My two cents.

without any interference from the National Park Service.

Obviously all the greens, bunkers, tees, etc. would be rebuilt, and you can assume that thousands of trees would be removed. Beyond that, here's what I might do:



1. New green pushed further up into hill long-right of current green. Bunkers inside of dogleg, more fairway outside to get shots further away from driving range.

2. Recover old 525 tee, remove trees to make room, not much else changes.

3. Push green back 15-20 yards to create 400+ par-4 with difficult elevated green.

4. Chop down several dozen fully-grown, National Park Service protected trees to build new tees up to 175 yards. Create new green bringing hazard into play on left side of green.

5. More fairway over right bunker. New bunker left of fairway near green. Not too many changes.

6. Get rid of general store and road. Create new back tee where store used to be. Move green back by 30 yards near 10th green. New hole is 440 yards playing into flatter part of fairway.

7. Use back tee at 240. Something like #4 at Riviera.

8. No huge changes.

9. Clear trees left to make a legitimate dogleg right hole with bunkers protecting ideal line from tee. New green is partially tucked behind trees on the left. Create carry or lay-up bunkers short-right of green.

10. New green and bunkers to create more interesting choices.

11. New back/lower tee left of 10th green.

12. Move green to edge of precipice on left. Move tee back where store used to be. New hole is 465 yards with small, scary green.

13. No big changes.

14. Change fairway bunkers to reward carry over left bunker from tee. Similar green shape.

15. No major changes.

16. New back tee at 400 yards. No other major changes.

17. Clear trees, road, etc., to tee off from just above #16 green. New green but similar to old one. New hole is 415 yards.

18. Tee off from top of reservoir behind current tee. Eliminate fairway bunkers, it's narrow enough already. New green similar to old one. New hole 550 par-5 from reservoir or 490 par-4 from below.


These changes add about 300 yards and would bring the course to just under 6,750 par 71 or 72.

[Tyler Kearns]

Matt,

It appears the newly located #1 green could be in danger from duck-hooks off of the new #2 tee.

TK

[David_Tepper]

John Keenan -

Between Matt's ambitious plans and Gib's typically reserved and understated comments, I am not sure what wisdom I could add to this discussion!

It is worth mentioning that, based on the results of the recent SF County Amateur, the course appears to have retained its "resistance to scoring," despite its modest length.

While I am not as familiar with the course as I used to be, my inclination would be to first work on trimming/removing the trees and improving the drainage.  That would provide the most benefit to the course (and the majority of golfers who play there) for the least expense.

I would remind everyone that the Presidio course is the property of the National Park Service/Presidio Trust, while Sharp & Lincoln belong to SF Park & Rec.  

DT

[Anthony Butler]

Does Newsome play golf when he is not cruising the mens rooms looking for love?

Why would Newsome waste his time doing this... there are no Republicans in San Francisco.

[Gib_Papazian]

Sharp Park is the ticket - those wetlands on ther backside as well as the dunesland in the Southwest corner of the property could provide a starting point for something special.

I suggest taking Wexler's terrific book, hire Forse or DeVries and let them restore what can be restored and use their feel for MacKenzie/Hunter to dictate the rest.

Sand capping the fairways ought not be much of an issue because it is right on the beach - which I think is controlled by the the City and County of S.F.

Whether you can use that sand as a base is a better question directed to Dave Wilbur, but in theory I think it works.

Lincoln can be fixed into a superb Executive Course, but it will require some imagination. Dublin Ranch across the Bay is wonderful - but damn if I can remember who designed it. I recall somebody like Don Knott or one of the ex-R.T. Jones Jr. guys - but I am not sure and too lazy to look it up right now.

#17 at Lincoln is the most over-hyped golf hole in America. A beat-your-three-wood to a lifeless oval is something worth throwing roses at? Please, that site needs a golf hole as interesting as the backdrop . . . . . like a wild Redan.

The one that breaks my juevos is Crystal Springs . . . . . I grew up on that golf course, having been raised off Black Mountain Road. It was home base to the Burlingame Panthers.

If those feckless pukes on the PUC were not a bunch of greedy slimebags, that might be your winner. The Masterplan is 10 years old, but the City takes such an enormous cut of the revenue that there is no jing left to put back into a remodel.

Herbert Fowler's work is long gone there, but I promise you there are enormous possibilities with a little imagination. My friend is president of the company that manages the place and his favorite track on the planet is NGLA . . . . . . with a green light, the right designer and the  execution of every single member of the local Sierra Club, the place would sparkle.

Crystal is Audubon certified, the manager of the place is a complete greenie and yet nothing satisfies the enviro-nazis. I was there through all those meetings years ago when the fate of Crystal and the never-built San Mateo County course was decided.

The inmates are running the asylum even down the Peninsula, and so entrenched I see no hope for generations.  

 

[David_Tepper]

Regarding Sharp Park, I have heard from a reliable source that the city of Pacifica has expressed an interest in acquiring the property from San Francisco. The presumption is that, if they do acquire the property, it would be with the intention of spending money to improve/upgrade the course.

I do not know where things stand at this point or if this is still a possiblity.

[Patrick Kiser]

David,

They will build housing on there before they ever consider doing something for the course.


Gib,

Sorry man.  Didn't mean to stir that pot again.  It's just sad.  Real sad considering what's there.

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick,

The city government in Pacifica is generally small-minded, insular and not terribly bright or creative. I've spent my share of time over the hill.

Yes, I guess you have opened a sore there. As I've gotten older I've come to hate politicians. So often, the lowest common denominator end up with their hands on the levers of power (read: money).

California has so many exceptional people yet somehow we continually elect and re-elect the same group of smarmy sycophants . . . . of course, by and large, most clubs are run by the same lowly segment of their micro-societies so maybe the primary flaw is not with the organization or the mechanism of democracy, but with people in general.

Imagine a world where land use was dictated by common sense and reason . . . . .  

[Matt_Cohn]

Patrick,
Yeah, sort of groundhog day, but I didn't really suggest anything back then except cutting down 5,000 trees.

Which par-3 do you dislike?

Tyler,

Only the very back tee would be up there on #2, but I may have drawn #1 green further on than I intended. Now that you mention it, you'd think it could be a problem now, but I've never seen it happen.

David,
You make a good point about the course's difficulty. As I mentioned a while back, I think that the current difficulty comes mostly from 1) the bad greens and 2) trees interfering with teeshot flights and landings.

My plan would hypothetically eliminate #1 and minimize #2. Those two factors would make the course easier. However, added length and bunkers would make the golf course harder. Overall it would be a bit tougher. It would also be more enjoyable because players would be in play after their teeshots much more often and wouldn't be playing so many confined or restricted shots.

Gib,
With the current tree corridors it's hard to imagine a completely different routing, but I'm really interested in what you'd come up with. It seems to me that #6-#9 aren't routed very well but that everything else is fine. I'm not sure if it's great.

I would *love* to see an alternative routing for Lincoln Park though!

PS, sorry I missed seeing you at Olympic.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Matt,

Interesting work, and I agree the Presidio without dramatic routing changes has the makings of a better golf course and experience.  I suppose if you're ill-informed or have an ax to grind you might think otherwise, but in many years of play, I never tired of it.  

My comments on your design:

1) You obviously hit it farther than I, as I'm not sure that 300 yards of added length is necessary.  In part the drainage issues always made the course longer, but there's also the wind and the slopes, not just the trees.  #3, #6 were always difficult holes at their current length, for reasons other than length.  The greens I remember sloped toward the ocean on those holes, so if you missed the approach on the wrong side, or got above the hole, you could avoid all trees and still make easy bogey or double. I'm not sure I would stretch the course to full available allotment.

2)  #5 and #16 greens as they were last time I saw the course were installed by the management group that came with the Park Service, misfit the course, and need to be blown up and redone.

3) In general, one of the charms of the Presidio I knew was the smallish greens.  May be impractical in today's world, but as long as we're dreaming about cutting down trees, let's make the sure the greens don't get too large, and enforce a reduction in play on the course if necessary to relieve stress on the greens.

[Matt_Cohn]

Just a few revisions based on a drive around the course a few days ago.

My plan for #1 wouldn't work, but I hadn't realized how much relatively open space exists left of the current fairway. Here's my new proposal for #1 which is very effective at both buffering the impact of the driving range, and creating an appealing opening teeshot:




The corridor of #2 is so wide that I don't even know what to do with it. There's 60 yards of width to fill up. Actually, being on a right-to-left sideslope there is so problematic that that right half of a 60 yard wide fairway would still be a sort of "hazard".

There's plenty of room for my plans involving the 12th green - it could even be moved back a few yards.

On #17 we couldn't move the tee quite as far as I thought - but 30 to 40 yards is a possibility and it would allow players to hit driver down the actual fairway corridor which would be nice.

In general my look around made me feel like my plans were quite good.  

 

[Tags:]

Tags: