And now for something completely different...

[Forrest Richardson]

http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3231

[JMorgan]

Consider this a positive for golf. 

And as a sidenote: even though Ken Smith is not a golf architect/designer, he has some pretty interesting ideas on camouflage, ones that would be applicable to gca if not for the technological usurpation of distance information. 

[Joel_Stewart]

I agree that it is a positive for golf not only in design but also bringing golf to urban areas.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks Forrest.

Joel Stewart is absolutely dead on with his assessment.

Now, THIS is the kind of creative thinking that show's what's possible to creatively blend driving ranges with other purposes.

I'm going to link this to the Cobb's Creek thread, as well, because much of the present discussion centers around the existing driving range on City Line Avenue and how that either limits or enhances possible options.

[Jim Sweeney]

Positive for golf? Hmm. Let's think about that.

Maybe good for golf (the range keeps operating, people are exposed to the game, first tee, etc.) but-

The article states that the driving range will be (re)built at a cost of $95,000,000!!!!

If that is the case, it is unsustainable and therefore very bad for the business of golf, unless one wants to pay hundreds of dollars for a jumbo bucket. Talk about elitism.

You say it is only part of the bigger project? The article seems imply that the water processing plant (total cost $2.5 billion) would be just as  effective without the range. Therefore, the $95mm range expenditure is unnecessary as far as the primary purpose of the project is concerned. Must be stimulus funds at work.

I admit I may be all wrong about this, and I'm certainly not in favor of losing any grounds for golf, but.....NINETY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS?

[jeffwarne]

Positive for golf? Hmm. Let's think about that.

Maybe good for golf (the range keeps operating, people are exposed to the game, first tee, etc.) but-

The article states that the driving range will be (re)built at a cost of $95,000,000!!!!

If that is the case, it is unsustainable and therefore very bad for the business of golf, unless one wants to pay hundreds of dollars for a jumbo bucket. Talk about elitism.

You say it is only part of the bigger project? The article seems imply that the water processing plant (total cost $2.5 billion) would be just as  effective without the range. Therefore, the $95mm range expenditure is unnecessary as far as the primary purpose of the project is concerned. Must be stimulus funds at work.

I admit I may be all wrong about this, and I'm certainly not in favor of losing any grounds for golf, but.....NINETY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS?

$95,000,000 for a driving range? 

or....take 1900 local kids from the area over 10 years-put $50,000 for each one in a merit/need based college scholarship program-have them acheive a 3.0 HS GPA and maintain a 3.0 GPA in college and have them perform 400 hours of real community service (locally)over 4 summers-and live in the area for 4 more years after college mentoring kids on a part time basis .

1900 kids that succeed will produce more sustainable golfers/human beings  than a pork driving range in an "urban" area.

or just make 95 people millionaires....

$95,000,000 for a range???

[JMorgan]

Positive for golf? Hmm. Let's think about that.

Maybe good for golf (the range keeps operating, people are exposed to the game, first tee, etc.) but-

The article states that the driving range will be (re)built at a cost of $95,000,000!!!!

If that is the case, it is unsustainable and therefore very bad for the business of golf, unless one wants to pay hundreds of dollars for a jumbo bucket. Talk about elitism.

You say it is only part of the bigger project? The article seems imply that the water processing plant (total cost $2.5 billion) would be just as  effective without the range. Therefore, the $95mm range expenditure is unnecessary as far as the primary purpose of the project is concerned. Must be stimulus funds at work.

I admit I may be all wrong about this, and I'm certainly not in favor of losing any grounds for golf, but.....NINETY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS?

$95,000,000 for a driving range? 

or....take 1900 local kids from the area over 10 years-put $50,000 for each one in a merit/need based college scholarship program-have them acheive a 3.0 HS GPA and maintain a 3.0 GPA in college and have them perform 400 hours of real community service (locally)over 4 summers-and live in the area for 4 more years after college mentoring kids on a part time basis .

1900 kids that succeed will produce more sustainable golfers/human beings  than a pork driving range in an "urban" area.

or just make 95 people millionaires....

$95,000,000 for a range???

Jim, Jeff,

$95mil is not the cost of the driving range.  It's the est. cost for this stage of construction for the entire treatment facility in the Bronx, of which the driving range is just a small part.  This project has been underway since '96 and was significantly revamped after 9/11.

I am no expert in pricing and estimating water treatment plants, but then again I was only referring to golf/First Tee/green roof design in a high-profile NYC public utility project as a positive combination. 

Another article: 

http://www.archicentral.com/grimshaw-has-unveiled-its-95-million-design-for-new-york%E2%80%99s-first-water-filtration-plant-12472

and

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/croton.shtml

[jeffwarne]

what's the $2.5 billion in the first article for ?

[JMorgan]

Jeff, wade through the minutes and links on the DEP site.