Tom MacWood,
Now who is avoiding who's questions??
I ask you to show me which Cobb's Creek bunkers you called anachronistic and insist I want to restore and you flip up a picture of Merion where you know the caption that you neglected to reproduce said;
The ninth teeing ground at the new Merion course, showing experimental mounds adjacent to the putting-green.Now, c'mon Tom, don't be disengenuous with us.
Jeez Tom...there aren't that many bunkers at Cobb's Creek and I've already told you which two have been lost to time. I think I've got a picture up there of about all of them, including the originals.
I'm very happy to discuss any and all of the architecture of Cobb's with you if we can have a serious and sincere discussion, but you seem to keep changing the question to something trying to make Hugh Wilson look architecturally incompetent, which seems like a hobby you've spent way too much energy on.
Please just point out for us the amateurish features you're railing about in the ground level photos. C'mon, I'm sure it's not that hard to play "Spot the Amateur Architects".
Jim Kennedy,
I'm not sure where you're seeing us talk about raising fees on that prior thread? Not me, anyways....
On page 33 of the 35 page thread I laid out the following;
In that regard, let me try to clarify a few things;
• We would not be seeking monies from the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, or the US Government as they have higher priorities, especially these days. The only caveat there might be in the form of any targeted WPA-like labor that might be a part of some future stimulus package, but that is a remote possibility.
• We do not envision some “Bethpage” or “Harding Park” style project that aims to create a modern championship courses for professionals. Instead, we aim to make Cobb’s Creek exactly what its founders envisioned and what it was…a superb public golf course of exceptional character designed to bring new golfers into the game and challenge all levels of golfers while remaining playable by all.
• We would not suggest that the course should close for some period of time and then re-open as this loss of revenue stream would likely be untenable to both the city and the management company. Instead, we believe that the vast majority of the work could be done while keeping the course open for play as much of it is simply resurrecting avenues of play that have been abandoned and left to overgrow.
• We would attempt to raise funds to cover one time restoration costs through a variety of possible private donors who we would ask to contribute to a 5013C organization we hope to organize for the purpose.
• We would begin with professional architectural advice and assistance to determine feasibility, review options, estimate costs, and determine scope. If that looks promising, we would present our findings and proposals to the management company and city officials.
• We would not be asking the management company to contribute any additional capital expenditures beyond what they are already contracted with the city for. While we don’t know the exact terms of that deal, our assumption is that projects like irrigation, flood control, rebuilding tees, bunkers, etc., and/or re-sodding, etc., are covered under normal capitalized maintenance and probably need to happen whether or not the original routing is restored and therefore would not be necessarily targeted for funding unless specifically asked, or as part of a mutually agreed-upon joint strategy.
Could you point out where we talked about raising prices, Jim? I certainly don't want to leave the impression that we support that except as a surcharge for non-resident play as necessary.