[Sean_A]

Melvyn said: "Let’s not forget the people own the Links at St Andrews, and thanks to them we are allowed to enjoy some great golf. So let me wish that you have a most enjoyable round the next time you are taking the Golf at St Andrews."

Well, sort of. Another way of looking at is that the rest of the world pays top dollar so that "the people" who live in St. Andrews and Fife can play very cheaply. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but particularly since the Links Trust and R&A have all the power, it's hardly "the people's" golf course. I do love the democratic nature of golf in the UK but in many ways St. Andrews is an exception to that rule.

Hamilton Hall isn't just in disrepair. It's a wreck--just what you would imagine for something that been a military barracks and then a college dormitory for the last 70 years. It hasn't been accessible to the general public during that time. So why will it ruin St. Andrews if it remains not open to the public? Answer--it won't.

David

It is a minor point, but one worth making; Hamilton Hall was open to visitors lodgings during summer break.  I stayed there on two occasions and couldn't have been happier.  An added  feature was the cost - peanuts - for the best view in town.  All that said, I have no beef with Kohler.  The bone head Links Trust should have bought the building if they wanted it or thought it an important part of TOC landscape.  Instead, they were likely counting their cash and dreaming of new and better ways to screw visitors.  My bigger question would be this; save St Andrews from what - itself?  The powers that be have turned St Andrews into the Disneyland of golf.  Its too late now to worry about capitalist enterprise.  The tone of inevitable cash grabbing was set in motion long ago.

Ciao 

[Melvyn Morrow]

As for Hamilton Hall, I feel it has a place and I like the idea that part of it could reflect or have an association with golf, but on a commercial basis.

Sean

I find you comments very interesting and more or less the opposite of mine. The Links Trust are IMHO doing a good job. They are doing exactly what they were set up to do, so you should not have a problem with them, perhaps with the Act of Parliament that set up the Links Trust.

Lets look at the alternative, had the Town not pushed for public ownership then the Courses would be owned by The R&A . That scares hell out of me and I believe that St Andrews would have ceased being regarded the Home of Golf because of the inability of The R&A to make a decision, lets alone a right one when they finally are pushed into make one. St Andrews would be a private club with some history and I expect Prestwick may well have taken over (which is no bad thing IMHO)

History of indifference, lack of clarity or actually getting round to protect the game of Golf. The R&A stands equal with George III in loosing control of the game in America. Christ, if the Links courses belonged to The Royal and Ancient Golf Club, I fear for their state of play and numbers. TOC would be a shadow of its former self and I really wonder if The New Course would have ever been constructed let alone the Jubilee or Eden. In fact I expect the Bruce Embankment would be a reflection of the cathedral ruins had the links not gone to public ownership. IMHO the R&A just do not have what it takes which I believe is confirmed by the records.

Of  course the Links Trust are not perfect, we have seen that with the Eden and Castle Courses, but I have way more time for them bearing in mind they answer to Parliament.

Melvyn

[Jud_T]

IMHO as an architect this building is iconic not for its use but as the "streetscape" it presents in the view of St Andrews from the finishing holes of TOC. I don't think its use greatly matters provided that the facade is retained and the appearance of the building not altered.

THIS...

[Niall C]

A couple of thoughts

Firstly I am glad that the building is likely to be refurbished/redeveloped as from what I hear it is not entirely wind and watertight and these red sandstone buildings can go down hill rapidly. It is an big part of an iconic view in golf, perhaps the most iconic and for that alone I think it would be a great shame if it were lost and replaced with some pastiche building to keep the planners happy, or even worse some modern glass edifice that would look totally out of place.

As for the move to encourage a more egalitarian use for the building, it is one I have some sympathy with. I think that is more in keeping with the nature of UK golf and golf at St Andrews. For every Muirfield there are possibly a hundred local clubs which are cheap to play and you don't need to be the great or the good, or indeed a millionaire to join. I say that not as an attack on the country club way of golf in the US or elsewhere, only that each country has its own style and way of doing things and it would be a shame to see one dominate the other. Somehow a development for millionaires would just seem like an affront.

Niall

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

If it hadn't been for Mr Cheape a long time ago there would have not been a course left, the rabbits would have owned it. By the way, he must have been a very tall man, I slept in the Master Bedroom at Strathtyrum House and felt Lilliputian when sleeping.

Somewhere along the line I am sure the R&A did a couple of things right.

Bob

http://www.st-andrews-cottages.co.uk/history.html

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

Those were the days

As for our mutual friend in front of the 1st Tee TOC, when I find something I will shout it from the roof top of Hamilton Hall, but I may not live that long  

As for Hamilton Hall the R&A should take it over as their new club house and let The Golf Museum move into their old club house.... aaahhhh the world in balance once again.

Melvyn

[Jud_T]

A couple of thoughts

Firstly I am glad that the building is likely to be refurbished/redeveloped as from what I hear it is not entirely wind and watertight and these red sandstone buildings can go down hill rapidly. It is an big part of an iconic view in golf, perhaps the most iconic and for that alone I think it would be a great shame if it were lost and replaced with some pastiche building to keep the planners happy, or even worse some modern glass edifice that would look totally out of place.

As for the move to encourage a more egalitarian use for the building, it is one I have some sympathy with. I think that is more in keeping with the nature of UK golf and golf at St Andrews. For every Muirfield there are possibly a hundred local clubs which are cheap to play and you don't need to be the great or the good, or indeed a millionaire to join. I say that not as an attack on the country club way of golf in the US or elsewhere, only that each country has its own style and way of doing things and it would be a shame to see one dominate the other. Somehow a development for millionaires would just seem like an affront.

Niall

In other words, it's OK to soak the well-to-do foreigners for a grand for a confirmed tee time to help subsidize things, but god forbid the heathens are actually to be in full view of the countrymen? 

[Niall C]

A couple of thoughts

Firstly I am glad that the building is likely to be refurbished/redeveloped as from what I hear it is not entirely wind and watertight and these red sandstone buildings can go down hill rapidly. It is an big part of an iconic view in golf, perhaps the most iconic and for that alone I think it would be a great shame if it were lost and replaced with some pastiche building to keep the planners happy, or even worse some modern glass edifice that would look totally out of place.

As for the move to encourage a more egalitarian use for the building, it is one I have some sympathy with. I think that is more in keeping with the nature of UK golf and golf at St Andrews. For every Muirfield there are possibly a hundred local clubs which are cheap to play and you don't need to be the great or the good, or indeed a millionaire to join. I say that not as an attack on the country club way of golf in the US or elsewhere, only that each country has its own style and way of doing things and it would be a shame to see one dominate the other. Somehow a development for millionaires would just seem like an affront.

Niall

In other words, it's OK to soak the well-to-do foreigners for a grand for a confirmed tee time to help subsidize things, but god forbid the heathens are actually to be in full view of the countrymen? 

Jud

I wasn't trying to pick a fight and you're interpretation of what I was saying is both crude and plainly wrong. If you're talking about the golf course then rich and poor have equal access and pay the same, the only differential is that local taxpayers (and members of the R&A) pay less. I think thats fair don't you ? I would also like to think that visitors from all countries are treated well and I see nothing in my previous post to suggest otherwise.

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

I'm not itching for a fight.  And if tourists are willing to fill the tee sheet at a large multiple of what the locals pay for an advanced guaranteed time, hey it's a free market.  But so is the property market.  I agree with the aforementioned comment that as far as the town is concerned, it's the original edifice which needs to be maintained by the local zoning commission.  If someone wants to use the innards of the building for a more golf-centric purpose, and if I had an extra 15mm I probably would donate it for such a purpose, then it's their right to do so, but at a competitive market price.  All the rest is just whinging....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()