[Bart Bradley]

After re-reading the website in question, I don't think the savestandrews.com group is interested in using Hamilton Hall as a museum....they already have a museum in St. Andrews.

I think it boils down to a few very simple, but very important things:

1.  Golf is homeless in the home of golf  -- apart from grabbing a beverage in the Dunvegan, non-members of the current clubs have nowhere to convene, arrange games, share stories, or enjoy golf related films or education.

2.  Hamilton Hall is an iconic building located directly at the epicenter of activity of golf's most important place...It deserves and demands a better use than 26 more luxury flats.  If the building goes the direction that Mr. Kohler has now laid out, it is lost forever to golf.

3.  Sometimes principles are more important than pure economics, and in my opinion, this is one of them.

Just my opinion (and if you read www.savestandrews.com, quite a few others' opinion as well),

Thanks for the discussion,

Bart

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think many of us feel an emotional attachment to St Andrews. Yet, it should be clear to any of us that spent time there, that Bob is the one with clear vision here. I would hope Kohler finds a way to make economic sense of his project and possibly maintain or improve the property. I hope The misguided idea of public private partnerships does not find itself in this deal. The tax payer loses, the developer and friends win. cheers

[Bob_Huntley]

Hey John,

Glad to hear from you, keep up the good fight.


Bob

[Marty Bonnar]

This thread is kind of confusing me. Apart from it's location maybe, HH has never really had anything to do with the running, the management or the use of the Links. Unless my memory is worse than I thought, It's only ever been an hotel and a student lodging.

The Links Trust have had ample opportunities to buy the place in the past and, given their massive war chest from those exorbitant visitor green fees , could easily have been a front-runner in the bidding. They, for their own reasons, chose not to and to leave the building to the open market. Other than that, they have NO reason to be involved with it.

As I've said before and as can be seen from the photo from the Dunhill (and that's a smaller stand than what is built for The Open), the views of the Course from the lower floors are EXTREMELY limited during tournaments. The Kohler organisation are/were? (it may already have occurred) proposing an open forum with the townsfolk to discuss options. As far as I'm concerned that is above and beyond what is expected of them and I salute them for it. I'm waiting to see what transpires before I come to any more, ehm 'conclusions'.

cheers,
FBD.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Marty

Whats your opinion of the Britsih Golf Museum building?

Melvyn

[Marty Bonnar]

Hi Melvyn,
'almost unprintable' would be the most apt, I think. Again, as always however, the context of the design MUST be taken into account when attempting any kind of criticism. The PLANNERS MADE the Architects bury the building to 'retain the character' of the dune slopes behind and to 'accommodate the integrity of the views' (both my quotations) of the R&A clubhouse from TOC. The building certainly admirably accomplishes those requirements. I think, as an Architect, I'd have walked away from a project where I was FORCED to bury a building.
cheers,
FBD.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Marty

All that hard work to reclaim the Bruce Embankment so they could build a car park and bury a Museum. Seems like a lot of effort so someone can look out of the rear of the R&A Club House.   Good to see privilege is not yet dead and buried.  

As it was in the mid 1860’s



And how it is today

                     

Was it worth it?

Melvyn

PS When I was under 10 years of age that little beach fronting the Car Park was always covered in sewerage, so have never swam there, hope no one else has – expect it might have changed.

[Mike Hendren]

It is real property, is it not?  The concept of "highest and best use" takes into account what is legally permissible, physically possible and financially feasible.   Kohler should be hailed a hero - I'll bet he hasn't even asked for property tax abatement.   Often capitalism steps in where socialism has failed, or won't.

I'm not so sure about it being "lost to golf forever" since its primary contribution is its wonderful ediface serving as complement to the R & A Clubhouse and a backdrop to the shared 1st and 18th fairways of The Old Course. 

Mike

[George Pazin]

It's not for nothin' that envy is right up there with greed and lust as a deadly sin; sure does get a whole lot less press, however.

[Bob_Huntley]

It's not for nothin' that envy is right up there with greed and lust as a deadly sin; sure does get a whole lot less press, however.

George,


When it comes to the politics of envy, try getting anything done in the State of California when the Coastal Commision gets a hair up its arse.


Bob

[Gary Slatter]

Hi Melvyn,
'almost unprintable' would be the most apt, I think. Again, as always however, the context of the design MUST be taken into account when attempting any kind of criticism. The PLANNERS MADE the Architects bury the building to 'retain the character' of the dune slopes behind and to 'accommodate the integrity of the views' (both my quotations) of the R&A clubhouse from TOC. The building certainly admirably accomplishes those requirements. I think, as an Architect, I'd have walked away from a project where I was FORCED to bury a building.
cheers,
FBD.

The same planners approved the Fish restaurant?

[Mark Chaplin]

Simon Holt - the university righty cashed in on an asset at the best possible price, but the town cannot then bleat that the site is being developed for profit.

Bart - so why didn't the Links Trust buy the property?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gary

If memory serves me correctly the Fish Restaurant was a café enclosed to all sides except that facing Witch Hill & Martyrs Monument going back to the 1970’s. Pre that is was a stage and used for many things including music – that structure was the same as the Café. I do not know when that building was first erected but it must have been 1950/60, maybe earlier.

The Glass side panels are of course new for the Fish Restaurant, but not certain if that is the original floor plan. So planning permission for the building was many, many years ago.

Forgot all about that building till you mentioned planning

Melvyn

[Marty Bonnar]

BTW, the HH masonry is only just barely wind and watertight and is/was slowly rotting to pieces. Mr Kohler will have to spend A LOT to bring it back to a decently habitable state, which is probably why any Links Trust option and 'St Andrews Grand' both failed to develop.

It'll also almost certainly be a Cat A listed building which comes with another whole set of planning conditions...

FBD.

[Jud_T]

I think that George Peper should donate his flat on the Old Course to GCA participants for for furthering the cause of links erudition....

[Bart Bradley]

Simon Holt - the university righty cashed in on an asset at the best possible price, but the town cannot then bleat that the site is being developed for profit.

Bart - so why didn't the Links Trust buy the property?

I don't know why the Links Trust wasn't interested...but that doesn't really affect the present question.

Bogey:

Why should Kohler be considered a hero for being the highest bidder....there were other bids to own and renovate the building.   Being the highest bidder makes him simply the highest...I don't see that as a heroic move.  Certainly the group behind www.savestandrews.com is a PRIVATE group...capitalistic as well....they just feel that Hamilton Hall should be used for a purpose that would serve golf and a greater good.  They feel that they were not given a chance to match Kohler's bid (their bid was actually fairly close to Kohler's bid).  One can debate whether they would succeed with their plan...they have done their due diligence and feel they can successfully renovate and operate the building with a golf purpose.  I fail to see how this has anything to do capitalism vs. socialism.

Noone is suggesting that the building stay in its sorry state of disrepair.

I also don't feel this has anything to do with envy;  I don't even get the insinuation.

By the way, just to be clear, I have no part in this deal in any way...I simply have a rooting interest in the outcome...

Bart

[Tim Nugent]

At least I haven't heard plans to rename it Kohler Hall - the way that English company Willis did when they bought the Sears Tower in Chicago   The Willis Tower? Please.

[Ed Oden]

Bart, my good friend, I am not entirely in your corner here.  I think the cause this group has undertaken is a noble endeavor, even though I must admit that I find it a bit odd that the troups are being mobilized to treat a building which has apparently never been directly related to golf as historically significant to golf.  What I am less keen on, however, is the core theme that the building needs to be "saved" from Kohler.  The clear implication is that Kohler is the enemy (an "imminent threat") and has done something wrong.  He hasn't, and I think characterizations to that effect are not in keeping with the higher principles behind the cause.  So while I fully support this group's efforts to convince Kohler to preserve the building for a more public friendly purpose, if they are unsuccessful, I don't see any way that Kohler can be criticized. 

I look forward to teeing it up together soon.

Ed

[Jud_T]

I can criticize Kohler for a few things-namely having 4 courses in Wisconsin, 2 or 3 of which are overrated and overpriced.  Having overpriced average food in Wisconsin, having overpriced rooms in rural Wisconsin.  I cannot as of yet criticize him for purchasing this building, although based on his prior history, I doubt if I will be buying a unit because I think it's good value (but I bet the toilets will be top quality!  )...

[Bart Bradley]

Bart, my good friend, I am not entirely in your corner here.  I think the cause this group has undertaken is a noble endeavor, even though I must admit that I find it a bit odd that the troups are being mobilized to treat a building which has apparently never been directly related to golf as historically significant to golf.  What I am less keen on, however, is the core theme that the building needs to be "saved" from Kohler.  The clear implication is that Kohler is the enemy (an "imminent threat") and has done something wrong.  He hasn't, and I think characterizations to that effect are not in keeping with the higher principles behind the cause.  So while I fully support this group's efforts to convince Kohler to preserve the building for a more public friendly purpose, if they are unsuccessful, I don't see any way that Kohler can be criticized.  

I look forward to teeing it up together soon.

Ed

Ed:

It's okay to disagree with me...just not so often  .

I certainly didn't say "imminent threat"..Is that on the website?  I think the cause is noble and that Kohler's plan (although certainly not evil or immoral) would be a wasted opportunity.  I admire the principles behind the cause and do think the building will have only one chance of being used in a noble fashion..It is sort of like farmland...once subdivided, the land will never go back.  Once the building is put into flats, it will be forever used as such, there will be no going back.  The building may not have been historically related to golf...but there is no doubt whatsoever that the location is and that the building is iconic because of its relationship to golf.

Bart

[Ed Oden]

Bart, yes, the website characterizes Kohler's plan as an "imminent threat".  In general, I think the tone of the website is one of good v. evil, with Kohler wearing the horns.  Again, I hope the group is successful since a facility of the type they are proposing would be terrific.  My point is that there is also nothing fundamentally wrong with Kohler's plan.  This isn't a Trump situation.  I mean, think about it.  He has purchased a decaying building which has already failed and is falling apart.  That building has always been a private venture, hasn't operated as a public hotel for more than 60 years and has been a planned timeshare development for at least the last 5 years.  Now he wants to restore that building's grandeur.  Setting aside this group's alternative proposal, tell me how Kohler's plan is a bad thing?  The answer is that it isn't a bad thing.  Rather, the problem lies in that it might not be the BEST thing, at least for the general golfing public.  Absent this group's alternative, Kohler's plan would almost certainly be viewed as a positive development.  Let me ask you this, if Kohler's plan is implemented, will the building be any less iconic to the game of golf than it has ever been?

Ed

PS - I will try and agree with you from now on.

[Neil_Crafter]

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. Given the cost of real estate in St Andrews - especially close to the links - I can't see there ever be any "affordable" flats being developed as part of this building. Some might be small but they would hardly be affordable for either purchase or rental. As has been said this building has never really had a strictly golf related use, and a residential use seems appropriate to me.

As for the British Golf Museum, yes it is ugly and buried, but better that than ugly and exposed as might have been if the case if the planners had not insisted on burying it. If it had been exposed the architects would have been hard pressed to come up with a suitable looking building that did not distract from the R&A clubhouse closeby.

[Steve Lang]

  calling Don..

[David Lott]

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.

[Chris Kane]

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.

Couldn't agree more David.  As a former resident of St Andrews (06-07), it was fantastic to be able to play world-class golf subsidised by (mostly) rich foreigners. I spent 255 pounds for two consecutive Yearly Tickets - my rounds on the Old, New, Eden and Jubilee worked out being cheaper than a pint in the New club afterwards. 

In my view, the only responsibility the new owner has to the golf world or the town is to ensure that Hamilton Hall is well presented. That would be more than any previous owner has done in any of our lifetimes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()