[Matt Schoolfield]

This is related to a bit of local San Francisco politics. In this last election, an extremely controversial measure was passed which promises to turn the main thoroughfare along Ocean Beach into a city park. Now, as I've gone on and on before about, this huge section of land exists effectively as linksland: they literally have to plow the sand off of the road as parts of the dunes try to move around. Now, for local budget deficit reasons, there is no funding for the building of the park, but I just wondered if designing a large, seaside park would be something that golf course architects would be interested in.

I think golf course architecture is relevant here, specifically because this type of land is regularly worked on for golf courses, but more importantly, because much of the area of the new parkland sits below the largest dunes, I see golf course architects as exceptionally talented at guiding people in and out of scenic vistas in dunes, while maintaining a natural landscape.

So what do you all think? Has it happened before? Is this all nonsense where I don't understand the scope of city park vs golf course design? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[John Emerson]

Is that what St. Andrews basically is?

[Kevin_Reilly]

SF can't even maintain road medians (Sunset Blvd) or adjacent green areas (Park Presidio), or lawn bowling/putting greens (Stern Grove and Moscone Park) so it is unrealistic to assume that they could maintain a newly constructed park out on the Upper Great Highway.  It is unfortunately only a matter of time before conditions at the new Golden Gate Park course become "terrible".


Interesting question, but I assume there are many landscape designers of parks that could do this hypothetical job.  The sand on the Great Highway is an inevitable intrusion that would have to be factored into maintenance.

[Chris Hughes]

SF can't even maintain road medians (Sunset Blvd) or adjacent green areas (Park Presidio), or lawn bowling/putting greens (Stern Grove and Moscone Park) so it is unrealistic to assume that they could maintain a newly constructed park out on the Upper Great Highway.  It is unfortunately only a matter of time before conditions at the new Golden Gate Park course become "terrible".


Interesting question, but I assume there are many landscape designers of parks that could do this hypothetical job.  The sand on the Great Highway is an inevitable intrusion that would have to be factored into maintenance.

Agree that the City of SF in no way has the intellectual/management/fiscal horsepower to develop/maintain/manage anything on the property, much less a "park" with no associated revenues to underpin the long-term viability of the space/project.


Next best option that actually keeps the area as a green space, and allows it to be self-sustaining?


Maybe a golf course?

[Tom_Doak]

I suspect that any public park would have to be designed by a licensed landscape architect, instead of a GCA who just majored in it.


The ability to design something like that is pretty much in the realm for both GCAs and LAs - it is one of the places of common expertise between us. 


The other commonality is site planning for a resort or development that includes golf; there is nearly always a separate firm hired for that, but two of my recent clients have told me afterwards that they should have just hired me for that part, since I steered the other guys to the eventual solution.  It works much better if there is a common vision, instead of having two firms fight for control of the project.

[Bruce Katona]

Tom D beat me to part of what I was going to respond with.  A large portion of (not all and there are plenty on GCA who came to GCA/design via other avenues) GC's are trained as landscape architects.  I'm thinking Tom D/Ian/Jeff B and others would do a great job designing a park on SF linksland, provided they obtained his LA license to practice in The Golden State.  I'm comfortable in stating any of the above could create the "outdoor rooms" park design requires and create experiences/vista as they lead the user through space from one "room" to another.  Where they may need a bit of assistane is in some of the details involving the correct site/street furniture; playground design of particular ADA requirements - that's what a local design partner would be for.


Imagine any of the above mentioned gentlemen apprearing before the SF City Council pitching their vision - with the typical audience members at any public meeting like this in hystrionics as a proposal to change something that's been there as is for the entire time those public member have lived in SF has a proposal to change/alter it?


Additionally anyone leading this design exercise would need to be licensed by The Golden State to practice LA - not sure any of us (me included) want to be bothered taking another exam - if licensure was availabe through reciprocity and all you need to do is file a bunch of paperwork and pay the fee - different story.


Finally - not usre the commission paid would be worth all of the trouble for a one-off park design as that's typically not what a GCA's main focus & business plan are constructed around.


Just my $0.02

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()