[Forrest Richardson]

I have had the privilege of sitting in on some meetings in SF over the past few days. There is a major study and evaluation in progress of the City of San Francisco's golf courses; Harding, Sharp, Lincoln, Golden Gate and Gleneagles.

For those that do not know, these five courses (Harding has a Fleming Nine, too) are each in very unique situations — not to mention that they are each unique propeties by way of their sites and designs.

My question here is to ask opinions about these courses...how they have been taken care of and what options some of you SF-ers see for the future of these courses.

Please feel free to e-mail me if you would prefer. And, if those of you who play these courses would like to be included on a survey being conducted, please make sure I get your e-mail adress.

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest,
 Of those listed I have only played Lincoln Park. The quirky nature of this course is something I hope will not be altered. The conditions were not top notch, but for $22, the value is/was there. Thinking back, the course meanders through different types of terrain and was a real strength, varietalwise.

There's something special about the juxtaposition of golfing within a cityscape. But not that special that poor management and over pricing can't ruin.

[ForkaB]

Forrest

I lived in and around the City (you need not add the superfluous "of San Francisco" BTW) for 15-20 years.  In all that time I never played, or even had any inclination to play, any of those courses.  Possibly my inadequacies, but more likely that at the time there were just so many better alternatives for the public player that I couldn't be bothered with hacking my way around those dog tracks.

I'm sure you will get some more informed answers!

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

Those rumblings you're hearing and tremors you're feeling are not geologic activity.  Instead, I sense Gib Papazian is pounding away at his keyboard.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

I lived in the Bay Area for almost five years.  In that time I played the old Harding Park - never again.  It was dreadful and almost enough to make me quit golf.

On the other hand, while never playing Gleneagles, there is a great chapter on this 9 hole course in Tony Pioppi's book

"To the Nines"

It seems to be a different experience entirely.

[Tom Huckaby]

I've played all of those courses, many times.  However although I've lived in the Bay Area for 25 years, I've never lived all that near SF... David Tepper and Gib Papazian and John Krystynak and perhaps a few others would be better sources than I.

Nevertheless, I am a pretty good example of the non-resident consumer.  I'd love to be part of the survey.

In brief, here's what I think about each, how they've been taken care of and options for the future:

1. Harding - what's done is done.  Maintenance is now thousands of times better than what it's ever been, but I still wonder what might have been if more attention had been given to creativity and making it fun for the everyday golfer, and less making it a test of the pros.  Still, it's a pretty damn fine course now.  WAY too expensive for non-city residents, but that's how they have to finance it, so what the hell.  Future seems pretty cast in stone to me.  Fleming nine is fine now, better than ever, leave it alone.

2. Sharp - horrible maintenance for as long as I've known it.  Sells itself as a Mackenzie which is a joke given how it's been butchered (necessarily for the most part).  Future?  Bringing back the Mackenzie course would be incredible, but seems impossible given the huge berm that was constructed.  Still, a lot could be done and there is a diamond there waiting to be uncovered.  I'd put the most focus on this course....

3. Lincoln - brutally awful maintenance always... but... I'm with Dr. Childs - this course is funk and quirk to the max and fixing it up would be a net negative.  Please leave it alone... it's San Francisco all over and while there has to be temptation to fix it up and charge 5 times as much given the incredible site, well... to me that would be a net negative big time.  There really is no course much like Lincoln Park - and uniqueness is a wonderful thing.

4. Golden Gate - decent enough, fun par three, leave it alone.

5. Gleneagles - does this really fall under city umbrella?  I didn't know that... very fun nine-holer, very tough, quirky and fun in that one pays at the bar... not quite as unique or quirky as Lincoln, but again, leave it alone.  It's very cool as it is.

There you have it.  So it is written, so it shall most likely not be done.  

Tom Huckaby
huckaby72@yahoo.com

[Aaron Katz]

I've played Lincoln and Harding.  I won't comment on the latter since I haven't seen it since the renovation.  

Lincoln was an absolute disaster when I played it during the San Francisco City Championship.  I literally had a lost ball (yes, stroke a distance penalty) when my tee ball embedded in the MIDDLE of the 1st fairway and could not be located.  Seriously the thing must have plugged a foot into the ground.  Granted, the year I played was the year El Nino was here, but the course still should not have drained so poorly.  

If the maintenance issues were taken care of, it would be a fun and quirky course to play without a driver (I think they have 6 or 7 par fours under 320 yards).  But I don't see that being a real possibility.  I've never had any desire to go back there, although the view from #17 is really cool.  I was probably spoiled by playing Olympic, SFGC, and Meadow Club while I was in the City.  Honestly, I don't even know what other public facilities are in the area other than the City course and Presidio.

[Tom Huckaby]

Aaron - you were spoiled playing the other courses, and you did catch Lincoln at its absolute worst.  It was a joke they even had you guys play that year - but "play no matter what" is the mantra in the City tourney... consider yourself lucky you didn't have to play the old Harding at its worst, which made what you saw at Lincoln look like Augusta.  And I am neither kidding nor exaggerating.

So picture Lincoln in quite more playable shape... then assess it.  It is quirk to the max.  The view from 17 is to die for, as are some others if you venture through the trees.  It's weird, it's funky, it's unfair, it's an awful place to play a tournament one wants to win - but it's a FANTASTIC place to go to have fun and connect with the soul of the game.  I guess it's kinda hard to explain... you have to play it dozens of times before it gets you, I guess.  Conditions suck and of course should never be allowed to get how bad you saw it... but on the other hand, making that course pristine would defeat the entire mojo and soul... It needs to be a little scruffy.

It remains difficult to explain.  I just do hope that if improvements are to be made there, they keep a gentle hand.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Forrest

I lived in and around the City (you need not add the superfluous "of San Francisco" BTW) for 15-20 years.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Is this a NGF meeting?
I'd be interested to hear about your involvement.
Cheers

[Gib_Papazian]

Forrest,

I'll get to it later, but I suggest that aside from my usual didactic ranting that we walk a couple of them. The problem is one of institutionalized stupidity - but if you can pass the litmus test for political correctness, you might have a shot.

The idea - to sell it to the goo goo's - lies in educating them on the concept of "architecture as art."

Rough hewn minimalism.  

Think about it and we talk.

-g

[Mike Benham]

For the most part, the SF public courses are no different then any other large metropolitan area courses where they were built years ago and the financial structure is such to siphon off the postive cash flow for the city coffers.  

The original design has been compromised countless times by the maintenance staff, planning commission or environmental wackos.

No reinvestment in the course, the facitilities, equipment or staff results in a distressed, depreciated and dilapidated property.  SF went a step further by then spending a boatload of money to rennovate Harding with the lure of PGA Tournaments ...

But, I do have to admit, that the old 18th fairway at Harding, along with the 17th at Lincoln, make a wonderful park area for a picnic, run the dog, play frisbee and pick daisies ... (even while golfers are golfing ...).

TH - Gleneagles is a city owned course ...

[Bill_McBride]

Forrest, I played all those courses in the 60s and 70s.  Tom is right, there's not much to be done these days about Harding, that's a done deal.  Sharp Park is a diamond in the rough, still some of the MacKenzie routing but always turf issues and some awkward holes across the highway.  There is room to make design improvements but the MacKenzie Sharp Park is gone forever.

Lincoln Park is a classic little time capsule that needs TLC but really nothing in terms of rebuilding or redesign, at least in my opinion after playing it dozens of times many years ago.  If the maintenance level could be substantially improved, it would be a much better playing experience.  But there's not any room to make changes in routing, length of holes, etc.  The holes are short and very quirky, the greens are tiny, the views of the Pacific Ocean, Golden Gate Bridge, Palace of Legion of Honor are incredible.  While there's only one par 5, there are three par 3s over 200 yards.  I'll be in SF the last week of November if you want to go for a walk!  

[Tom Huckaby]

TH - Gleneagles is a city owned course ...

Got it.  For some reason I just never thought of it that way.

Would you agree this is another best left alone?

TH

[Mike Benham]

TH - Gleneagles is a city owned course ...

Got it.  For some reason I just never thought of it that way.

Would you agree this is another best left alone?

TH

Kevin Reilly might be better to respond but I believe that Gleneagles is leased from the city and the operator has complete control of the property including maintenance without using city employees.

It is a neat little course, regardless of the neighborhood and a fabulous bar ...

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - EXACTLY!  That's how I thought it was run... so it has a totally different look and feel from the others.  My failing was I spaced out that it was even owned by the City.  And 100% agreement on the neighborhood, and the bar... the former just always caused me not to spend as much time as I would have liked in the latter, sadly.

I guess my feeling is the less City involvement in this course, the better.  I can only see them screwing it up.

TH

[Matt_Cohn]

We all want Harding to stay affordable but realistically they should probably be squeezing a lot more money out of that place.

Working in a tourist-filled golf shop, I'm amazed at how many people have never heard of Harding Park despite it hosting a PGA Tour event featuring two of the game's most popular players.

I'd bet that Presidio has a higher average ticket despite having not as good a product. Presidio also markets the heck out of their facility.

I'm sure Harding could generate a lot more money than it is currently. I just don't think that anyone would be very happy about it. I guess the answer depends on whether you think a big city should use any of its money to subsidize golf when other needs aren't being met.

I wish I could say I think that's best use for city money, because I do like low green fees.

As for the other courses, Lincoln Park is beyond scruffy. I played it in the middle of a dry summer and it was still muddy and unappealing. I'm not saying they should build another Harding Park there, but can't *something* be done that might even benefit the bottom line?

Gleneagles might be best left as is except for flattening a few tee boxes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Re Lincoln, well... all I am saying is that giving that course Augusta-like immaculate conditions would be just plain wrong.  Of course that's not gonna happen.  But I don't want them to go even close to the efforts made at Harding.  Improve conditions, sure.  They have always sucked there.  But leave it at least a little scruffy, as befitting the soul of the place... and allowing the green fees to be kept down, as they should be.

And you make great points re Harding... never thought of it that way... hell yes, perhaps they should squeeze all the money they can out of that course... if that's what it takes to improve Sharp Park.

TH

[Steve_Lemmon]

So, I am going to be in SF Wed and Thurs, with some time during the day Thurs.  I don't mind playing on poorly conditioned courses, and am cheap.  I won't have clubs with me.  Which city course would you recommend I show up at and play?

[Aaron Katz]

I'd recommend Lincoln.  The guys are right that it is SF through and through.

You could seriously go out there with a 2 iron, 6 iron, wedge, and putter and have a good time.

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve - not sure if they offer rental clubs at Lincoln - call and check.  If so, play there.  You'll spend less than the others while seeing more and having more fun.  Just be prepared for one of the stranger courses you've ever seen... as well as some of the worst conditions.

If you want a fair test of golf, play Harding.  It is pretty scenic, also.  I'd be shocked if they don't offer rental clubs.

Third choice would be Presidio - but that will take longer.  For sure they have rental clubs also... this one would also be the easiest to get to from downtown/financial district.  Pretty darn good course - just very crowded nearly always.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

1. Harding - what's done is done.  Maintenance is now thousands of times better than what it's ever been, but I still wonder what might have been if more attention had been given to creativity and making it fun for the everyday golfer, and less making it a test of the pros.  Still, it's a pretty damn fine course now.  WAY too expensive for non-city residents, but that's how they have to finance it, so what the hell.  Future seems pretty cast in stone to me.  Fleming nine is fine now, better than ever, leave it alone.

Agree 100%.  What's done is done.  

2. Sharp - horrible maintenance for as long as I've known it.  Sells itself as a Mackenzie which is a joke given how it's been butchered (necessarily for the most part).  Future?  Bringing back the Mackenzie course would be incredible, but seems impossible given the huge berm that was constructed.  Still, a lot could be done and there is a diamond there waiting to be uncovered.  I'd put the most focus on this course....

Probably the most potential for change among the courses listed given the layout (isn't constrained by neigborhoods/cliffs like Lincoln for example) but the scale of what would need to be done would be off the charts.  Two completely different nines, the back being the most hacked up by nature.

3. Lincoln - brutally awful maintenance always... but... I'm with Dr. Childs - this course is funk and quirk to the max and fixing it up would be a net negative.  Please leave it alone... it's San Francisco all over and while there has to be temptation to fix it up and charge 5 times as much given the incredible site, well... to me that would be a net negative big time.  There really is no course much like Lincoln Park - and uniqueness is a wonderful thing.

Agree, has never been well-maintained.  Fixing maintenance/bunkers would do wonders there.  Land-locked so limited in potential.

4. Golden Gate - decent enough, fun par three, leave it alone.

Never been maintained well.  Interesting little layout.  Quirky.

5. Gleneagles - does this really fall under city umbrella?  I didn't know that... very fun nine-holer, very tough, quirky and fun in that one pays at the bar... not quite as unique or quirky as Lincoln, but again, leave it alone.  It's very cool as it is.

First green the quirkiest green site in the Bay Area.  Great atmosphere...pure golf.  Not as much quirk (IMHO) as Tom describes except perhaps for holes #1 and #7 (with pot bunkers short of the green). Leave it alone.

[Kevin_Reilly]

So, I am going to be in SF Wed and Thurs, with some time during the day Thurs.  I don't mind playing on poorly conditioned courses, and am cheap.  I won't have clubs with me.  Which city course would you recommend I show up at and play?

I'd recommend Gleneagles for a couple of hours of fun but there are no rental clubs there.  Note it is supposed to be raining Thurs.  Maybe Presidio as Tom suggests?

[Steve_Lemmon]

Thanks guys.  I may just pack a 4 iron, 6 iron, sand wedge and putter and knock it around.  Better than attending a seminar.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Thanks guys.  I may just pack a 4 iron, 6 iron, sand wedge and putter and knock it around.  Better than attending a seminar.  

If you're going to do that, play Golden Gate - decent par three course, not that far from downtown.  Either that or Lincoln Park - you likely will score as well with those 4 sticks then you would with the full set of clubs.  It's a very short par 68 that if played smartly also requires lots of layups.  You likely won't be able to reach the par 3 16th and 17th though... each 200+ yards... maybe exchange 4 iron for hybrid.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()