Defense is always nice, but in this case probably unnecessary. I cannot pinpoint where Joel is coming from, but I can certainly detect the essence of a rude post that seems to belittle what I do for a living. That's sad because it is this type of treatment that I believe drives away otherwise interesting participants here on GCA, especially other professional golf course architects.
With few exceptions, such posts are not called for, even on the notorious GCA.
![Undecided :-\](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/undecided.gif)
Our 2006 work with the SF City golf courses included work to develop a "warranted investment" approach to Sharp and the numerous issues there. The probable costs to make improvements (correcting as many wrongs as practical within the "warranted investment") were based on evaluations, take-offs and the balance of restoring as much MacKenzie feel as possible given the many wholesale changes incurred through the history of the course. Many good people contributed, including analysts, planners, environmental consultants and our office. It was not prepared in a vacuum ... nor standing at the urinal.
Despite the comment by Joel that somehow my estimate and recent remarks are geared to land the work, that is not only untrue, but it also crosses the border to rudeness. I am in agreement that the assignment at Sharp has nothing to do with our work at Peacock Gap, which is not only obvious, but it strikes again as a comment uncalled for.
While it might be terrific to infuse millions upon millions of dollars to Sharp and other SF courses — the reality is that the work, if ever facilitated, will need to be very efficient and completely unlike the investment in Harding (a site with extreme site issues, 27 holes and the champagne taste of the PGA tour)...and it will need to be far different from the costly re-dos we have seen in the past few decades, as that level of investment simply does not make sense for Sharp if it is to remain a public, affordable golf course. Unless a lottery winner decides to hand over a load of cash, the investment needs to be carefully controlled, metered and creative. It might also unfold over time, which is one reason why the course has becomes so awful — there has been all but zip in capital improvements, no master planning and no long range vision.
I stand by everything I've posted about Sharp. And, I believe it could be a great golf experience even with an investment considerably less than $5 million.