Swilken Bridge

[Mark Chaplin]

I cannot post pictures so hopefully someone will but there’s a storm brewing in St Andrews over changes around the Swilken Bridge. Personally i think it looks awful.


St Andrews Photo Corner on FB has a couple of pictures.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It does look absolutely awful. It was a misjudged solution to a problem that needed fixed. I am sure it will get reversed.

[Marty Bonnar]

Is David Jones (UK Golf Guy on Twitter) a poster here? He’s got some pics of it.
F.


PS a link: [size=78%]https://t.co/XDljucNB5z[/size]

[Thomas Dai]

To paraphrase KC3, “.. a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend”.

Atb

[Tony_Muldoon]

People are having fun with photobucket hope its reversed before someone actually takes selfies of  their bar b que on the new approach.

[Peter Sayegh]

Never been there.

Serious question: Why?
That patch of earth isn't in play for any bad shot, is it? Had it become a dangerous entrance for the inevitable photos?

[Cal Seifert]

[Tommy Williamsen]

Never been there.

Serious question: Why?
That patch of earth isn't in play for any bad shot, is it? Had it become a dangerous entrance for the inevitable photos?

You're right. It really isn't in play except for a dreadful shot into 17, but it looks monstrous.

[MCirba]

Egads.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What's worse: the new patio or the misspelling of one of the most famous bridges (THE most famous bridge?) in golf? 

(The patio is horrendous. What the heck?)

[Kevin_Reilly]

If you are going to make a post about spelling, then probably best to choose a subject that doesn't have multiple accepted spellings.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you are going to make a post about spelling, then probably best to choose a subject that doesn't have multiple accepted spellings.

Pffffffft. But, sure, okay.

[Marty Bonnar]

The Swilken Bridge was originally the road bridge over the burn with the walking bridge just being called the ‘Golfers Bridge’. I’m sure someone will come up with other evidence though. It’s all a rather inexact science…

[Brian_Ewen]

WTF?

[Sean Walsh]

On the plus side it’s not as offensive as the additional bunkers on #2

[Sean_A]

I am surprised the bridge isn't protected in some way under planning. The patio looks dreadful. The ironic thing is if that stonework was always there nobody would give it a second thought. The stonework path used to extend further, beyond the bridge. Not sure when it was removed.

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Never been there.

Serious question: Why?
That patch of earth isn't in play for any bad shot, is it? Had it become a dangerous entrance for the inevitable photos?

Peter the turf around the bridge was unsightly due to the sheer number of people having photographs taken, of which I’d estimate 5% or less are golfers actually playing the course. It’s a very busy spot.

[Brian Moran]

It was probably not the best solution to the problem, but the angle the pictures are being taken at is taking it out of proportion. I walk past it every day and it's not very noticeable.


But the most offensive part that nobody is mentioning is how the stones they put down are nowhere close to matching the ones on the actual bridge which looks really dumb.

[Kyle Harris]

"Why doesn't anyone get into golf maintenance anymore?"
-Well, first we're going to overuse and abuse something to show off we were there and then we're going to criticize the solution.

[David Jones]

Is David Jones (UK Golf Guy on Twitter) a poster here? He’s got some pics of it.
F.


PS a link: [size=78%]https://t.co/XDljucNB5z[/size]

Here's the shots I put up on Twitter yesterday



This one, which Brian Ewen has posted already, is probably a more representative angle -



And this one -



The Dundee Courier have sent their own photographer with a proper camera and everything!






Apparently the bridge is a grade B listed building and it looks like permission wasn't obtained for the work. Had they done so there would have been a) a decision on whether the footprint was appropriate and b) instruction as to the material to be used. If it is true that the Links Trust didn't get approval then that's very poor of them. Golf Digest have laid the blame firmly at the door of the R&A which says a lot about their journalistic standards.

As for Eric's assertion that the bridge is spelt wrong I think others have dealt with that. I have always been a Swilken man. Although Marty makes the pertinent point that this bridge, historically, was named the Golfer's Bridge. It probably didn't work as well for marketing purposes though.

I can't remember once walking over the bridge and either thinking, or hear someone else mention, the state of the turf on the walk up. Having said that I can understand why they may want to do something. There have been various solutions tried over the years so hopefully when they take this down the Links Trust will come up with something that works. I am sure theywould be more than happy to receive and ideas from this community!

[Sean_A]

Is David Jones (UK Golf Guy on Twitter) a poster here? He’s got some pics of it.
F.


PS a link: [size=78%]https://t.co/XDljucNB5z[/size]

Here's the shots I put up on Twitter yesterday



This one, which Brian Ewen has posted already, is probably a more representative angle -



And this one -



The Dundee Courier have sent their own photographer with a proper camera and everything!






Apparently the bridge is a grade B listed building and it looks like permission wasn't obtained for the work. Had they done so there would have been a) a decision on whether the footprint was appropriate and b) instruction as to the material to be used. If it is true that the Links Trust didn't get approval then frankly they deserve a good kicking. Golf Digest have laid the blame firmly at the door of the R&A which says a lot about their journalistic standards.

As for Eric's assertion that the bridge is spelt wrong I think others have dealt with that. I have always been a Swilken man. Although Marty makes the pertinent point that this bridge, historically, was named the Golfer's Bridge. It probably didn't work as well for marketing purposes though.

I can't remember once walking over the bridge and either thinking, or hear someone else mention, the state of the turf on the walk up. Having said that I can understand why they may want to do something. There have been various solutions tried over the years so hopefully when they take this down the Links Trust will come up with something that works. I am sure theywould be more than happy to receive and ideas from this community!

There's another 10 quid tacked onto the greenfee. The Trust pays for nothing. It's tourist who pay 😕.

I said before that I would be very surprised if the bridge isn't protected by some level of planning.

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

The Links Trust have issued this PR on their website today:
https://standrews.com/articles/swilcan_bridge_approach_works


The spelling controversy continues! 

[David Jones]

The Links Trust have issued this PR on their website today:
https://standrews.com/articles/swilcan_bridge_approach_works

This seems a little defensive - 'For the avoidance of doubt, we can categorically state that no works have been undertaken to the bridge itself. The ongoing works are solely focussed on the turfed approach area to the bridge'.


It will be interesting to see if that works with the authorities. I'm pretty sure you need permission to build an extension onto a historic building.

[Marty Bonnar]

The Links Trust have issued this PR on their website today:
https://standrews.com/articles/swilcan_bridge_approach_works

This seems a little defensive - 'For the avoidance of doubt, we can categorically state that no works have been undertaken to the bridge itself. The ongoing works are solely focussed on the turfed approach area to the bridge'.


It will be interesting to see if that works with the authorities. I'm pretty sure you need permission to build an extension onto a historic building.

David,
Given many of the Trustees represent the ‘authorities’ - either the Scottish Government or Fife Council, it is mind-boggling (but not in the least surprising given their previous history!) that they have gone ahead with this without any planning consultation.
I predict a massive back-pedal…
F.

[Tim Martin]

Anyone have a photo of the turf before the change? Is it basically for aesthetics?