West Seattle Golf Course driving range: 3rd meeting, new ideas

  

Story and photos by Jason Grotelueschen
Reporting for West Seattle Blog
   

Almost 100 people packed the clubhouse Wednesday night for the third community meeting about the West Seattle Golf Course’s future driving range, as the project team unveiled a refined design they say was developed in response to numerous “environmental concerns, golf concerns, and neighborhood concerns” raised in the previous two meetings.  

According to project architect Todd Schroeder, the new design (pictured above, full PDF version here) boasts a 300-yard full-size “double-loaded” driving range with 50 stalls, and a short-game practice facility and learning center.  To accommodate it, some changes would be necessary to the surrounding holes — #1 would get a new green (otherwise largely unchanged), #8 would be converted to a “mammoth par 5” (570+ yards in length at the white tees, playable up to 655 yards for special events), and an entirely new #9 would be constructed adjacent to Camp Long.   

Schroeder noted that the new #9 hole would be a downhill par 3 with an “amazing view of downtown Seattle from the teebox,” and that the tops of the driving range’s tall net poles (previously considered to be a major community concern) would still be “below the grade” of 35th Ave SW even at their highest point (120 feet).    

Reaction to the new proposal was mixed, with some audience members lauding the project team for a “fantastic job” and a “world-class design,” but many others saying the project “isn’t worth it” and “should just go away” primarily because it does include changes to the 70-year-old golf course. One attendee called the proposal a “bait-and-switch” because such changes to the holes themselves weren’t considered to be part of the original plan as envisioned in the city’s Golf Master Plan (which indicated that the #1 golf priority city-wide was a “high-quality driving range in West Seattle,” according to the project team.)  

 

The first public proposal (WSB August report) was scrapped by the time the second proposal was announced (WSB September report), and the latter proposal received strong criticism from area golfers because of the impact to the existing course.  

According to the design team (bios here), the latest proposal meets the objective of bringing a top-tier driving range to West Seattle while minimizing environmental impacts, being a “good neighbor” in the community, and allowing for course improvements.  

Garrett Farrell from the Parks Department made it clear that the design team continues to take feedback from all concerned parties, but that the current proposal is “the best approach we think is possible at this time.” However, when asked by an audience member if this meant that “there will definitely be a driving range in West Seattle,” Farrell responded that “no, that wouldn’t be a true statement at this time.” Schroeder noted that the current design “is a concept, not a plan” and that the community’s feedback is crucial to the team’s ongoing work.  

UPDATE 11:58pm: At the meeting, West Seattle Golf Club president Bob Chamberlain read the text of a letter (posted on the club’s website) sent to Farrell after he had given a preview of the latest design to Chamberlain and the WSGC Board of Directors earlier this month. In the letter, the board thanked Farrell and the team for their efforts, but ultimately were unable to support the new idea:  

…it was unanimously agreed by a vote of the Board that, while of course we are generally in favor of a practice facility at West Seattle, we do not support any option which changes the character of the course so drastically, nor can we support any option not fully funded at its inception.
On behalf of the 704 members of the West Seattle Golf Club we thank you for your efforts and look forward to continuing to work with you throughout the process.
 

In response to these and other budget-related concerns, Farrell and Schroeder acknowledged that the current design is “slightly over” the $2.5 million project budget, but is “extremely close” and that they’ll continue to work to bridge the gap. They also emphasized that the new driving range would be a “revenue-driver” for the golf course.   

Attendees asked the design team several questions wondering if particular options had been considered for implementing the driving range without majorly impacting the surrounding holes. In almost all cases, the answer from the team was “yes,” and many of the designs that explored those iterative options were on display for attendees to view: 

 

Consultant Bob Thorpe talked about many of the high-level goals of the project, and referred to two posterboards that listed those objectives and details: 

UPDATE Thursday 10:40 am: Additional meeting notes added to the story, below.

From a big-picture perspective, all three design team members talked about the importance of the project. Thorpe said that because this is the first project addressed by the Golf Master Plan, it needs to be “a successful model we can carry forward.” Schroeder said the course has always been something for “West Seattle to be proud of” and that any changes to the course needed to “maintain the character” of the course. Farrell described his role as “delivering the best possible solution that makes the most of your tax dollars, with a cost-benefit that makes sense.”

One attendee said it was “nice to hear passion about golf in the community, especially at a municipal course.” He complemented the design team on their work, and said that it’s good to see the driving range idea being considered as a revenue generator because “if we don’t increase revenues, the $35-40 greens fees we love will eventually become $60.”

Several attendees with ties to Camp Long were in attendance, and talked about the relationship between the camp and the golf course. The new #9 hole would sit in the “buffer zone” with Camp Long, but with “lower impacts and smarter design” than in previous proposals, according to the design team. Farrell noted that he hopes that the collaboration between local golfers and camp users continues, and gets stronger.  

Schroeder said the latest design puts the new #9 hole in a spot that had previously been considered for part of the driving range. The area was problematic for the range idea because of wetlands in the area, but “it’s actually fantastic for an interesting par 3 golf hole, with great views.” He noted that the new design does have “a disconnect” of considerable distance between the #8 green and the #9 teebox — he described it as a 250-yard trek, with 12% elevation. Several meeting attendees raised concerns about that distance, and there were some discussions about other courses that have holes with similar distance between them.

Other common concerns raised by many meeting attendees:

Change in par: The latest proposal would move the course to a par 71 (an improvement from the par 70 in the previous design, but still one shy of the “standard” par 72). Schroeder said that there might be an opportunity to “get that stroke back” with some changes on the back 9, but noted that among the top 100 courses in the country, there are a lot of them with sub-72 par. Several audience members agreed that it wasn’t crucial to maintain the 72, but was more important to end up with the best possible course. Others stated that it would be nice to maintain the 72, and Schroeder agreed. “The new proposal actually plays longer,” he said, “and presents some nice challenges for golfers. But we’re not looking to drastically change the difficulty.”

Finish what we start: Farrell and Schroeder said the latest design, while slightly over budget at the moment (they’re working on that), now involves phases of construction that would allow for the course to remain playable even while the project is underway. In this respect, the course continues to generate revenue while still serving golfers in the area. Some attendees spoke in favor of this, while others were concerned that having “phases” in a project that’s not fully-funded from the start might leave the course with an unfinished project, which prompted several comments about “The Hole” on Fauntleroy (WSB coverage here). Without hesitation, Farrell said “we have no intention of stopping this project halfway through,” saying that the team is working hard to get solid estimates and meet the budget –- “This process is happening right now. We’ve had numbers flowing to our team via Blackberries tonight while we were here setting up for the meeting.” Other attendees noted that in 1969, adjacent property was supposed to go toward additional course real estate, but that never happened – Farrell said he’s well aware of the history of “promises not delivered” and intends to be sure that doesn’t happen. If the project moves forward, construction would likely start in summer 2011, with the project completed in 2012. “Exactly when we finish would depend on a lot of factors related to the various phases,” Farrell said.

Why not put the $2.5 million into improvements?: Some audience members wondered aloud if the allocated money would be better spent toward improvements to the existing course, such as better drainage (marshy and muddy areas being a common concern for the course) or enhancements to the clubhouse. The team reiterated that the larger goal is to put a driving range on the course, and the budget needs to be used for that –- but Schroeder added that “we can make a lot of drainage improvements and other positive changes along the way.” One attendee did praise the design team for the overall improvement added by the new #9 hole, saying “that hole might instantly become the best, coolest hole on the course!”

Better parking: One attendee asked about the team’s plans to add/improve parking at the course, “since we’re talking about adding a Riverbend/Interbay-style golf learning center, which will bring a lot of new golfers.”  Thorpe said that the team has a dedicated traffic engineer, Dave Markley, who has worked on major sports venues and has West Seattle roots. Thorpe said “there will be a transportation plan,” and Farrell noted that the parking area’s longstanding dual-function as a park-and-ride would also come into play. “If everyone parking there was actually golfing or at the stadium watching football, it wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s not the case,” Farrel said.

Does a range belong here?: Variations of this question were asked many times by attendees, drawing applause in response to some of the more passionate pleas. One man said that he could see that Farrell was “stuck in the middle on this, and just trying to do your job,” but noted that “very few people here tonight, or who I’ve talked to, are in favor of this. Why change our golf course, which gets lots of awards and recognition, just to make this happen?” Schroeder, the course architect, noted that the latest proposal makes several improvements to the course infrastructure (including drainage) while still maintaining the character. Farrell emphasized that the Golf Master Plan, completed in 2009, was based largely on input from surrounding communities and golfers –- and that the #1 city-wide goal was to put a driving range in West Seattle. Several people in attendance questioned that (“well, they didn’t talk to us”), and Farrell acknowledged that those concerns are prevalent and the team is listening. Other attendees questioned the need for a “full-size” 300-yard range, saying that a 200-yard range with tall nets (or an “irons-only” range) would suffice, and would allow for minimal changes to the course layout. Others reiterated comments from past meetings that the range at Jefferson golf course is not far away, and people who really want to use a range would drive there. A few people spoke out in support of the team’s direction, though, with one man saying that “nobody likes change, but this is good change – these people know what they’re doing, and they’re improving our golf course.”

Farrell got a good laugh from the crowd when asked if the driving range project truly had to move forward, and whether “doing nothing” was an option. “I work for the city,” Farrell said with a smile. “Doing nothing is always an option.” He was quick to point out, however, that his job is to move the project forward, and the goal clearly stated in the Golf Master Plan is to build a driving range in West Seattle. “We don’t plan to fold up our tent and leave,” he said, “and we need to move forward with the best possible solution.”

16 Replies to "West Seattle Golf Course driving range: 3rd meeting, new ideas"

  • bub October 28, 2010 (9:30 am)

    Leave the course alone! Didn’t they hear that overwhelming member preference the first time? Forget the diving range or make it smaller or put in a short game facility … OR KEEP THE MONEY. But, don’t change the course! It’s a gem and not worth forcing a change just to spend this money.

  • Jeff October 28, 2010 (10:11 am)

    As an occasional player, I agree. Don’t change the course. I’d love a range so close, but not at the expense of the existing design.

  • jay October 28, 2010 (11:42 am)

    This seems like a fabulous opportunity for the city and the parks department. They budgeted $2.5 million for this project, yet the golfers seem to have decided they don’t actually want it afterall. I’m sure there are other parks users and worthy projects that would love the money.

  • foy boy October 28, 2010 (2:25 pm)

    Take the 2.5mill and use it to keep our officers on horse back program going. Or build a park and ride in west seattle. It is hard to believe that or mayor says the city is broke but there’s still money for new toys.

  • Robert2715 October 28, 2010 (2:44 pm)

    Hey, a few blocks up the street there’s this big hole… Just put a net over the top of it and you have the most unique driving range in the world!

  • Max October 28, 2010 (3:02 pm)

    Personally I think this is a horrible option.

    I’m all for a driving range, for the utility and the revenue, but not at the expense of the golf course. For a golf course that already takes way too-long to play, adding a 10-minute walk straight up hill between the eighth green and nine tee is ridiculous. Furthermore, by changing eight to a long par-five, nine to a very long par-three, and adding another long walk to the 10th tee, you’ve just slowed down the pace of play even more.

    If you have to blow up part of the golf course to make the range fit, then start with the poorly designed finishing holes, where you have a chance to actually make an improvement to the course while also accomplishing the goal of building a range. Or accept the limitations of the property and invest the money elsewhere.

  • Dennis D October 28, 2010 (3:17 pm)

    New range takes away character from course.

    I think what was lost from last night’s mtg was the fact that the new proposed location of the range completely removes the signature Par 5 No. 9. This hole alone adds so much character to this course. In my opinion, the first 14 holes of WSCG are nearly perfect. So much thought was taken into designing the course with the golfer in mind. Character is the main reason golfers want to play WSCG. The fairways are troublesome and at the same time fair. Golfers are rewarded with good shots. The new range with alter this drastically. No. 1 is gonna play very narrow with little bailout area. No. 9 is located out of position (almost as an after-thought) with the rest of front holes. Changing to downhill Par 3 instead of the memorable tough dogleg Par 5 will definitely take away much character to the course.

    In my opinion, if the new plans can accommodate the new Par 3 No. 9, then the plan should be able to accommodate a much smaller Non-state of the art driving range. Say 15-20 stall across, netted to 250 yrs. Make it happen here!

    I think city has lost its way from original idea of giving the golfers of WSGC an additional no-nonsense driving range area and instead designing a “State of the Art Practice Facility” for the future. In doing so, destoys the main reason golfers come here in the first place. We shouldn’t try to become Interbay, because no golfer goes to Interbay to play golf, they go there to practice golf. WSGC should be for playing golf FIRST, and for practice SECOND.

  • Mike October 28, 2010 (3:50 pm)

    I have neither heard nor read many comments wanting to change the course to accommodate the huge driving range except from the City and the well paid consultants. Does everyone realize there will be huge nets, lights and poles along the new unnecessarily long 8th hole.. And the long trek up to the new 9th tee is rewarded by a view of the city but also a view of the lighted big driving range and all the sounds that come with it…

    Use the money to build a new clubhouse, new rest rooms on the course, especially for the ladies, improve the bad drainage on many holes and add a new putting and chipping area up where the proposed new 9th is planned. Anything else is a waste of tax dollars..

  • Cry Baby October 28, 2010 (5:17 pm)

    The Homeless Settlement will look nice at the golf course.

  • marty October 28, 2010 (6:08 pm)

    Just put a small rang where the old one was and call it good enough.

  • Bill October 29, 2010 (4:24 am)

    This site was not a part of the original Request for Proposal in which the design team was selected. Parks was so adamant that the original site must be built on. I feel like Parks is now stuck with this non-local design team that wants to come in and change this great course. You want me to walk up hill to play a 233 yard Par 3 ninth hole? No thanks. Removing trees to change the 14th hole? How does this take into “Environmental considerations”??? I thought moving the location would save money, but they are overbudget? Huh?

  • Ted October 29, 2010 (9:10 am)

    I could live with the redesigned 8th and 9th hole with the walk uphill if the design included completely redoing number 16. Otherwise, try and fit a smaller range in and do a shorter 9th hole par 3 south of the range so there isn’t a long walk from 8 to 9.

  • OP October 29, 2010 (11:38 am)

    I’m so disappointed that I’ve been unable to attend a single one of these meetings due to personal scheduling conflicts, but I have to say I’m intrigued by the proposed redesign of the course.

    Great courses can change—and often for the better. Harding Park in San Francisco is a wonderful example of taking a classic muni and turning it into a course where PGA Tour events and major championships can held. WSG should have no such ambitions given the limited amount of property available, but it is a fantastic muni.

    Here are my thoughts for the course:

    1. A range is a must. But 300 yards? That’s always been too long, IMHO. 250 yards with a taller back fence is plenty. To the maybe 5% (probably less) who could fly it over a tall fence, have it. I’m 7.4 handicapper and I rarely can poke it over the fence at Riverbend. And here’s why I like the 250 distance. I agree with Dennis D. here: Emphasis should be on play, not practice. And a huge range is not a necessity—even though it would likely generate more revenue, which is a good thing.

    2. The proposed new par 3 is a disconnect from the architect’s course design and aesthetic. Just a thought: Keep #8 as is; it’s a very good and challenging hole. THEN, push the #9 tee back toward the 8th green and turn #9 into a long-ish par 4, adding bunkers to pinch tee shots to make the hole more difficult. (Yeah this would turn WSG in par 71, but so what? 72 is standard, but again, many great courses are par 71 or even 70 courses, so that argument doesn’t hold water.) Speaking of water, improving drainage better be a part of any design modifications to holes 8 and 9.

    3. The design change to #1 is a great idea. Turning that hole into a slight dog leg left and bringing the bunker into play more is a really good idea.

    Some other thoughts around improving the course should money be left over:

    –on #16: Regrade and reshape the fairway to accept, hold and reward good, straight tee shots. As is, nearly every ball hit straight feeds sharply to the left and often over the path. Ridiculous.

    –on #14 and #16, re-shape the greens to be less punishing and perhaps larger. The false fronts to punish short shots are fine. However, the greens unfairly slope back to front so much so that good shots aren’t rewarded. Putting these two greens in summer is…well, ridiculous. This is a muni, not Chambers Bay. Right now, these two holes slow up play and reduces scoring opportunities. If length is an issue, push the tees back.

    In my fantasy world, I’d also love to see improvements to the clubhouse and bathrooms, which are in desperate need of attention.

    I’d really like to see the range move forward while keeping Egan’s original design largely intact.

  • deb October 30, 2010 (4:10 am)

    just a thought.
    keep 8/9 the same.
    move 10 tee box to 17
    enlarge 17 to accomodate a double tee box.
    remove need be trees over gully.
    move 10 green closer to 2 tee box.
    move 1 tee to existing 10 tee.
    move 1 fairway towards 10 and have a small dogleg right to existing 1 green.
    install range in existing 1 fairway.
    say good bye to a beautiful view of Mt. Rainier.
    seems to be least amount of work and cost.
    course stays a par 72.

  • Mark October 31, 2010 (2:44 am)

    The 3rd mtg last Wed got me really thinking. Decision time is getting closer, the desire of the City to add a revenue-sourece is unrelenting, and the resistance of most golfers to changes to our truly wonderful golf course is intense as ever. So I read this blog entirely and I went today (Sat) in the pouring rain to the Rotary Overlook (for the first time), to Interbay, to Jeff Park, and to the course itself to objectively try and evaluate the options. In the spirit of trying to compromise and keep things moving (I know Chandler Egan is rolling over in his grave), here goes:
    PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE 3rd MEETING
    A. 1st Hole
    1. There is a nice buffer of 30-40 ft tall trees between the 1st and 9th holes. We need to insure the driving range in the 9th fairway does not require cutting down those trees. Those trees will minimize greatly the sight impact of the driving range poles/netting when standing at the clubhouse.
    2. Don’t make the 1st fairway too narrow!
    This will require i)reducing the range from the current 50 stalls (25 and 25) to 40 (20 and 20) ii) angling the driving range more NE to SW than a pure N to S iii) reducing the range length to 250 feet. This will also help the slicers – what a drag it would be to have your 1st hole tee shot slice into the screen.
    3. The new 1st hole green-Insure it’s constructed and positioned correctly, as the 2nd hole tee box will be more exposed to errant 1st hole approach shots.
    B. New par-5 8th – I like it. Just make sure (as the speaker said he would) that the approach is evened out to take out the humps of the old 8th green and the old 9th tee box.
    C. New par-3 9th
    1. I’m not so sure about the view from the tee box. There are approx 6 super tall 100 ft trees right along the entrance way to the course that block the view. Will these trees be trimmed?
    2. The 250 yard 12% grade from 8th green to 9th tee – if you can walk the course now and handle the 14th and 16th, you should be able to handle this. It’s an issue, though. Redmond Ridge has a similar situation (from the 15th to the 16th) and it’s tough.
    D. To handle the par-71 issue, just extend the 14th to a par-5. The tips today are already 475 yards, so just move the tee boxes back there. This is a slam dunk – barely any money is required. And we’re back to a par-72.

    DEB’S IDEA
    Moving the 10th tee box to be shared with the 17th tee box, and moving the 1st tee box to the 10th tee box, is intriguing.
    A. For the revised 1st hole, to create a fairway you would need to remove some trees that lie between the 1st and 10th fairways. The range in the 1st fairway would need to be 200 yards, max 225, and max 40 stalls for there to be enough room for the revised 1st fairway.
    B. For the revised 10th hole tee (sharing with the 17th tee), shooting over the gully (after removing quite a few trees) would make an exciting tee shot, a lot like #12’s gully. Problem: the fairway landing area from the new tee angle would be just like #16 fairway – The fairway slope would force all balls hard to the left. Perhaps re-grading the fairway could help this.
    C. The 10th green might not need to be moved. It could become the “almost drivable” 10th for long hitters, since you lose about 30 yards by moving the tee to be shared with the 17th. Or you could move the 10th green to the SW by about 20-30 yards as Deb suggests. This though would put the green in serious striking zone from errant #2 tee shots.
    D. The biggest issue with Deb’s idea is that the range is in the 1st fairway, and it would dominate the view from the clubhouse. But overall Deb has offered a serious option, and definitely the lowest cost and least disuptive to the current course. 8 and 9 remain unchanged, and the flow of the course from green to tees remains unchanged (except for a little longer walk from the 9th green to the 10th tee).

  • deb October 31, 2010 (11:53 am)

    another thought.
    would it be possible to dig below existing
    grade on 1 tee and practice putting green?
    if so, 1st driving range stalls could be hidden below grade.
    this way the view of Mt. Rainier could be
    partially saved.
    2nd row ground level with no building structure.(except for stalls)
    regrade existing 1 fairway to slope uphill with new drainage.
    move regrade material to new 1 and 10 fairways.
    nets would not have to be so high,
    since now we have a double decker with
    only the 2nd level being visible from ground level.
    lower level for irons only.
    ground level for long irons and woods.
    lower level would have mats.
    upper/ground level could have real grass all year long.
    just a thought

Sorry, comment time is over.