24 Replies to "Will Parks scrap the West Seattle driving range? Review almost done"

• CitizenR January 20, 2011 (6:21 pm)

  Hope not! It was always fun to take the family to the driving range to hit a bag of balls! It was a fun outing and a good time!

• Mike January 20, 2011 (6:40 pm)

  Hopefully this project will be cancelled. Parks should focus on more important issues. In today’s climate focusing limited resources on a driving range is misguided, when we are talking about closing parks due to budget issues. There is a drving range about 10 minutes away at Jefferson.

• clark5080 January 20, 2011 (7:03 pm)

  Mike you are forgetting this is a revenue maker for the parks

• Mike January 20, 2011 (7:15 pm)

  The past revenue generation of this course is not good. If it is about profit then privatize it. I always thought that the purpose of a public course is to allow golf to be accessible to the less that well off, so it would be ran as a minimal, if any, profit maker. Again, better things to be focused on right now.

• lina rose January 20, 2011 (8:51 pm)

  Yup, with budgets getting slashed left and right, i think that community centers and urban forestry are where the fiscal priorities should lie.

• bob c January 20, 2011 (9:30 pm)

  In reply to Mike.

  I have no idea where you come up with the comment that the past revenue generation of this course is not good. The course makes money as does the overall golf operation. In fact within Parks and Rec golf is the only division that is self sustaining and in fact gives 5% of gross revenues to other Parks programs (or at least the general fund-let’s hope they use it wisely) The new driving range at WS would have generated more revenue for golf and indirectly the Parks dept.

  However if in order to do that you would destroy the integrity of the WS Golf Course then I think the net impact would have been negative for golf as a whole.

  I think it is unfortunate that the new golf master plan approved by both the Parks Board and City Council had a major assumption in it that proved to be wrong. It assumed the new range could go where the old range had been but that is simply not true for several reasons, among them construction costs to keep 35th Avenue from sliding into the new range and the obstruction of views from the totem pole lookout and the community up the hill across 35th.

  I do hope the Parks Dept does decide to not ruin the golf course by trying to put a driving range on the 9th fairway and dramatically altering one of the best Municipal golf courses in the country.

  That said, I, and the West Settle Golf Club, fully support the intent of the Golf Master Plan to improve the golf courses and related facilities in the City of Seattle.

  Bob Chamberlain
  President
  West Seattle Golf Club

• Will January 21, 2011 (4:36 am)

  By “destroying the integrity” do you mean “destroying your handicap”? Parks has hired a golf architect to consult and design, they are trying in their best effort to deliver this project. I doubt they would put forth anything that they thought would ruin the course. Golf Architects have integrity also, has the West Seattle Golf Club consulted their own qualified/experienced consultant?

  Please think ahead in the future, past yourselves and think about the youth who won’t care about your fond memories of holes no. 1, 9, etc… A driving range is better for the youth programs and development. So this is a far better outcome for golf.

  Pushing this project away will delay the improvements at other courses and any hopes of the WSG to redevelop the clubhouse. Have you thought about that? Or are you worried about the integrity of that shack as well?

  Please compromise.

• alkikmac January 21, 2011 (4:41 am)

  I think it’s ridiculous that a compromise hasn’t been reached so that we can have a golf course with “integrity” AND a driving range in WS. To evolve, things have to change and I can’t understand how the parks dept. is allowing the West Seattle Golf Club, who are treating this public course as if it’s their own private course, to have so much influence in this decision. It’s shameful and completely against the public good.

• bob c January 21, 2011 (5:28 am)

  So a couple of comments in response to Will and alkikmac

  *I have had calls from 2 other golf course architects who think the proposed changes are not good designs. They have in fact tried to fit the driving range in to the course and everyone of their proposed designs does in fact ruin the integrity of the gold course as designed.

  *Both of you asked if a compromise could be reached. There have been compromises proposed, such as an indoor teacching facility located where the old range was however so far the City has focused on pursuing a full length driving range.

  *The new range at WS is only a part of the overall Golf Master Plan and WSGC is and continues to be a suppoter of that plan. As I said in my earlier post it is unfortunate that the plan had a major assumption that proved to be wrong.

• B-squared January 21, 2011 (6:48 am)

  I’m with you, lina rose. with little park budget available, let’s maintain what we already have, and put money where its benefits are the most broadly felt by the community.

• Ted January 21, 2011 (7:05 am)

  What a disappointment. I personally would love to have a driving range in West Seattle. For many people golf takes practice. West Seattle has a very large population that could use this to learn golf and this sport is in desperate need of a younger generation to grow. It’s too bad some people just can’t deal with change. There are many, many courses around the country that have been redesigned and are still successful. Change and modernization are good. But if the reason is it’s just way to expensive to add a driving range; then I understand.

• alkikmac January 21, 2011 (7:53 am)

  Compromise for a full size driving range and a golf course. We can, and should, have both. Will is right. Think of the future. The future of the game, the future of West Seattle, the new players it will attract (young and old, and the additional revenues that come with new players). Oh wait, you all aren’t really interested in new players on your course, are you? It’s a public course and should have all the facilities available at our other public courses.

• Dunno January 21, 2011 (9:22 am)

  Many of the regulars will leave in mass. Then the casual and youth programs can have the course to themselves.
  Better believe there are many golfing options outside WS Golf Course.
  Bob has done a great job as president of one of the largest mens club in the Northwests.
  I agree 100% with him as many of the close to 800 other member do.
  Do any of you play WS more than 30 times a year and play all winter long?

  If you do, then you know the spring, winter, and fall drainage is a much greater need than a driving range.

• Dunno January 21, 2011 (9:41 am)

  I’m one of the close to 800 that belong to the WS golf course club. Bob is doing a fantastic job as president and represents the majority that belong to the club and play at WS on a regular basis. I agree with Bob 100%!
  I’m all for putting the driving range near 35th as the original plan had it.

  Bottom line, there are many choices of courses to play. Do you play 30 or more times a year and play in the winter. If you do at West Seattle, then you know that in Fall, Winter, and Spring the
  far greater issue is drainage. Put the money there!
  Alki, come out and play tommorow and let me know what you think.

• Will January 21, 2011 (10:08 am)

  Dunno – The drainage issues are a part of the “integrity” of the golf course that your club values… Any fixes would change the course. Agree?

  I just can’t get over the use of “integrity” or “gold” … This is a golf course! I would hate to lose an opportunity for allocated public funds because of these words.

  If we were to compare the number of people that will come to the course with a driving range to the club members that would go elsewhere – who would win? You know that you will piss and moan for awhile but you’ll come back. With the proposed improvements, do you think the other City Muni’s will be better?

• Alki Observer January 21, 2011 (10:17 am)

  I think this is a fun and beautiful course, but I think its a no-brainer to rearrange the course to accommodate the driving range. To me, the benefits for developing new golfers and increasing revenue offered by having a range here in W Seattle far outweigh the negative impacts to the current course “integrity” of holes 1 and 9.

• Chris January 21, 2011 (10:53 am)

  No one is going to leave the course if a driving range is put in. We don’t have another option out here in West Seattle and people will still come even if there is a design change. Kind of like saying you’re going to leave the U.S. if (insert name here) gets elected president.

  The course and driving range will make money. To suggest not building a money maker and instead putting money into projects that are a drain on resources (community centers/urban forestry)is ridiculous. Look at Spokane, they have great city run golf courses that make money and discounts are given to local residents.

• Bailey January 21, 2011 (12:24 pm)

  Maintaining the “integrity” of the WS course is a legitimate concern,but not because it will change the course layout for the regulars. But, I question the meaning of that term in this context. WS golf course has been written up in national press praising it for the fantastic views and layout for an economical public course. Every effort should be made to preserve that. If the architects can squeeze even a small driving range into the layout without affecting the views or the overall feel of the course, they should do it. However, if they have to alter a few holes (i.e., tightening the approach at 9), then do it. I don’t think that has anything to do with the “integrity” of the course. In fact, tightening up a couple of those boundary holes would make it a better (harder) course, if you ask me.

• Jeffrey January 21, 2011 (12:25 pm)

  As a golfer, member of WSGC, and working-class resident of West Seattle, I am personally pleased with the way in which the Seattle Parks Dept. has conducted the review of this project, as well as the amount of public participation and input. Affordable public golf courses of this caliber are relatively rare, and we are fortunate to have a municipal system that offers such quality, accessibility, and variety. I am glad the Parks Dept. is measuring twice before the cut is made.
  While I also enjoy and benefit from the use of driving range facilities, they are vastly more common and of far less overall value to public golfers than that of a world class course, and we already have several ranges available to us.
  Flood lights, nets, and artificial turf can be built many places, but do not really compare well with the real thing. Ask any of the kids that are starting up the game. They can’t wait to get out on the real grass and challenges of a good course. After all, it they who will inherit what we decide and build. Consider the future probability of building another course of this size and quality within the city limits? Not likely…
  Perhaps a better use of the funds would be to research and implement sustainable and environmentally sound management practices throughout the system to reduce water usage, energy consumption, use of chemicals, and ultimately cost of operation. Those are the types of changes we have an obligation to make.

• 01Coug January 21, 2011 (2:43 pm)

  Jeffrey,
  You really should go talk to the WSGC superintendent, or any of the other superintendents, and educate yourself before assuming that he needs to do the things you’ve mentioned. As a vendor to all the city courses I can tell you that all 4 superintendents have had their staffs and budgets cut back drastically. Some of their equipment pre-dates me (I’m 33). They are extremely judicial in their use of water, chemicals, energy, etc. Because the park system is squeezing out every dollar they can from the golf courses and not putting anything back to the point where they can’t afford to use an excess in any of the areas you’ve mentioned. As a graduate with a BS in Crop Science with an emphasis in turf management, a former assistant golf course superintendent, and member of the golf course maintenance proffession for the last 16 years it really burns my a$$ to hear self riteous so called “environmentalists” talk about how golf courses need to “cut back” on this and come up with “sustainable plans” for that. It is the height of ignorance to say golf courses and their managers are being careless and using excessive resources. First of all it’s not cost effective nor does it help playing conditions to use anything whether it be chemicals, energy, or water in excess. I can tell you from first hand, candid conversations over the last 4 years the superintendents at Seattle’s City courses are doing a great job and managing what little resources they have incredibly well. Without the city actually putting some money back into these REVENUE creating entities you will see a decline in quality and the “integrity” of all 4 golf facilities in the not too distant future. The driving range will make money, which means more revenue for the parks department which is struggling mightly. The driving range is a no-brainer. I’ve worked at 7 different golf facilities and at just about all of them, including a high end club on the east coast, minor to major changes were made to the golf course. In every instance there were certain individuals that said the golf course would “lose” something. In every single instance, within 6 months those people were never heard from again and the new character of the course was warmly received. Time goes forward and things change. A change at WSGC doesn’t have to be a negative.

• Build it and the will Come January 21, 2011 (4:33 pm)

  It would be great to have a driving range in West Seattle. Yes, there is Jefferson but:

  1. it is not in W. Seattle
  2. There is often quite a wait (esp when the weather is nice)
  3. it is not in W. Seattle

  IMHO, this is the best of the 3 city courses and all that is missing is a practice facility.

  As for the others saying for money to go elsewhere, city forestry, etc. I’m pretty sure the city golf courses are the only parks you have to pay to use.

  BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME……

• Build it and they will Come January 21, 2011 (4:34 pm)

  It would be great to have a driving range in West Seattle. Yes, there is one at Jefferson but:

  1. it is not in W. Seattle
  2. There is often quite a wait (esp when the weather is nice)
  3. it is not in W. Seattle

  IMHO, this is the best of the 3 city courses and all that is missing is a practice facility.

  As for the others saying for money to go elsewhere, city forestry, etc. I’m pretty sure the city golf courses are the only parks you have to pay to use.

  BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME……

• Alki golfer January 23, 2011 (1:48 pm)

  There are about 100,000 people who live in West Seattle. Smaller towns in Washington have their own courses and ranges. Premeir Golf has done a decent job of running the courses for the City of Seattle. I imagine they had recommendations about this project but I don’t what they were. Does anybody know what PG had to say about it?

• dexter January 24, 2011 (12:56 am)

  I so look forward to seeing 10 or 20 new giant 70ft steel poles being put up just to suspend a net. Can’t wait to bring my kids to see that artistic wonder :P

Sorry, comment time is over.