> Golf Course Architecture

Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

<< < (30/223) > >>

Jon Wiggett:

--- Quote from: Kris Shreiner on April 30, 2016, 07:03:24 AM ---No Jon, I  never felt that Dornoch specialness was always going to disappear. It doesn' have to, and that's the point.
There are places that continue to get it right in the modern era. The key is a solid respecting of what has provided that specialness and not selling out!
It's been a fantastic place to visit for golf, or do about anything on offer up there, since the 1880's!
  But when you blow something up, out of scale from that which is practical, that's where it all goes wrong.
As to there being confident in protections in MUST be joking.
Balmedie was a poster child for gross abuse of any legitimate
 " process " at all.
And all you need to do is look at that Scottish Wildcat's plight to recognize your confidence in that purported protection is laughable.
You are not alone. Most folks hit the jobs  justification button every time.
So in the end, the need to make money trumps all.
Case closed. Before it even started.
Three cheers for progress,

--- End quote ---


really, that is so lame to even try that. If you bothered to read what I have written then you might give a balanced and appropriate response.


Kris Shreiner:
Thanks for injecting a very salient point when referencing Mr. Muir. He was basically a naturalist nomad. He spoke of preserving places he visited! He wasn't even ever a member. Imagine the howls he'd get on here....impudent Scot!

It's not a question of the development team. They are great.
It's the wrong site! On a couple of scores. But as Balmedie proved, with the mouldy carrot of economic gain...they found a way to part the dunes.
And what is the chalice being held up at Coul Links. The same mouldy carrot of economic gain. See, it doesn't matter if the hand holding it is divine, a way is always found to see it approved. The verdict is preordained before the process even starts. It's bogus.

As to Pebble Beach, nice try. You don't know squat about what went on when I was there. But I'll share...I lived it.
That was about my 5th stop as a full-time caddie. It was the best, and ONLY place in the world when I started there, that a caddie could make a living YEAR round without seasonal moving.
Your claim I could work at 50 other courses really takes the cake. You are now telling me where I could have worked. Are you me sir? I believe that is about the most clueless statement I have ever read on GCA. And that is really saying something!
The quality of life there, given my outdoor pursuits, was superb.
I'm a bit of a foodie, and like a solid bottle of wine when the spirit moves me.
There isn't another area on the planet that can touch the concentration of either better than the Monterey Bay.
That coastal area is stunning and still very wild in most places.
They have mountain lions moving thru that Del Monte Forest. And everything else.
You can dis it all you want. Sure it's over the top, but they haven't destroyed their environment.
Big Sur is as far from Pebble Beach as Embo is from Dornoch. You couldn't dare put a course there. They get don't!

When I first got there,  PB  wasn"t cheap, but it was not extortionate either. The round was $275.00 and the caddie rate, with a good tip, was $60.00 per bag. Hardly a savage bite.
Remember also, California has one of the highest cost of living in the world. Gas, even then, was not far off $4 per gallon.
My early years there,  the place still had a cool vibe. Busy, but
having a relaxed, low key feel.
But then, you guessed it, the beancounters got mercenary, with ownership changing a couple of times, finishing with the current American owners who took the kill and bill mentality to really offensive levels.
You have NO idea how diffiicult it was for me to stomach what I saw happen there.
They ruined it, and much to the absolute amazement of my fellow caddies, I left!
But I hung in there as long as I did, because I loved taking players around the courses, especially Spyglass, which was my home course. It STiLL has a private, understated rightness. Totally different setting than PB.

I was one of the top guys there. No one had more repeat clients, or request work. I took care of my players.  For me it was all about the golf. And well paid for my efforts.

 I spoke up more than most. I certainly did NOT hide my feelings. Believe it or not, you can have a strong constitution and still keep your job.

Actually got some positive things done there with some other engaged caddies.
By 2002, I'd had enough. Yes. Ian....2002! They made the terrible call to bring in the wretched outsource outfit, and there was no way I was working for them.
So I left, and returned to doing more landscape design work back East.
I find your associating my time on the Peninsula with this thread about as convoluted as it gets. Pebble opened in 1919.
What role could I possibly have had in the evolution of that course and area.
Because I worked at a place once that wasn't some model you identify as acceptable for me, I'm a hypocrite?
By the way, there is plenty of golf in California. And it is quite dry there frequently. It would be irresponsible to put more golf on the coast, except on a redo, or  repurposed site from my view.
So you can call me a hypocrite if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that Embo site is the last place the not Coul Links should be going.
Three cheers for hypocrisy!

Niall C:

--- Quote from: Kris Shreiner on May 01, 2016, 01:14:53 AM --- But as Balmedie proved, with the mouldy carrot of economic gain...they found a way to part the dunes.
And what is the chalice being held up at Coul Links. The same mouldy carrot of economic gain. See, it doesn't matter if the hand holding it is divine, a way is always found to see it approved. The verdict is preordained before the process even starts. It's bogus.

--- End quote ---


As someone who was against the Balmedie project in the form it took, and also someone who is involved in the property business in Scotland I have to say your comment above about it being preordained is bollocks. The project may well get planning permission, and judging by the way they seem to be going about it, I'd be surprised if they didn't, but to suggest that its already a done deal just shows ignorance of the system. Either that or a lack of respect for those involved that does you no credit.


Kris Shreiner:
I want to respect the process. When do they ever say no when that economic gain is in play?


Niall C:

While not strictly a planning consideration (as far as I'm aware) plenty of developers will promote the economic case. Sometimes it will be the focal point of their case, at least in terms of how they present in public, but it doesn't follow that planning will be granted because of perceived or alleged economic benefits to the community at large.

That said, each local planning authority publishes periodically a local development plan that links in with central government planning guidelines. The local development plan will be in plan form with planning guidelines/policy attached. I haven't seen the local plan for this site (it's a published document so should be on line somewhere) but imagine that the land might be zoned as being safeguarded for Open Space (or something similar) with at least part designated as SSSI.

That does not mean you can't develop the land but there are guidelines/policy as to how you might go about it (subject to being granted planning permission).

As an example I'm looking at a site at present that sits on a river as it meets the sea and is part links and part rolling countryside with a wetlands area that is a haven for birds and other wildlife. From my very early initial discussions with the planners they have expressed a level of support for the idea of two golf courses. One skirting and effectively circling the wetlands area and the other on the links. The planners are broadly supportive because they recognise that a minimalist style (ie. limited earth moving, no tree planting) course would help protect and compliment the wetlands area while the links land is in some ways less sensitive and a course could be accommodated without touching any sensitive areas. Will this development go ahead ? Not without a developer it won't (any interested developers please contact me  ;D) and certainly not without planning permission.

The reason why you are perhaps not aware of planning authorities saying no to development is because firstly a lot of these things fly under the radar and secondly it is costly to pursue a planning application and not many take it forward if they are unlikely to succeed.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version