The Broadmoor practice facility’s design should be consistent with the Clubhouse!
10 Comments
C
Curt Dyckman
3 years ago
We need to reevaluate the current plan.
D
Dave Cox
3 years ago
Featured
keep the look uniform with the clubhouse, modern stuff just doesnt look right here.
P
Paul L Wyckoff
3 years ago
Featured
Based on current construction costs, permit redesign delays by SDCI and too many cooks in the kitchen, I agree with Chris P, fund the approved design
C
Chris Pallis
3 years ago
Gentlemen, Alex sent me an email and link to this petition. As you know, I've lead the Teaching Facility effort the past 5 years (along with Jeff S. the past couple years), and I would like to clarify that the Board is not deciding between designs. Approx. 2+ years ago, our committee presented various design themes (including a theme that closely matched the current clubhouse design - with stucco ext and Spanish tile roof), to the Board - along with some member input as well. At the time, the current design (for which our permit was based upon), was overwhelming approved. It was approved not only for esthetical reasons, but mostly for functional purposes. Further, the desire to avoid a tall mansard or peaked roof was also one of the compelling reasons. I have the colored renderings if any of you would like to see them. Just reach out to me via email and I would be more than happy to provide them to each of you - and others for that matter. Gents, I have no "horse in this race" and despite my 5-6 years of complete headache in managing this hotly contested "asset" and constant moving target from a leadership standpoint (5 or 6 different presidents - when I started this project, Greg Stephens was president!), I only job is to represent the BGC and in doing so, doing what I can to get the Teaching Facility over the proverbial "goal line"... Lastly, I know many of you feel that the membership should have a "voice" in the approved design. However, please consider three essential points: (1) The design was "extremely well vetted" and initial design variations were presented at annual membership meetings; (2) The Board approved the design at least 2 years ago - well before we went into the City of Seattle for our building application (BTW, we've had our permit for nearly a year now; and (3) in my opinion, it's impossible and completely ineffectual to expect that every aspect of a committee's efforts be approved by the general membership. Nothing would "ever
K
Kurt Dammeier
3 years ago
Agree with matching existing clubhouse
G
Gary Rieschel
3 years ago
agree with the sentiment expressed in this note.
B
Beth Ketcham
3 years ago
Consistency- yes!
R
Ryan McKinney
3 years ago
I like the original design that matched the clubhouse.
D
Doug Bryan
3 years ago
I believe it would add value to the club.
R
Robert Over
3 years ago
Featured
I would like the design of the practice facility to be consistent with the existing design of the clubhouse!
We need to reevaluate the current plan.
keep the look uniform with the clubhouse, modern stuff just doesnt look right here.
Based on current construction costs, permit redesign delays by SDCI and too many cooks in the kitchen, I agree with Chris P, fund the approved design
Gentlemen, Alex sent me an email and link to this petition. As you know, I've lead the Teaching Facility effort the past 5 years (along with Jeff S. the past couple years), and I would like to clarify that the Board is not deciding between designs. Approx. 2+ years ago, our committee presented various design themes (including a theme that closely matched the current clubhouse design - with stucco ext and Spanish tile roof), to the Board - along with some member input as well. At the time, the current design (for which our permit was based upon), was overwhelming approved. It was approved not only for esthetical reasons, but mostly for functional purposes. Further, the desire to avoid a tall mansard or peaked roof was also one of the compelling reasons. I have the colored renderings if any of you would like to see them. Just reach out to me via email and I would be more than happy to provide them to each of you - and others for that matter. Gents, I have no "horse in this race" and despite my 5-6 years of complete headache in managing this hotly contested "asset" and constant moving target from a leadership standpoint (5 or 6 different presidents - when I started this project, Greg Stephens was president!), I only job is to represent the BGC and in doing so, doing what I can to get the Teaching Facility over the proverbial "goal line"... Lastly, I know many of you feel that the membership should have a "voice" in the approved design. However, please consider three essential points: (1) The design was "extremely well vetted" and initial design variations were presented at annual membership meetings; (2) The Board approved the design at least 2 years ago - well before we went into the City of Seattle for our building application (BTW, we've had our permit for nearly a year now; and (3) in my opinion, it's impossible and completely ineffectual to expect that every aspect of a committee's efforts be approved by the general membership. Nothing would "ever
Agree with matching existing clubhouse
agree with the sentiment expressed in this note.
Consistency- yes!
I like the original design that matched the clubhouse.
I believe it would add value to the club.
I would like the design of the practice facility to be consistent with the existing design of the clubhouse!