Time to ditch our urban golf courses?

[ssiguy]

London had 3 municipal golf courses and the City has voted to close one of them. The land will be partially sold with a portion of the proceeds going towards repairs and upgrades towards the other 2 courses. The rest will be sold off to developers less a significant amount set aside for new parks and an extension of the Thames Valley Parkway. I think this is great news and one other cities should emulate.

This may seem like a rather obscure thread but in reality it is an essential conversation we must have in a time of skyrocketing house prices and an affordability crisis. Generally, these courses do not pay taxes based upon the value of the land but rather on their revenue and with declining attendance, some courses pay shockingly little municipal taxes. Technically they still have to pay all the taxes of the value of the land but those huge amounts are 'banked' and only have to be paid when the course is closed and sold. Needless to say, it never happens. When was the last time you heard of a golf course being permanently closed?

Some owners may even want to sell the courses but can't because the amount of 'banked' taxes owned would leave them bankrupt. Perhaps as an incentive much of those back taxes can be forgiven if a good chunk of the land is 'donated' to the City on the proviso that it be turned into parkland and/or set aside for affordable housing. So much of the cost of affordable housing {especially in expensive cities} is the cost of land to build them on. This could be combined with a new tax structure that starts to reflect the true amount the land is worth for remaining courses and particularly so for private ones.

Despite what golf associations might like to assert, golf is still a rich man's sport and I think it's time we stopped subsidising these well off patrons and brought that land back into public realm for all to enjoy and benefit from. Thoughts?

[MonctonRad]

My God - first the "War on the Car", and now this attack on the golf courses of Canada.

When will it all end? I know - when we are all huddled in our microstudio condo units, living in a world encompassed by only the surrounding 4-5 city blocks, with little freedom for personal travel, and never to see a blade of grass again...……….

[MolsonExport]

I'd rather that municipal government's owned ski resorts, so I could ski more cheaply (just joking, as it should never be part of a municipal council's mandate). I don't give a rat's ass about golf. I am not sure why local governments should have a hand in recreational pursuits that are primarily geared towards those that can afford the ample private sector options.

[thenoflyzone]

Reminds me of the Challenger golf course in Saint-Laurent, Montreal.

Opened in 2002, on 9 million of 21 million square feet of land that was supposed to be used to build town houses. 9 yeas later, the market was crying for more real estate, so the golf course closed in 2011, and more townhouses were built.

I feel sorry for the guys who payed a premium for the townhouses overlooking the golf course back then.

http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca/arr...boisfranc.html

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advi...-le-challenger

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd rather that municipal government's owned ski resorts, so I could ski more cheaply (just joking, as it should never be part of a municipal council's mandate). I don't give a rat's ass about golf. I am not sure why local governments should have a hand in recreational pursuits that are primarily geared towards those that can afford the ample private sector options.

I agree. Especially something that takes up hundreds of acres and requires substantial upkeep.

In any case, golf is declining in popularity. Here in the GTA, many private operators weigh the cost of upkeeping greens in an era of declining patronage versus the opportunity to sell their land for hundreds of millions in the midst of a real estate boom, and it's such a no-brainer. Even the owners of the venerable Glen Abbey want to kill it.

[MonctonRad]

This must be more of a big city issue.

We have three residential golf courses in metropolitan Moncton (Royal Oaks, Mountain Woods and Fox Creek, all with integrated subdivisions backing on the fairways. They are quite popular, but Moncton doesn't have the sort of pressures for urban density that Toronto would, and has lots of room to grow...…..

[Coldrsx]

Our three public courses in the valley are very well used, loved and provides social, recreation and sport opportunities.

In the winter they act as x-ski trails, snowshoeing, trail rides and even tobogganing.

Should there be new ways for people who do not golf or perhaps don't have the means to pay to golf have additional access or opportunities of use, absolutely.

[flar]

Nothing like teeing off over the skyline from Chedoke in Hamilton. If they ever got rid of it, I would hope it remains public land as a park or conservation area, as it is right on the Niagara Escarpment.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Our three public courses in the valley are very well used, loved and provides social, recreation and sport opportunities.

They're "loved" by the types of people that frequent them, not the general public. Most people haven't been to Victoria Golf Course and it is largely a waste of river valley space.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This must be more of a big city issue.

We have three residential golf courses in metropolitan Moncton (Royal Oaks, Mountain Woods and Fox Creek, all with integrated subdivisions backing on the fairways. They are quite popular, but Moncton doesn't have the sort of pressures for urban density that Toronto would, and has lots of room to grow...…..

It's an issue anywhere that real estate prices are soaring, making golf courses into a very desirable place to develop. We had a couple similar issues in the Ottawa burbs. Stonebridge in Barhaven (a relatively new course) won its bid to shrink the golf course to develop a portion of it. Needless to say, the neighbourhood was not happy! Kanata Lakes, a golf course near me, was the other one that they tried to re-develop (this time it was Clublink). I think they underestimated the number of lawyers living along the course and the strength of the contracts signed when the neighbourhood was built in the 90's. All the surrounding houses had very clear promises that the course would always remain greenspace.

Looks like Clublink is going to appeal the decision: https://www.obj.ca/article/real-esta...ta-golf-course

Bonus course photos:

Kanata Lakes


https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advi...d-country-club


https://clubeg-course-sliders.s3.ca-...3fe31dc9c.jpeg

Stonebridge




https://golf-pass.brightspotcdn.com

[jigglysquishy]

We have only one urban golf course in Regina. As it is a small par 3 directly under the flightpath and bad road access, it has minimal redevelopment potential. I could see it becoming park over housing.

The city owns two non-urban courses, but they are way outside city limits and have zero development potential.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

My God - first the "War on the Car", and now this attack on the golf courses of Canada.

When will it all end? I know - when we are all huddled in our microstudio condo units, living in a world encompassed by only the surrounding 4-5 city blocks, with little freedom for personal travel, and never to see a blade of grass again...……….

I can't tell if this is actual unhinged, hysterical hyperbole, or if it's satire of all the unhinged, hysterical hyperbole that's going around these days. But if it's the latter - nailed it!!

But regardless, there is definitely a lot of it going around when there's any suggestion that public policy should reflect the simple realities of the world in terms of the amount of land and resources available relative to the current and future population. It's basically the equivalent of an adult telling a teenager that they should be more serious and plan ahead for their future, and the teenager shouting, "Why are you trying to ruin my life?!?!" before bursting into tears and running out of the room.

I mean sure, if living in smaller homes and using fewer resources is necessary for the long term sustainability of our society that might suck in some ways, but it is what it is. We're still generally much better off than in times past and getting upset doesn't solve anything.

In terms of golf courses, I've often wondered what percentage of the population actually uses them considering the sheer amount of, sometimes prime, land they occupy that could be used more broadly for recreation. Like the Brightwood course in Dartmouth. Geographically right in the centre of town, and bigger than any park in the central parts of town other than Point Pleasant with great views due to it's high elevation. Or at least I would assume so. I've never been in it.

But beyond the opportunity cost of the land, there's also the more direct ecological issues of the amount of water and fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that are often used to keep the grasses so lush looking. Much different than the lower maintenance landscapes of most park spaces where they give it a mow once or twice a month and that's about it. I don't think most regular parks are even watered.

[SignalHillHiker]

We’ve four here as well - Clovelly and Glenndenning are in the suburbs, Pippy Park is within our largest urban park (I don’t golf, so I don’t know but I think Admiral’s Green and Pippy Park are the same golf course right? Surely we’ve not five in St. John’s proper lol). So there’s no real benefit to doing away with either of these. Bally Haly is near core but historic enough that I think there’d be considerable heritage-related pushback on top of that from green space advocates and golfers to any attempt to develop it.

Even I wouldn’t cheer on the end of Bally Haly because the shit we’d build in its place would not be worth the trade off.

[WarrenC12]

There was some talk of this in Vancouver. The city (under the park board) operates a few golf courses around town. With the cost of housing and land around here, it was suggested some could be altered to provide some housing space, other "more efficient" park space, etc.

I'm 50/50 on the idea generally. Cutting a course down to 9 holes from 18 and having a nice park on the other half? Not bad. I don't like the precedent set by turning it into housing though.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm 50/50 on the idea generally. Cutting a course down to 9 holes from 18 and having a nice park on the other half? Not bad. I don't like the precedent set by turning it into housing though.

Once it's sold off or developed into housing it's unlikely to revert back to public space but as long as it's maintained as recreational land it can be adjusted to suit the needs of the city. I tend to view the municipal golf courses as a kind of parkland and ask if the golf course is the best possible parkland use (almost certainly not).

The golf courses are a tiny proportion of the land in the city. Upzoning would have a far bigger impact on housing and as Vancouver does upzone parkland will become more important.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But beyond the opportunity cost of the land, there's also the more direct ecological issues of the amount of water and fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that are often used to keep the grasses so lush looking. Much different than the lower maintenance landscapes of most park spaces where they give it a mow once or twice a month and that's about it. I don't think most regular parks are even watered.

This must vary a lot by location. I think it's often overrated. Many parts of Canada don't really have water problems and the pesticide and herbicide laws have been tightened up somewhat.

Around Halifax there are probably 20 golf courses or something like that including 2 in the city. The urban ones are privately owned and there tend to be a bunch of different views on them. Nearby homeowners are worried the golf courses will be developed and they'll be next to housing developments instead of greenspace. Urbanists tend to dislike the lower density.

Dartmouth has Brightwood which apparently was built in 1914. I think the biggest issue with it is that it doesn't suit the modern city from a land use perspective and it has had a weird effect on transportation around that area. Nantucket Ave leads from the Macdonald bridge to Brightwood and peters off to nothing. Does it really make sense to have a golf course 500 m from a major transit terminal with easy bridge access into the urban core? Are they paying taxes on that land commensurate with its value?

[manny_santos]

I don't see anything wrong with municipal golf courses. In larger cities, it means that golf is more accessible to urban residents, and people don't have to travel as far to go to a golf course, thereby helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In times of a pandemic like now, it also helps people to stay local.

Golf has also exploded in popularity again, due to the current pandemic. I can't even get a tee time at the courses closest to me. There was a decline in popularity during the 2010s.

For myself, the nearest golf course is located in Burnaby, about 10-15 minutes away by car. If all golf courses were removed in Metro Vancouver, the nearest golf course would be easily 30-45 minutes away, requiring a longer drive, and going to a different community.

Golf is hardly a rich person's sport. Yes, there are courses that charge exorbitant fees or are members-only, but golf is still very affordable for the middle class. Not all golf courses are the London Hunt Club.

If there's one thing I've seen happen during this pandemic in this country, it's an increased mentality of wanting to take things away from people just because some people can't do that thing.

[ssiguy]

It really comes down to what is fair in the taxation dept. Why should businesses and individuals have to pay high municipal taxes when some of these monster courses right in the city pay shockingly little. In fact the LESS they are used, the less they pay in taxes............regular businesses could only dream of such a scenario. If they were taxed at even a fraction of what the land is valued at, most would go belly up because they would be financially unsustainable. Due to this, even private courses are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

I do not think that most of the land should be sold to developers especially in places like Vancouver where it would be sold to off-shore buyers and any housing developments would be strictly for the uber wealthy. If sold to any developers then they should have to pay back every cent of taxes they would have had to pay over the decades based on the land values and the amount would be so monstrous even a Vancouver developer would cringe. I simply don't think such a thing is a realistic option.

This is why I think in lieu of paying all those back taxes, the City should be 'donated' at LEAST 70% of the land for parks and/or public housing and then they can sell off the rest. It would bring more parkland for everyone to enjoy and help create MUCH more affordable housing as the astronomical cost of land would not be have to part of the budget.

I think it's about time we started taxing golf courses and treat them as the for-profit businesses that they are.

[megadude]

I miss all the 9 hole courses that have closed in Brampton and Oakville. I'm not a serious golfer and so those were so convenient and cheap. Like $20 at twilight or $30 with cart. Still some courses around but the cheap ones are dwindling.

I understand the reasons for redeveloping but I preferred having those coures around. I'm a five minute walk to Glen Abbey and drive over it all the time on the Upper Middle overpass. It sure is pretty looking down to the see the valley, river, trees, fairways and greens. Unless those perfectly manicured greens, fairways and sand traps were replaced by vibrant flower gardens, whatever greenspace it's converted into just won't look as nice. And it was always nice to have that energy around during the Canadian Open.

Castlemore in Brampton is my all time favourite course to play. Tonnes of trees, creek, and lots of ups and downs. Was 18 holes then became 9 after a subdivision was put there which made it even more entertaining by having to drive through residential streets to get to the next hole. But now it's completely gone. A shame for golfers.

So for selfish reasons, I'd rather keep golf courses around. Some will be there like Braeben in Mississauga (old landfill) and others for various reasons, but the numbers of options just ain't there anymore and will continue to decline.

Fun fact: My threesome were the last people to ever play the Eagle something course in Woodbridge at 50 and Steeles. Showed up one day for twilight and we were told it's the last day as it was being razed and redeveloped. I was in my mid 20s and so for jokes we said let's go to town on this course. We played for real but acted like fools here and there like chipping while on the green. Anyway, made a funny compilation video and one segment ended up on America's Funniest Videos but that clip was genuine when my GF lost grip on my 3 iron and it launched into the pond. Got $200 cheque and a t-shirt. We ended up on the season finale that year.

Lots of memories playing cheap courses, drinking your own beers, posing for funny pics, putting with crab apples you find, playing pool with the club handle, stopping for two minutes to fish the pond with your retractable rod and catching bass and driving uphill on wet grass off the path and then the cart starts to slide backwards, all because there were no course marshalls on these places. And these places were the first ones to go. Too old for that shit now, but man does that bring back memories.

Most my golf was played after work in the summer at 6pm (twlight rate). That was easy to do because there were a plethora all over the GTA. Did not have to take a day off or save it for the weekend. That is much harder to do now so not good for golfers. Kind of like if you live in certain places, you can't just go fishing after work due to a lack of lakes or rivers. And saving it for the weekend sometimes sucks because the weather just happens to be shit then.

This is not as bad as hunters from the city who have a very short season and have to go far to do it, but it still cuts down on your opportunities to play when courses are disappearing.

This is what you see when walking or driving on Upper Middle Rd. when passing over Glen Abbey. And when it's not summer, and the foliage is gone, you see the red (clay) valley walls. Anything other than this course just isn't as interesting. Would kind of suck to lose this view.

russian image hosting

[davee930]

I agree golf courses take up valuable land. But they are way more beautiful to look at than the ugly ass SF houses that would replace it.