HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2021, 9:44 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Glad to see this thread as this topic has been on my mind recently. I have my own personal feeling on golf and golfers but yes, golf courses do take up valuable land in specific urban areas in Canada. That land would be better off publicly-owned, developed, or utilized for amenities that the wider public has access to. During a housing crisis and ever-sprawling cities there are specific areas where golf courses could absolutely be removed in favour of planned, affordable housing-targeted developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2021, 9:56 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
There is a big municipal golf course across the street from where I live. It used to be a landfill site. So basically huge piles of trash got covered with soil and grass. I don't mind it. Maybe it could have been used for skiing instead, but I'm just happy it doesn't smell anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2021, 9:57 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by davee930 View Post
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.
true. they look better than the ubiquitous snouthouses that are a symptom of the miltonization of the universe.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2021, 10:12 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Milton doesn't actually have a lot of snout houses. It's mostly Mississauga and Brampton. Houses in Milton usually have garage door level with the front door, or sometimes even recessed behind the front door. The subdivisions of Milton were designed with transit-oriented development in mind than most subdivisions out there, certainly better than Brampton and Mississauga.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 12:27 AM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,449
London has been trying to close River Road for years and the pandemic, strangely, has been their excuse to do. They never opened it last year but spent the money to maintain it. Which was funny since the other courses were busier than ever.

The argument the pro-golf people keep trying to make is the courses make money for the city, so the city should keep them open. I say "Well great, maybe the city should open a chain of grocery stores that will make money too". The city shouldn't be in the business of competing with private operators. There are a ton of privately owned golf courses in London that are open to the public. The 3 city owned courses aren't cheaper than many of them so it's not like they are there to make golf more accessible to the lower incomes like their original purposes may have been. The competitive market will keep prices as "affordable" as they would be with the city in the business.

Only 1 of the 3 courses would offer up any kind of development potential and it's in an area of the city where "affordable" housing is something that the locals have heard about but not seen lol. The one being closed is half on a flood plain and is underwater every spring, and the area is surrounded by industrial and junk yards. The third course is a double 18 and probably could be sold for continued golf use as it's far enough away to not be developed any time soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 12:54 AM
J81 J81 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 645
Lots of commies on this forum! LOL!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 1:20 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,504
Golf courses tend to be rather scenic and make beautiful park land. I'm all for closing them down and turning them into public parks. Also, how many people play golf that they get such somewhat "special" treatment? It does seem to be a rather specific demographic that uses them and while there's nothing stopping anybody from doing the same, that possibility simply has never materialized. I say go ahead and shut 'em down. They're quasi-private anyway (in the sense that unlike a park, you can't just walk in and use them but need to pay to use)
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 1:23 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by J81 View Post
Lots of commies on this forum! LOL!!!
That's ironic.

In many Canadian cities, a private golf course would not survive if there was a free market for land. They need government regulation or subsidy (like, why are there even city-run golf courses?) or both.

We're at the point now where governments in municipalities have to designate the most exclusive golf courses as "heritage landscapes" to prevent their owners from selling the land to residential developers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 2:05 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post

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?
The survival of urban golf courses is a blessing in disguise. If they didn't exist the land would have been developed long ago. With cities nationally intensifying/densifying and green space not keeping pace it's important we not squander this good fortune. If we're to lose urban golf courses, I'd only be in support of it if they become urban parks in their entirety. If all we're doing is turning green space over for development then its a big NO from me.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 2:26 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
If we're to lose urban golf courses, I'd only be in support of it if they become urban parks in their entirety. If all we're doing is turning green space over for development then its a big NO from me.

Agreed with this part. Especially in Toronto as most of our golf courses are in or around ravine lands.

Urban golf courses are absolutely a weird anachronism at this point though - they're land-intensive, low-use, limited-access spaces. Their existence is not in any way dependant on transit access or surrounding density. Considering most golfers will drive to the course anyway, they're better suited to the rural fringe than to the centre of a major city. So I'd support converting most of our city-owned golf courses to public parks - but not for redevelopment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 2:32 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto & NYC
Posts: 5,372
In Toronto, golf courses provide some open greenspace in a city that is very underserviced by urban parks. Adding a couple hundred mcmansions on a former course doesn't do squat to housing affordability. I personally don't wish for the day that the city is a never-ending sea of shoebox condos and subdivisions without any sort of break-up, all under the guise of developers telling us we just need one more development and suddenly we'll all be able to afford a home again.

The bigger issue I think is making courses accessible for those who don't like golf. I'd love to see a municipal course retrofitted with walking trails that people can use independently of the golfers. At St. Andrews in Scotland, the old course is closed on Sundays and is essentially a public park with people walking up and down the fairways all day.

__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994

Last edited by suburbanite; Apr 28, 2021 at 2:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 3:42 PM
Harrison's Avatar
Harrison Harrison is offline
A Better Place
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
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.
Rundle isn't that well used and actually costs the City quite a bit to keep open (enough that they are considering closing it).

Keep Victoria and Riverside, but Rundle can go.
__________________
Bingo bango bongo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 4:10 PM
megadude megadude is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: N. York/Bram/Mark/Sauga/Burl/Oak/DT
Posts: 3,025
This is another reason why Castlemore was my favourite. I don't know if there was an official rule but people would go for walks on the paths every time I was playing after 5pm. Very nice surroundings adjacent to subdivisions so it would have been a waste of greenspace if the public didn't have access.

Mississauga G&C is a higher end course but allows public access across their fairways at anytime to access the Credit River. It's mostly anglers that take advantage of this. It's an arrangement between the club and Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite View Post
In Toronto, golf courses provide some open greenspace in a city that is very underserviced by urban parks. Adding a couple hundred mcmansions on a former course doesn't do squat to housing affordability. I personally don't wish for the day that the city is a never-ending sea of shoebox condos and subdivisions without any sort of break-up, all under the guise of developers telling us we just need one more development and suddenly we'll all be able to afford a home again.

The bigger issue I think is making courses accessible for those who don't like golf. I'd love to see a municipal course retrofitted with walking trails that people can use independently of the golfers. At St. Andrews in Scotland, the old course is closed on Sundays and is essentially a public park with people walking up and down the fairways all day.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 4:30 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
In many Canadian cities, a private golf course would not survive if there was a free market for land. They need government regulation or subsidy (like, why are there even city-run golf courses?) or both.

We're at the point now where governments in municipalities have to designate the most exclusive golf courses as "heritage landscapes" to prevent their owners from selling the land to residential developers.
Municipal politics often get weird around green space and recreation. Another area is hockey rinks and the idea that it's a core job of municipalities to provide ice time for amateur and/or professional hockey teams. I think that municipalities should try to provide greenspace and recreational opportunities for residents but the costs of the activities and their popularity should be taken into account. If golf requires 100x more land than say basketball then maybe golf isn't a good activity for high land value areas. It's unreasonable to demand certain amenities in a vacuum without regard for costs and demand.

In Halifax there's a small minority of greenspace activists who have an outsized voice in the media. They are treated like the experts on parks and the local journalists apparently have them on speed dial. The median person in this group appears to be a 60-something professor who owns a Victorian-era house with a backyard. You rarely hear from the 20-something single mother with little kids or teenaged apartment dwellers. The park professors don't like if the city decides, say, to replace 2% of the dog walking area they use once every 2 weeks with a skate park that ends up packed every day; they consider that the ruination of a nice quiet park. The perspective on golf reminds me of this. Yes, there are people who really like golf, but what is the overall sentiment and demand, and what's the best possible use? Are we really hearing from everybody, or just special interests?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 4:33 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
That's ironic.

In many Canadian cities, a private golf course would not survive if there was a free market for land. They need government regulation or subsidy (like, why are there even city-run golf courses?) or both.

We're at the point now where governments in municipalities have to designate the most exclusive golf courses as "heritage landscapes" to prevent their owners from selling the land to residential developers.
Accusing somebody of being "a commie" is a good indication that the person doing the accusing has zero economic, social, or historical knowledge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 5:33 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Municipal politics often get weird around green space and recreation. Another area is hockey rinks and the idea that it's a core job of municipalities to provide ice time for amateur and/or professional hockey teams. I think that municipalities should try to provide greenspace and recreational opportunities for residents but the costs of the activities and their popularity should be taken into account. If golf requires 100x more land than say basketball then maybe golf isn't a good activity for high land value areas. It's unreasonable to demand certain amenities in a vacuum without regard for costs and demand.
It's hard to draw the line on where government should provide opportunities for parks and recreation, but it's like the old saying about pornography - you'll know it when you see it.

The way I see it is that a publicly-funded recreational facility should have at least one "yes" answer to the following three questions:

1. Will it be used by a large cross-section of the population?
2. Does it require significant maintenance and upkeep costs?
3. Could that space be put to more productive uses?

I'm being loose with the term productive - it could anything from monetary revenue to non-monetary benefits like ecosystem services to people's enjoyment (golf making a very small number of people very happy, instead of a lot of people somewhat happy).

Almost no recreational facility will pass all three questions, but golf fails all three.

Even if you ignore all those things and just focus on golf being run as a business that has nothing to do with the land it occupies, 2/3 of all public golf courses don't even break even. If that's the case, it might as well just be vacant land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 5:42 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,657
These course do not have to be redeveloped into McMansion acres as long as the City doesn't sell them wholesale. In fact, most couldn't be because if the land is just sold the owners would have to pay back the millions owed in 'banked' taxes making the land too expensive to purchase.

This is why I think 'donating' a good chunk of the land to the City for things like parks & low income housing in lieu of the back taxes makes perfect sense. The reality is that cities know that these taxes will never repaid because even owners who want to sell can't afford to which is why they are never closed.

It would be a win-win scenario with the cities and it's citizens themselves being the main beneficiaries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 7:53 PM
Marshsparrow Marshsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,013
First they came for the golf courses, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a golfer.

Then they came for the ball and soccer fields, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a baseball or soccer player.

Then they came for the arenas, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a hockey player.

Then they put up their mcmansions and mccondos and there was sprawl as far as they eye could see...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.