Should city’s publicly owned golf courses be repurposed for affordable housing?

[jm90]

I thought this discussion was over after Jennifer Keesmaat lost — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-rPqVMxEVE.

[Weirfan]

This has come up before and there are arguments to be made on both sides.

There are only 5 Munis and they are spread out over a large area servicing a very large population. They get heavy play so despite the smoke and mirror stats they claim that golf participation is on the decline ( yes it is) the munis are very busy so demand is there.

however they are not run efficiently so while the claims that they are money losers is true
( very few public courses make a profit) there are many things that could be done to reduce costs. Many staff get paid municipal wages which are way higher than the industry. Their booking system is antiquated and inefficient. Staff get priority over paying customers. staff , who play for free can book off any and as many tee times they want...many play several times a week ( even every day) ....x X number of staff x 5 courses means thousands of potential dollars in revenue lost each week. There is no penalty for cancelled bookings leaving open spots or people booking 4 when there are only 2 etc. Rounds are often poorly marshalled resulting in longer than average rounds often approaching 5 hours.....even 20 minutes saved a day could potentially add 2 spots a day x 7 days x 4 players per course x 5 courses = 280 additional green fees.

Green fee rates could be increased but looking at what they charge seem in line.

on the flip side, affordable housing is needed, just not sure if the green space offered by courses is the best option. Certainly, there are other municipal lands that could be options.

its too bad that these green spaces cant bring in revenue in the down times.

[Arthur Dailey]

Agree with above.

1) Personally I selfishly get upset whenever any golf course closes. Means less choice for us golfers. And more competition for available tee times.
2) There are a number of privately run courses that are unprofitable (see Tarandowah). So not just the Muni's are suffering. However, yes the Muni's could be run much more efficiently.
3) There are few public courses that are affordable and accessible by public transit, other than the Muni's. Municipal courses were traditionally a way for less privilege youth to be introduced to the game of golf. And we need more and better access to 'grow' the game.
4) However, when we total the number of people who can be on a golf course at any one time, or over the course of a day, and factor in that it is used solely for golf and then compare it to the use that it could get as a public park, then it does appear that 'for the greater good' it should be converted to parkland. The lack of parkland/greenspace will become an increasing problem in large urban centres, like Toronto, particularly with the proliferation of (very) hi-rise condo towers.
5) Or the City could sell of the developable parts of the course and use the revenue for other needs, while maintaining the floodland areas as public space.

[bogey5]

I thought this discussion was over after Jennifer Keesmaat lost — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-rPqVMxEVE.

How many Toronto munis are on land suitable for house construction? Aren't a lot in areas that might be part of the flood plain, or ravine system, similar to most/all of the other remaining old courses inside the city limits which would have been ploughed under 60 years ago if they could?

A more likely scenario if some are closed might be to just turn them into parks, thereby allowing them to say the space is more available to all but w/out reducing the city canopy/green space.

[Weirfan]

How many Toronto munis are on land suitable for house construction? Aren't a lot in areas that might be part of the flood plain, or ravine system, similar to most/all of the other remaining old courses inside the city limits which would have been ploughed under 60 years ago if they could?

A more likely scenario if some are closed might be to just turn them into parks, thereby allowing them to say the space is more available to all but w/out reducing the city canopy/green space.

Obviously it would depend on the land but they wouldn't be proposing housing if it couldn't be done. High density housing ( high rise a apartments) even a few on each course would serve a huge need.....10's of thousands could be housed....( a fifty story building can house ~ 6000 people)


the remaining space could be used for parkland , maybe even keep a 9 hole course ?

[dmcdam]

I love golf as much as the next nut, but I really can't see how a game played by a small number of people can be considered a higher priority than affordable housing. Golf courses are a colossal waste of green space when you consider how few people can be using it at any given moment. I'm all for some combination of high density housing / green space on these lands that pushes urban planning forward in TO. Don't let developers just slap up another condo and walk away.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Once you use up the land from the 5 courses, then what? Toronto is going to keep growing for a long time.

We already have 8,000 ha of parkland in Toronto. Not all of that is free to everyone 24/7. Some of it gets used for soccer and baseball leagues and lots of other stuff that people pay for which excludes the general public. Just like a golf course does.

I couldn't find a figure but an article I read said typical 18 hole urban courses are around 120 acres. The Toronto courses aren't large so that's a safe guess. 5 courses @ 120 acres = 600 acres =~ 240 ha.

So 3% of our parkland. It's just not going to make much of a difference, and the usable figure is much lower than that given they are mostly (all?) built on floodplains.

My urban planner friend says housing prices, transit issues (and more!) are better solved by looking at the "Yellowbelt" - those areas of the city that prohibit high rises and allow only "detached residential housing". IOW all the nice neighbourhoods, so that's a tough sell.

The Yellowbelt is more than 20,000 ha. For those with short memories, I remind you that golf courses are 240 ha in total.

One complaint about golf courses that I agree with is that they interrupt what could be continuous public parks. That could probably be dealt with by putting public paths somewhere along the sides.

[synergy]

There is an increasing number of organizations like https://www.homesuitehope.org/ that focus on moving people from poverty to independence. Initially from stabilizing housing, to a career path, to outright independence.

We always hear about the need for more affordable housing, but how about throwing more public dollars at ending the need for it in the first place?

Families have gone generations in welfare and community housing as a way of life. It would be great if we (governments) could break that cycle at looking at solutions.

Treating the symptom is necessary, but how about treating the cause? Or more focus on the latter?

[Weirfan]

I love golf as much as the next nut, but I really can't see how a game played by a small number of people can be considered a higher priority than affordable housing. Golf courses are a colossal waste of green space when you consider how few people can be using it at any given moment. I'm all for some combination of high density housing / green space on these lands that pushes urban planning forward in TO. Don't let developers just slap up another condo and walk away.

[The Rifleman]

All the benefits of keeping them are endless, but there is a serious housing crisis and being homeless can be an easy step for anyone; when the right things fall into place. Hoping there will be a compromise which will appease all concerns.

[Fore Warned]

The report on Toronto's munis was commissioned in January 2018 and was supposed to be completed in January 2119. It is already more than a year late and is now not expected to be completed until June of this year I believe.

I have not been able to put my fingers on the terms of reference for the report, but media releases spoke to "recommendations to determine the best model for the delivery of golf for the next 20 years." In announcing the study, pressures like declining use and revenues were mentioned, along with increased costs. So too were concerns around limited seasonal and alternative uses and the possibility of multiple uses, alternative service delivery and alternative use options for golf operations.

Despite the flow of commentary and opinions that were voiced at the time of the study's announcement, and since then, I don't believe this report was mandated to consider or recommend on specific options around alternative land uses, especially affordable housing. Much of that is purely political and media hype at this point.

Such consideration of potential alternative land uses of the Toronto Munis may well come down the line if the report concludes that all or some of the municipal golf courses cannot be operated in a cost effective manner, or that their current use does not fulfill desirable outdoor recreation objectives.

I don't think this report will necessarily spell and end to Toronto's golf courses, it may in fact breath some life into them.

But, if there is to be a debate about specific proposals for alternative land uses to these golf courses, that will be for a future process which goes beyond this report. Presumably we may all be better informed for that debate as a result of this report.

[IrishGuy1979]

Here ya go - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgen...em=2018.GM24.4

and - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/...ile-110461.pdf

[bl8d]

timely story.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/26/slaves-graves-golf-club-florida

[ping1-a]

There is plenty of land outside of the city to build affordable housing, I wouldn't get rid of parkland in the city. I personally don't play any of those munis anymore but I think a world-class city needs munis. If I lived in the city, it would suck if I was a golfer and there were no public courses.

[Fore Warned]

Here ya go - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgen...em=2018.GM24.4

and - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/...ile-110461.pdf

Impressive sleuthing! Thanks for this.


To summarise.....

The objective of the study is to review trends in the golf industry and the City's golf operations to determine the service delivery model for golf operations for the next 20 years.

The premise recognizes the downward trends in the number of rounds played at municipal golf courses, and that in order to remain financially viable, golf courses must be competitive in regards to quality of play, fee and membership structures, food and beverage and ancillary services. It is anticipated that without significant investment in City-run golf courses, this downward trend in rounds is expected to continue.

Under that general rubric the study is also to consider....
a. equity and affordability of access;
b. demographics of participation, including identification of trends and gaps;
c. a consultation framework for golf users and the community that includes all five golf course locations; and
d. winter access and use.

Council also requested the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to provide input on how the golf course properties might contribute to increasing the City's tree canopy, the City's ravine strategy and natural heritage system.

Two motions were put forward when Council voted to approve the proposed study. One proposed comparing green fees with other courses along with possible discounting to ensure greater affordability.

The other proposed broadened the terms of reference to consider access to golf courses in pursuing other city objectives. This motion could have opened the door to having to consider alternative uses of the golf courses.

Both motions were ruled out of order.

An internal preliminary review - in the lead up to the commissioned report identified some short and long term needs, including:
• the use of on-line tee time booking systems (already implemented)
• Flexible fee structures that allow for demand-based pricing to ensure full utilization.
• Updated and expanded facilities suitable for events and tournaments.
• Updated food and beverage facilities and options.
• Updated and expanded Pro shop facilities.

None of this calls for consideration of eliminating municipal golf courses to achieve other City priorities like green space or housing.

However, if the report concludes that the financial viability or competitiveness of the current slate of golf courses cannot be maintained, options around considering which of those might continue to be maintained, along with what to do with the others would be a next step.