[Adam_F_Collins]

I was just having a discussion with a friend who is interested in shoring up support for the preservation of Canadian classic courses. We were talking about the difficulties, given the stereotypes held by the non-golfing public about golf being a rich, white, exclusive, elitist game. These stereotypes may exist for many, because there is little access to the game "from outside"

Are the stereotypes as strong in the UK and elsewhere? I've heard that it's much more open in the UK in terms of people at least being able to walk the courses and to observe the setting on a first hand basis without having to pay a green fee. Is this typically true, or is this the exception?

For new developments particularly in North America, what kinds of plans (if any) are being tried or put forward which seek to "open golf"? Are there any courses which are designed to provide a certain amount of non-golfer access? Things like hiking trails, horseback riding, boating/kayaking. Are we seeing many developments aimed at creating a broader appeal beyond golf and real estate? Are we seeing any which are designed to give non-golfers a chance to get "a peek" at the golf course?

It seems to me that there are a fair number of people who are very much interested in the land, the beauty and atmosphere of a course, yet many courses do not allow access to those who aren't paying to play. Are any new courses being designed to allow such access?

Could these types of developments - ones designed for broader use - be used to help create a better understanding and a more acceptable business model?

[Jay Cox]

One problem in the United States is tort liability.  Courses are afraid that non-customers will get hurt (hit by a ball, by a cart, etc.) and sue, and therefore don't want to let people walk around.  

[Mark Brown]

Adam,

Per your post, my new business, Prestwick 12 Golf was started to design, build and manage strategic, player-friendly and regulation length courses with expansive learning and practice centers and 6 hole loops. Developers will have the option of building 1,2 or 3 loops with homes around the perimeters.

The goal is to address what the golf industry (Golf 20/20) says is slowing the growth of the game: time, affordability, the difficulty of learning the game (incl. the intimidation factor) and the difficulty of most modern courses.

Design, construction and facilities will be very cost effective and course fairways will be generous to create several routes of play designed for both the novice and good player.

Most importantly, we will have a comprehensive instruction and playing program for new golfers, particularly women, juniors, families, etc. We are going to try to have something for every member of the family including miniature golf, small park areas and child care.

Green fees will be kept as low as possible, and we want to attract and retain new and occasional golfers. For 12 (or 18) holes green fees, should range from $12 to $25 depending on the location and the site, and walking will be encouraged.  

In the Hilton Head area, where I live, there are high-end communities with all the things you mentioned but homes, incl. and memberships start at about $750,000.

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam, your post hits on many levels. My first reaction is that recent rises in real estate costs will preclude this ideal you elude to. Then there's the justification for 20/20 and terms like "acceptable business models". How does Rustic Canyon fit into this context? I'd say without governmental concessions, the type of "use" you suggest is just not going to happen. One example is the new Municipal project for the city of La Quinta Ca. When approached with the ideal of providing affordable golf for the residents of the city, the powers that be, in their infinite wisdom, have turned the idea into a 197 million dollar project. Lookout Indio!

One hypothesis i'm devolping is that Golf is not for everyone.

A Ken Burns film would do a better job of informing the masses of what they are about to embark on, once they travel down that road to becoming a golfer.

[Craig Sweet]

I think we need to encourage more people to play the game. There's a double edged sword here. On one hand we need new golfers, yet on the other hand I'm not sure we want them running to nearest 18 championship course to hack it around. But, our culture is all about "selling" the super new championship course as THE PLACE that you just have to play!

This isn't unique to golf. Just go to the nearest big ski resort and watch people stumble and fall their way down terrain that is way beyond their ability.

I think the best solution is to design golf facilities to cater to all abilities and provide a progressive program of advancement.

I think municipal facilites can do this, but the "kids course" or the 9 hole learning course has to be exciting, challenging, and well maintained. In other words it should provide a reason for someone to want to learn the game of golf on it.

I have also thought that there should be a day at every course set aside for low handicaped golfers. A "single didgets" day. But I digress here....

Let's face it, not everyone wants to play golf.

Resorts can provide activities for non-golfers. Communities can provide non-golfer activities(jogging trails,sports fields,swimming,batting cages etc.) in the vacinity of golf course.

[Sean_A]

This may be a daft question, but why do we need to attract more golfers?  How many golfers do we need?  Do people really believe that if we build cheap facilities that people will line up to play?

The same questions are raging in the UK.  Most of the clubs around me (S. of B'ham) are struggling for membership even though the price is cheap.  For juniors it is exceptionally cheap.  I think it is £40 per year for a child of a member and £85 for a non-member child.  Many clubs forecast the problem to get worse because the average age of membership is rising.  I just received my bill for 2005, it is £627 for the year and there are about 10 spots open for the first time in 30 years.  My other membership at Pennard is £175 as a country member (I can still play as much as I like).  It isn't just a matter of price.  Many people are just not interested.  Clubs are trying very hard to attract members by:

Introducing no entry fee

Spreading entry fee over several years
Free membership for a month
Introduction as a pay and play. All money spent in green fees is deducted from

[Sean_A]

Sorry I was cut off by my daughter!

Introduction to the club as a pay and play member.  If you decide to join, then all monies spent in green fees are deducted from the initiation fee.

There are other schemes as well, but you get the point.  

Perhaps the UK is ahead of the USA in the golf boom/bust cycle much the same way the UK is more advanced with the "loss of manufacturing" disease.

Ciao

Sean

[Philip Gawith]

adam, i think the stereotypes you refer to broadly hold sway in the UK too. the media are dominated by people who overwhelmingly see golf as an elitist, fuddy-duddy sport played by reactionaries and not fit for anyone under the age of 75 who has a pulse and some self-respect. and their views are probably shared by many/most urban dwellers. i don't think there is too much sympathy out there for golfers.

golf, as you know, is generally more accessible in the UK than in the US simply because very few courses are not open to visitors. but i don't think they are too welcoming of non-golfers, accept in cases (such as my own course) where the course traverses public land which means that walkers/ramblers have the right to cross the course. dornoch is a good example of a course where you see walkers a fair bit, and if you play at brancaster the public access the beach by walking across the golf course.  i suppose to this extent non-golfers get to see courses, and might enjoy the scenery, but i wouldn't mistake this for any deep-seated affection for golf or golfers!

[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm not so much advocating the attraction of new golfers, as I am putting forth the idea of allowing some kind of access to those who aren't players - but still are interested in the game, the course, or just the beauty of a golf course development.

Many courses won't allow a golfers spouse to drive a cart and not play. And many courses are completely closed off to people who aren't playing golf. I have no idea of what can be done, if anything - but the question arises from the hope of protecting the classic courses here in Canada.

How does one justify government money put into the preservation of things which are seen by many as being exclusive?

Maybe this is a dumb question.

[Adam_F_Collins]

...the course traverses public land which means that walkers/ramblers have the right to cross the course. dornoch is a good example of a course where you see walkers a fair bit, and if you play at brancaster the public access the beach by walking across the golf course.  i suppose to this extent non-golfers get to see courses, and might enjoy the scenery, but i wouldn't mistake this for any deep-seated affection for golf or golfers!

Thanks Philip,

I wonder if they are less likely to feel threatened by golf or golfers, though. Would they have any better understanding of the historical importance of an old golf course? Are as many old courses slipping away in the U.K.?

[Sean_A]

Adam

Sorry, I took your question in the wrong way.  Phillip is right, many courses have non-golfers on them, especially dog walking, but it is not from of love of golf.  I think it is mostly a right of way/access issue.  It is normally not a problem.  I like to see others enjoying the land.  At Pennard there is a constant stream of people heading to/from the beach.  In fact, at Tenby, one of the blind par fours is changed to a par 3 in the summer because of the danger of hitting people accessing the beach.  

I would have thought that your model would work better in the States because of the Country Club facilities.  The entire family can more or less spend the day at the club doing their thing.  

It is an interesting idea.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

Adam:

There very well may be a new concept in the USA for more access to golf course sites on a non-play basis. The concept I speak of isn't new actually but it's being applied to golf courses recently on a very limited basis and as far as I can tell for the first time.

And that is the idea of conservation "easements" particularly of the Federal type. Those types of easements basically restrict future developement and can actually be placed on the land underlying a golf course. The thing about that kind of easement is a federal (income) tax deduction is derived from it and the government (technically) does not allow tax deductions of this type on land unless it accomodates some "public benefit" and the only public benefit it could have in the context of a golf course would be to allow the public some access even if on a very limited basis!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()