[Duncan Cheslett]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/26/london-golf-courses-could-provide-homes-for-300000-people-study-says

[Sean_A]

I don't buy the homes argument. Of course we could pave every green space in all our cities to provide housing...wouldnt that be lovely. However, there is an argument for using the council owned land more creatively.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Duncan


This a part of an ongoing campaign by the Guardian. There was a thread not so long ago on similar article from the same newspaper. Politically motivated one sided pish.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

As Niall intimates, no surprise that this article is in the Guardian.
In saying that golf doesn't do itself any favours when it comes to land, water etc usage on a finite sized planet with a finite amount of resources but where the population has increased massively over the last 100 or so years (1900 world pop 1.6 billion, 2020 world pop 7.7 billion).
Golf needs to wake up big time and do so soon or there'll likely be more happening than just articles in the Guardian.
atb

[Adam Uttley]

I agree, Thomas.  Normally I would side against shitty articles such as this.  Reasoned debate and engagement are far more important and powerful, but when “golf” has its head in the sand on sustainability and community issues, and generally appears pretty tone deaf, we don’t really have the moral high ground.  Excepting isolated examples, as someone outside the industry it doesn’t even feel as if the problem is even recognised, let alone having a plan to resolve it.  If great work is being done, then efforts to promote that cause are falling short.  There are some awful things about golf and this is definitely one of them.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree, Thomas.  Normally I would side against shitty articles such as this.  Reasoned debate and engagement are far more important and powerful, but when “golf” has its head in the sand on sustainability and community issues, and generally appears pretty tone deaf, we don’t really have the moral high ground.  Excepting isolated examples, as someone outside the industry it doesn’t even feel as if the problem is even recognised, let alone having a plan to resolve it.  If great work is being done, then efforts to promote that cause are falling short.  There are some awful things about golf and this is definitely one of them.

I think people in the industry are well aware of the negative connotation many people have with golf.  Unfortunately the public's point of contact is the rich club member who wants everything green without regard to the environment, and the "industry" will not say no to those guys because they are the ones who pay the industry's salaries.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Public policy is to be guided by a George Carlin comedy sketch?  I guess all politics is comedy (or entertainment) anyway.


Seriously, 140 years ago, then much smaller cities realized the benefits of greenbelts and parks, it would be a dark day for cities (perhaps literally, given how much trees can clear the air) if they decided to eliminate green spaces.  You give something up to get something, and if you took inner green space, you would probably have to recreate it (or leave it in new development areas) somewhere else.


I just looked at the Google map of London.  Why not keep the green space you have and expand into the fringe areas?  Yes, it probably behooves socieity to encourage all new housing to be built at a greater density than might have been done in suburban areas previously to preserve the countryside, and I have no trouble with that debate at all.  I do recall seeing a study that said the best way to limit environmental impacts is to spread out cities rather than compact them, although, I could probably find more studies saying the opposite. 


Nor, do I have a problem if they end up taking out the least successful public courses for other uses, or whatever, and convert those to parks.  In reality, that kind of rational land use has been happening forever in something less than the "all or nothing" type sweeping public policies like the one proposed in that article.  I can't believe eliminating golf completely would benefit society at all.


And, I would be interested to see if some uses, like skateboard parks, outdoor theatres, tennis courts, etc., actually get more use at more paid rates than the golf courses they propose to replace.  I use my regional jogging trails, and rarely pass more folks than I would see on a golf course on a Saturday, and I see a lot of public performance spaces that rarely ever get used, so I wouldn't be entirely sure that you get more public good, at least, not in all cases.


Short version, not every idea posted in the media (or government, LOL) is really a good one.  They are often pretty one sided, including sometimes, a la Chambers Bay perhaps, or other golf, that merely trades one problem for another, because someone thinks they should be able to tell others how to live. 


Obviously, my love of golf biases this opinion, but hey, golf bias is as legit a bias as any other.

[Lou_Duran]

I have long given up trying to "educate" the dystopians among us on things like population growth, scarcity, "sustainability", and other related topics.  Not that the link below is going to change minds, but perhaps some will find it interesting.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/



It is interesting to note that fertility rates in countries where golf is an important part of the culture are essentially well below the 2.1 (births per woman of child rearing age) needed to replace the population.  The 10 countries which account for 75% of golf courses in the world have an average fertility rate of less than 1.7.  In those countries where population continues to grow, immigration is mostly the source.


Having said all this- golf's "contribution" to the miseries foreseen by many are misattributed- I think that the Guardian article makes some valid points which are worthy of consideration.  Is it proper to question the use of public land for purposes that do not benefit the public proportionally?  Is it "justice" that less than 10% of the population should be extraordinarily subsidized for their pleasure in comparison to joggers, football (soccer) enthusiasts, picnickers, the housing-challenged, etc.?  If the "needs" of all are being reasonably met, then this is not an issue, right?


I didn't attempt to read the Guardian article between the lines, but I think that it left private property golf courses out of the discussion.  Years ago, the populist "progressive" government of Venezuela threatened to expropriate the land of private golf clubs to provide housing for the needy.  Even in the U.S., the very wealthy, connected Deepdale GC came into the cross hairs of the village government which sought to expand its tax base by forcefully acquiring the property through eminent domain.  Will that be far in the future in a world where virtue has become vice and vice now virtue?  Egalitarians of all stripes, whiners, and the rest of us, hang on tight to our seats!


An interesting recent piece; I wonder if the golf course is very good.


 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-17/caracas-country-club-where-the-0-01-await-socialism-s-collapse

[Adam Uttley]

That’s an interesting article, Lou, I hadn’t seen it before; it’s clearly from a reputable and independent source too.  Of course, although linked, population growth and housing demand aren’t the same, with other factors such as the proportion of people owning multiple houses (and how many), as well as trends in the demographics of families. It seems there’s still quite a hurdle to overcome before 2100!

Building houses on any green land in cities is not the answer, though.  I wouldn’t want any golf courses to close as I hope the game can become appealing enough to a wider audience and we’ll need them.  Plus, many of that wider audience are likely to be based in cities.  The Guardian’s own spin aside, the guy that has written the report that it is based upon came across as measured and thoughtful, calling for engagement and discussion, which is right. Far more so than England Golf’s response to the report which talks about the benefit to golfers and therefore misses the point entirely.

I’ve long felt that golf is adjacent to the rest of my life, not integrated into it.  From having to wear a different uniform, through not being able to take my non-golfing family / friends to the club, to even being reticent to tell people I work with, that I play the game.  In many ways it feels like a dirty secret or mistress, which when I think about it, is quite alarming for what is just a leisure activity undertaken in the great outdoors.

I think that ‘golf’ thinks the solution to greater participation is making the game easier.  That’s not it at all, it’s changing the image of the game, integrating into society and making those that are new or curious feel welcome.  That also means being seen to be working with society, not being an unnecessary burden on resources.  I’ve just come back from St Andrews and of anywhere it feels the “most right” there.  The driving range had such diversity of gender and age to be really noticeable and with a course that is free for kids too (Balgove) it’s accessible both financially and physically.  I couldn’t help but feel that the Old course’s proximity in the town and the ability for the public to walk on it on Sundays, rather than being out of mind and out of sight behind a fence somewhere, has really helped.  I do, of course, recognise that St Andrews’ association with golf preceded all that by a long way but if it were behind closed doors now I’m certain it would be a lot different. 

I’d really welcome initiatives to mimic that elsewhere with a way to enhance utilisation of land and links to the community without losing the golf course.  Without this I fear further entrenchment and greater division which would, in time, make golf an even more high profile target to create vote-winning policies around.  To Tom’s point, although the ‘industry’ can help, it is really down to golf’s governing bodies to show leadership on this. 

Right, just to show the hypocrisy (my own) and absurdity of it all, I’m off to play a high end private course, no doubt manicured beyond belief, that’s part of a sequence of 12 golf courses in 7 miles, with a society that has strict entry requirements

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()