The "Repurposing" Of Golf Courses

[David_Tepper]

More news from the front:

http://www.globest.com/2018/06/25/are-golf-courses-a-potential-gold-mine-for-housing-development/?kw=Are%20Golf%20Courses%20a%20Potential%20Gold%20Mine%20for%20Housing%20Development?&et=editorial&bu=REM&cn=20180625&src=EMC-Email&pt=California&slreturn=20180525160149

[Ian Mackenzie]

It already happened here in Chicago with Green Acres Country Club.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20180410/CRED03/180419991/can-this-developer-cut-a-deal-with-northbrook


What's worse for GCA-ers is that it was recently discovered that AW Tillinghast originally designed it making it (I believe) his only work in the Midwest.


http://www.tillinghast.net/whatsnewgreen.shtml

[Wayne_Kozun]

It is happening here in the Toronto area as well.  York Downs Golf Club sold itself to a developer and the members pocketed a few hundred thousand each. The owner of Glen Abbey is trying to turn it into a development as well - there have been threads here on that specific issue as some locals are trying to stop this due to the “historically significant golf course architecture “.

[SL_Solow]

Ian,  It's an interesting problem but quite different than the typical.  Query, did you ever play Green Acres?  If it was a Tilly, rather than one he consulted on during his depression era consultations, there is precious little Tilly left.  we have been discussing this for several years.  Second the failure was largely self-inflicted due to the massive amounts of debt which the club incurred on renovating its beautiful old clubhouse and undertaking several renovation.  The bank took a large haircut.  Finally, as noted in the article, Northbrook is in no hurry to approve additional housing.  Stay tuned.

[Peter Flory]

Ian,  It's an interesting problem but quite different than the typical.  Query, did you ever play Green Acres?  If it was a Tilly, rather than one he consulted on during his depression era consultations, there is precious little Tilly left.  we have been discussing this for several years.  Second the failure was largely self-inflicted due to the massive amounts of debt which the club incurred on renovating its beautiful old clubhouse and undertaking several renovation.  The bank took a large haircut.  Finally, as noted in the article, Northbrook is in no hurry to approve additional housing.  Stay tuned.

Don't want to derail this for the Green Acres tangent, but you're right about most of Tilly's work being lost.  It's on my render backlog list to do the original version virtually at some point.  The holes that are basically originals are 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 (redid green), 9, 10, 11 (but with a terrible bunker added in front of the green), 12 (added pond in front of green), 16 (but from different angle), and 18.  18 is/was the most unchanged hole out there. 


In the early 40s, someone very unwisely rearranged several holes on the back nine.  Then in the 70s I believe, they turned 2 holes into the driving range and added what became 4 and 5 (worst holes on the course IMO). 


When I first heard about the Tilly thing I was very excited and compared the aerials.  But it would have been way too much work to restore it and the payoff probably wouldn't have been worth it.  I believe that it was the first course in IL with irrigation or something like that. 




On the housing topic, it's obviously a challenge with Northbrook.  If it weren't for them, an interesting solution would have been to try to keep a limited golf course, like 9 holes interweaving, or re-reroute for a par 3 trail, and then build housing around that and utilize the already renovated club house/ pool, etc as a community center for the housing.  Restricted-age living would have been decent. 


But there is also the issue of the I-94 spur and the constant noise pollution. 

[Rich Goodale]

This is old news, but true.


Mike Nuzzo wrote a very interesting and playful chapter for one of Paul Daley's series of GCA books 10+ years ago, by speculating as to what would happen to the Old Course if the powers that be decided that a housing development in St. Andrews would be more beneficial to the local economy than a high maintenance 500+ years old golf course.  Mike's article was also very prescient.


Last year, one of the golf courses in my gated community in Florida was bulldozed into oblivion in the dark of night.  It survives as a park and a fishing venue, but the owner (Omni) could not absorb the annual losses of a facility which required high maintenance with only 5k paying visitors every year.  Litigation is still active.


Sic transit gloria mundi.....

[Edward Glidewell]

Rich, I assume you're talking about Amelia Island? I played that bulldozed course once, 15 or so years ago -- remember very little about it. Also have a friend who goes down there several times a year and was stunned when he found out they shut it down out of the blue.


This is what happened to Heather Glen (27 hole facility) near Myrtle Beach, which was discussed briefly here. They decided to turn it into a huge housing tract.


I wonder if this is an unforeseen benefit of residential golf developments? Putting aside whether surrounding a course with houses handicaps the routing/course itself (which it almost certainly does in most cases), those courses generally have no other potential use. It would be nearly impossible to go in and build houses on top of a course that already has houses fronting the holes.

[Mike_Young]

It would be nearly impossible to go in and build houses on top of a course that already has houses fronting the holes.

Is not a problem at all to build houses on these old courses.

[Blake Conant]

Several years ago I wrote my thesis on repurposing bankrupt or struggling golf courses. My criteria for a successful repurposing was sustainability based, meaning social, environmental, and economic impacts needed to stay the same or improve for it to be a worthy option. That meant a lot of successful options were idealistic and had a very long ROI. If I had the time I’d like to go back and write an updated version focusing more on what’s been done in the last 5 years. I don’t think many of the high-scoring options I laid out have been used or even attempted...

[Edward Glidewell]

It would be nearly impossible to go in and build houses on top of a course that already has houses fronting the holes.

Is not a problem at all to build houses on these old courses.

How? There's nowhere to even build roads without tearing down already existing houses.


There may be some where it's possible (courses with a lot of width), but there would be absolutely no way to do it on most of the courses I'm thinking of -- they're narrow to begin with and the existing houses are already not very far from each other. There's just no room. They might let the golf course turn into a field because they don't want to maintain it, but that's the best they could do.

[Kalen Braley]

Years ago, there was a muni in Hayward, CA that IIRC the city sold to a developer to build a housing tract.


Once word got out a bunch of citizens chimed in and thru the use of either lawsuit or city ordinance, put a stop to the new development...but after the course was already shut.


A stalemate ensued and the course sat for several years and became quite the eyesore.  A compromise was eventually struck.  High density single homes that were close enough to jump from rooftop to rooftop and a new 9 holer, par 33 I believe, that ran on the outskirts of the property near two very busy streets.

[Wayne_Kozun]

This article is not about struggling golf course, it is about the land being worth more as housing.  That is the case here in Toronto - the housing market is in an unending boom and the land is becoming ridiculously valuable, and urban sprawl as reaching areas that were once considered the middle of nowhere.

[Kalen Braley]

Wayne,


I always just figured this was default for the vast majority of courses in urban areas and that municipalities were intentionally deciding to keep the land open as green space that was at least put to some use other than a park.


If I had to guess, I figure most of the ones being sold off are relatively new, privately owned, carrying a sizeable debt load for the property acquisition and course build costs....and the temptation to cash out is just too hard to resist.

[Adrian_Stiff]

In the United Kingdom it would pretty much be every privately owned clubs dream to get planning for housing, even at the members clubs if you could obtain planning for housing on 150 acres, then in the south the land would be worth in the region of $150,000,000, if you spent $15,000,000 relocating and rebuilding or buying another and keeping some in the bank then a distribution of say $100,000,000 between 500 members equates to $200,000 per member.


Very few UK members would not vote for a $200,000 payday and then move to another course, but you will get the odd heeldigger that it does not suit.

[Bruce Katona]

Adrian:

What does Planning Approval require in the UK ; about an act of Parliament?

[Jay Mickle]

I most like the repurposing that Pinehurst did with the first 2 holes of courses #1 and #5, transforming them into the incredibly popular 9 hole course "The Cradle"http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/the-cradle-thistle-dhu/

[Mike_Young]

It would be nearly impossible to go in and build houses on top of a course that already has houses fronting the holes.

Is not a problem at all to build houses on these old courses.

There is plenty of room to build roads- 60 ft ROW and double loaded 120 deep lots on a 300 ft wide corridor...


How? There's nowhere to even build roads without tearing down already existing houses.


There may be some where it's possible (courses with a lot of width), but there would be absolutely no way to do it on most of the courses I'm thinking of -- they're narrow to begin with and the existing houses are already not very far from each other. There's just no room. They might let the golf course turn into a field because they don't want to maintain it, but that's the best they could do.

[Edward Glidewell]

That only works if you're going to have houses back to back/front to back, though. As in, someone's front door opening 50 feet away from the back of someone else's house. It's POSSIBLE, but the existing home values would drop precipitously and the new homes would be very cheap.


Plus, most residential developments have the golf holes spread out between roads and houses (cartball courses, as some here call them), where there's nowhere to cut a road through without taking out existing houses. I've been on courses where the cart paths between holes literally run through someone's yard, and that's the only possible way to get between holes because everything else is homes. There's just no real way to make it work.


I'm not saying there aren't any residential courses where that's an option; there definitely are some. But I've been on plenty where the logistics of trying to make it happen would be an absolute nightmare.

[Jeff Schley]

That only works if you're going to have houses back to back/front to back, though. As in, someone's front door opening 50 feet away from the back of someone else's house. It's POSSIBLE, but the existing home values would drop precipitously and the new homes would be very cheap.


Plus, most residential developments have the golf holes spread out between roads and houses (cartball courses, as some here call them), where there's nowhere to cut a road through without taking out existing houses. I've been on courses where the cart paths between holes literally run through someone's yard, and that's the only possible way to get between holes because everything else is homes. There's just no real way to make it work.


I'm not saying there aren't any residential courses where that's an option; there definitely are some. But I've been on plenty where the logistics of trying to make it happen would be an absolute nightmare.

Some in Palm Desert are this way, but Redhawk in Temecula, Ca. is definitely tight weaving in and out of houses and driving between several.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian:

What does Planning Approval require in the UK ; about an act of Parliament?

Bruce - like everything these days it's pretty much about ticking the boxes if you can do that 100% then you are there. A planning application is basically at local level but you must comply with the forward plans of local and national policy, lots of golf courses will be excluded from gaining approval for housing because they do not fall within the zoning. When those ZONE LINES  are repositioned is when a golf course can hit the jackpot.


Obtaining planning permission for a golf course is normally fairly easy on normal out of town land. If you want your course in an area designated as a SSSI (site of special scientific interest) then it becomes fairly difficult and you need to build a case of how every unticked box can be mitigated, sometimes meaning the cost to solve the problem can be astronomic or just ruin the routing.

[Mike_Young]

That only works if you're going to have houses back to back/front to back, though. As in, someone's front door opening 50 feet away from the back of someone else's house. It's POSSIBLE, but the existing home values would drop precipitously and the new homes would be very cheap.


Plus, most residential developments have the golf holes spread out between roads and houses (cartball courses, as some here call them), where there's nowhere to cut a road through without taking out existing houses. I've been on courses where the cart paths between holes literally run through someone's yard, and that's the only possible way to get between holes because everything else is homes. There's just no real way to make it work.


I'm not saying there aren't any residential courses where that's an option; there definitely are some. But I've been on plenty where the logistics of trying to make it happen would be an absolute nightmare.

Of course the houses will back up to each other; front doors do not open into another's backyard..  I'm not talking about how it increase or decrease home values.  I'm just saying it can be done and is done.  Home values dropped on these types of projects long before someone decided to put houses on the golf course.

[Edward Glidewell]

On the kinds of residential courses I'm talking about, they would -- there are homes lining both sides of the fairway, and not enough space to both cut a road in and put houses without having the existing homes open up onto someone else's yard. It's just not possible.


Again, I'm not saying every residential course is like that. I've played residential courses that could absolutely put additional homes on the existing golf holes. But I've also played ones where it just wouldn't work for multiple reasons.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich, I assume you're talking about Amelia Island? I played that bulldozed course once, 15 or so years ago -- remember very little about it. Also have a friend who goes down there several times a year and was stunned when he found out they shut it down out of the blue.

You are right, Edward.  As for your theory re: homes on NLE courses, the AI one does not fit your theory.  That course is in a (for Florida) valley which would be perfect land for McMansions overlooking the inland water.  Of course, Tom Paul may disagree as his family has a condo overlooking the land form.


Rich

[Edward Glidewell]

Rich, I assume you're talking about Amelia Island? I played that bulldozed course once, 15 or so years ago -- remember very little about it. Also have a friend who goes down there several times a year and was stunned when he found out they shut it down out of the blue.

You are right, Edward.  As for your theory re: homes on NLE courses, the AI one does not fit your theory.  That course is in a (for Florida) valley which would be perfect land for McMansions overlooking the inland water.  Of course, Tom Paul may disagree as his family has a condo overlooking the land form.


Rich

Oh, yeah -- I could definitely see housing being built on that location, even just from what little I remember of it.


I'm really talking about the kind of courses that are lined up and down on both sides with houses/condos and weave in and out of the developments, sometimes with long gaps between greens and tees surrounded by more homes. If there are only houses on one side, or if the course is wide and contiguous, it's not really an issue.

[Mike_Young]

On the kinds of residential courses I'm talking about, they would -- there are homes lining both sides of the fairway, and not enough space to both cut a road in and put houses without having the existing homes open up onto someone else's yard. It's just not possible.


Again, I'm not saying every residential course is like that. I've played residential courses that could absolutely put additional homes on the existing golf holes. But I've also played ones where it just wouldn't work for multiple reasons.

I'm not sure what type of course you are talking about but most holes with homes on both sides are a minimum 300 ft corridor. A road with a cul de sac down the middle will allow for homes on both sides and the back yards of those homes will touch the back yards of the existing homes.  If the golf hole is any tighter than the 300 ft corridor then they need to just blow the place up....