Thanks, Brian.
I’m all for the re-wilding of a few golf courses if it helps with public green space within city limits. But the reality is that:
A) It takes effort and management and
B) It usually hastens the re-zoning to housing
Sounds like it has been a success at Lewisham from this article though...
This is an issue that inevitably golf will face.(now, in the near future and for some the distant future)
Evidently in some areas it is already is here due to over supply of golf/under supply of green public space.
It is one of the reasons I rail against the ever growing scale of the game, which certainly has grown(in some ways) by 10-15% in the last 20 years.
Of course that's not completely true of many/most courses as people are very quick to point out(the .01% argument), but is true in more ways that those arguers care to admit.
Even simply referring to a classic course as "it's a great little course" has an effect to some degree, as such a course (certainly not intended originally to be "little") is automatically disqualified by many as a site for serious competition-even if such a decision is misguided or flat out incorrect.Or inevitably they redo or find new tees to avoid that moniker.
Rightly or wrongly-Very few set out to build a "great "little" track" UNLESS they are as successful and secure as Tom Doak backed by a successful and secure developer as part of an overall offering of courses.
there are of course starter level versions of this, of which we need more-but most new builds do NOT seek this moniker.
The developers fear is that they will attain it as tech goes unchecked(as so many courses built in the last hundred years have faced)
Wrongheaded or not, new tees, safety corridor issues, obsolete driving ranges, and CERTAINLY new high end construction(which gets nearly ALL the attention) all create scale issues-and inevitably the solution is MORE land used when available.
So just because the argument is "how many hit it too far?", "golf is hard" etc., the "game won't grow" etc....
doesn't mean golf shouldn't do its share.
Having your driver go 250(the original scale of the course) vs. 290 just isn't that large of price to pay to keep the game from going away or being marginalized in many places.(I can already hear the typing from the 215 extrapolation crowd)
Any informed anti-golf journalist(of which clearly there are few) could target the sheer rise in distance the ball goes, the rise in land use(especially on new courses) the additional inputs etc./lack of sustainability and pour further fuel on the fire. Particulalrly the demand for "perfect" conditions with additional inputs.
I rant because the pace of scale change is accelerating and absurd distances the ball(supposedly) travels are being "normalized", even if not possible for nearly all golfers.Regardless of whether that should matter-it does and golf gets bigger.
The courses of the future will occupy(or need to occupy) bigger footprints unless the scale is reigned in or more creative solutions are embraced(I don't hold my breath for this)
and bigger footprints will not be popular, practical or the way forward for golf(in many/most areas)-perhaps not in our lifetimes but eventually.
Golfers and walkers etc. CAN and DO co-exist but the distance a ball potentially travels certainly can compromise that relationship-if nothing else from a sheer safety perspective, but ultimately in their ever increasing demand for land expansion.