[Jesse Kodadek]

I have been following Vaughn's very interesting thread about Houston Memorial when lo and behold, an article popped up yesterday that Missoula County is going to entertain a proposal on Monday from a development group about a land swap. This would involve the County giving a developer County-owned Larchmont Golf Course (~157 acres in the middle of town) in order to build affordable housing. In return, the developer would give the County some land that is not densely buildable because it cannot get septic approval as a substantial amount of it is in the 100-year floodplain of the Bitterroot River. It's not exactly clear from the article, but someone--presumably the developer--would build a new golf course on their existing parcel and then give the whole thing to the County.


Here is the article: https://missoulacurrent.com/business/2021/11/redevelop-golf-course/


Comments on social media suggest some former owners of the parcel even developed a preliminary golf course design.


Needless to say, this is a potentially exciting prospect from a town where the golf is pretty mediocre at the moment. We have two OK privates (Missoula Country Club, an old parkland course right next door to Larchmont; and the Ranch Club, a wide-open Les Furber in the middle of a housing development), a 2008-vintage public 18-holer that is part of a housing development and was designed by Brian Curley (Canyon River), a forgettable par 3, and an old and strange 9-holer on the hill (Highlands). So basically there is a single 18-hole public course in town, besides Larchmont.


Larchmont is OK for a muni. It's in fine condition, but there absolutely nothing interesting about it. The land is dead-flat, as is the proposed exchange, so the two properties are all-square on that one. But a new, well-done course could be real game-changer for golf here.


I am sure this whole idea will face stiff resistance from existing users of the course (which I confess I am not), but if a great course can be built as a replacement, it would be a win-win because the town desperately needs more housing, and we are very much hemmed in by geography. Beyond that, real estate professionals are suggesting that the value of the Larchmont property is probably close to $20 million but the substitute parcel is worth a fraction of that, probably less than $2 million since it is significant barriers to residential or commercial development. That means that even if the course cost $10 million (based on Tom Doak's statements in the Houston Memorial thread, though I know it was a reno), that would still mean a potential windfall of $10 million to the County, not even taking into consideration the vast property tax benefits.



I am hoping some of you can point me to other courses and related articles/resources about architecturally significant municipal courses in the US. As mentioned above, I am aware of Houston Memorial. I also know about the Winter Park 9. What other information can we marshal to show the benefits of a great course to a community if this gets to the point where building a new course is a serious consideration?

Any architects here looking for a job on a pancake-flat piece of land in a beautiful part of the world?

[Ronald Montesano]

His mini-type says this:




I am hoping some of you can point me to other courses and related articles/resources about architecturally significant municipal courses in the US. As mentioned above, I am aware of Houston Memorial. I also know about the Winter Park 9. What other information can we marshal to show the benefits of a great course to a community if this gets to the point where building a new course is a serious consideration?

[Jesse Kodadek]

His mini-type says this:




I am hoping some of you can point me to other courses and related articles/resources about architecturally significant municipal courses in the US. As mentioned above, I am aware of Houston Memorial. I also know about the Winter Park 9. What other information can we marshal to show the benefits of a great course to a community if this gets to the point where building a new course is a serious consideration?

Thanks Ronald. I am not sure why that is mini nor why I can't figure out how to edit it, but that is indeed the gist of the post.

[Lou_Duran]

The biggest opposition may not come from current golfers, especially if the new course is built and opened before the existing muni is closed, but from nearby homeowners and businesses who do not want to be located near some types of affordable housing.


There are numerous examples of public/private ventures that have been successful.  Of the top of my head, I was involved for a time with Mansfield National in Texas which was built and financed by a golf management company on land owned by the city, leased for 30+ years with renewal options.  The city justified the transaction on the basis that it would open up that side of the city for higher-end uses (single-family residential on small lots and some commercial vs. 10-acre ranchettes which were popular at the time due to affordable land prices) and much greater tax revenues.  The project accomplished its mission, but not without giving the nearby country club problems during the downturn in the economy.

[Craig Sweet]

I worked at Larchmont for 6 years and said long ago that the land would someday be too valuable for a golf course.  I was envisioning a sell off of the land along Reserve St, and turning the remaining property into a 9 hole course...a walkable, 2 hour round.  It's pretty hard to swallow this idea of a land swap. Less than 8 years ago a new million dollar irrigation system was installed. As for the other courses in the area there is nothing wrong with any of them.  They are enjoyable, typically in good condition and affordable.  Missoulians are very happy with that.

[Craig Sweet]

And I might point out, the land being swapped, is flat, often flooded, with extremely shallow ground water table.  On the east side of the Bitterroot River the executive Par 3 course is often under water, and previously, the bunkers would fill up from ground water in the spring and have since been removed.  One final question, can the land swap be legally done?  I believe Larchmont is on land that might be part of the Historic Fort Missoula land and subject to restrictions.  There was a push 25 years ago to develop land inside the historic fort area and it resulted in a major court case that the developers ultimately lost. 


The Larchmont land along Reserve Street is prime commercial land and there will be no affordable housing there.  And, when the housing is built, it will face the blank wall back of commercial businesses...Nice.

[Jesse Kodadek]

I am watching the proposal right now and the PGA pro from Larchmont just said "We've had people waiting here for trees to grow for 40 years….it would be unfair to ask them to wait another 40 years." Wow.

[Craig Sweet]

I should also mentioned I worked at the Missoula Country Club for 12 years and every Spring during run off the bunkers on #17 would fill with ground water, as would the driving range.  The area proposed for the new course is no different. It floods often. Larchmont is a more that adequate county owned course, in good condition, with a new irrigation system, and it makes money. Even more importantly, it provides affordable recreation.  A new course, with no infrastructure to begin with will be costly and will put golf out of reach for many that call Larchmont home. 


This is little more than a greedy grab by the developers for the last prime commercial land in the Missoula valley. Sadly, they are playing the affordable housing card to justify their greedy land grab.

[V_Halyard]

I should also mentioned I worked at the Missoula Country Club for 12 years and every Spring during run off the bunkers on #17 would fill with ground water, as would the driving range.  The area proposed for the new course is no different. It floods often. Larchmont is a more that adequate county owned course, in good condition, with a new irrigation system, and it makes money. Even more importantly, it provides affordable recreation.  A new course, with no infrastructure to begin with will be costly and will put golf out of reach for many that call Larchmont home. 

This is little more than a greedy grab by the developers for the last prime commercial land in the Missoula valley. Sadly, they are playing the affordable housing card to justify their greedy land grab.

Hi Craig and I fear you might be right on the land grab premise. I think the most impactful and successful golf/Muni ventures seem to be driven by a town  that recognizes the quality of life positives associated with golf, and  recognizes its value to their constituents and inhabitants

If the first reflex of the town is to pave over the golf course and swap it with some of the wettest, nastiest, undesirable and un-developable plots they can find to fly the bullshit “affordable housing” and “open space“ cards, it’s going to be an uphill battle.  How is your gulf culture at-large, and are there any pro public golf advocates or champions within the town Administration?

[Tom_Doak]

That means that even if the course cost $10 million (based on Tom Doak's statements in the Houston Memorial thread, though I know it was a reno), that would still mean a potential windfall of $10 million to the County, not even taking into consideration the vast property tax benefits.

Hi Jesse:


You are not comparing apples to apples there.


While the cost of construction for a new public course should be LESS than $10 million, that figure doesn't consider all of the infrastructure that goes with it -- a new clubhouse and parking, a maintenance building, etc.  Memorial Park was able to keep its existing clubhouse; they did replace their maintenance building but I don't believe that number was included in the $10m.


Moreover, the Memorial project was motivated entirely by the desire to move the PGA TOUR back downtown; nobody made any $$$ off a land deal.  The Missoula proposal sounds like it has different motivations!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()