The loss of golf's urban footprint

[David Stamm]

Here in San Diego, there have been 3 courses that have been lost to closure in the last 24 months, the latest happening just a couple of weeks ago. It is projected that the county will lose at least 3 more in the "near future" due to significant decline in rounds played overall in SoCal, according to the president of the SoCal PGA. While most would agree that San Diego has never been a city chock full of great course options to play, it nevertheless got me thinking about a long term trickle down effect that will present challenges to any future growth for the game.

The 3 courses that have closed recently all were built about the same time, 50-60 years ago (the Palmer era) . When they were built, they were in areas that were considered "outlying". Urban sprawl, long ago, enveloped these courses. While the future of the land that these courses once occupied has not been officially determined,  unofficially,  the present landowners of 2 of the properties have made no secret that they wish to develop the land for residential use. The other courses that are rumored to be on the chopping block occupy similar land. While GCA aficionados would often complain about the low design quality of these typical housing development courses, the one plus they presented was the close proximity they possessed for local golfers. For some of these places now, and in the the near future, these convenient options will be forever gone.

I can't help but think about the negative impact the loss of these courses will have on the game here for the future. The  "footprints" of the courses cannot simply be replaced. The land today isn't there anymore. Yes, any future growth that would necessitate building courses can happen in present "outlying" areas, but I wonder if potential avid golfers would make the trek to play considering the present challenges the game faces, such as the time it takes to play. As far as I know, the number 1 obstacle the game faces in keeping occasional players who could potentially become core players, and gaining new players is the time involved. Driving 30-40 mins each way just adds to the time investment, and golf is suffering from this issue in some areas as it is.


Yes, avid golfers must "scratch the itch" and play, and they will do what it takes, but in this Millenial age, will they too make that type of investment as other avid golfers have the last 50 years? I wonder.

[Adam Lawrence]

If you don't own your land then you're always at risk if the property becomes valuable for another purpose.

The flipped of this is that if you _do_ own your land then you have a bunch of possibilities. You could downsize, to nine holes perhaps, selling off some land for development. If it makes sense you could sell the whole site and restart somewhere else.

[astavrides]

Which 3 courses closed?

[David Stamm]

Which 3 courses closed?

Escondido CC
San Luis Rey Downs (Robert Deruntz home course)
Carmel Highlands


Riverwalk, a 27 hole facility, is slated to close piecemeal over the next few years for commercial development. I have heard what the other courses potentially are, but I don't want to perpetuate unsubstantiated rumors. The rumors are probably true knowing what I know about them, but I'll refrain.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

What's the problem? The City owned courses, besides Balboa Park and Mission Hills Executive, are still around:

http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/golf/lease.shtml

Are there plans by the City to sell any of them?

[Thomas Dai]

With the spread of urbanisation now surrounding once out of town courses there's the health and safety effect to consider as well. A course I know well had to make adjustments for just these reasons but it was the distance shots started to go that really caused the problem as shots never used to go that far with the previous generation of equipment, and thus couldn't even reach the surrounding spots that have become areas of safety concern over the last few years.

Plus, with shots going further with modern equipment, courses that were seen as okay in length a few decades ago are now perceived by some as being too short and thus not attractive for them to play.

All rather a shame.

atb

[Pat Burke]

Add to the cauldron the ever deepening and political jackpot the drought is creating.

Golf courses will be in the crosshairs of California's environmentalist politics

[jeffwarne]

With the spread of urbanisation now surrounding once out of town courses there's the health and safety effect to consider as well. A course I know well had to make adjustments for just these reasons but it was the distance shots started to go that really caused the problem as shots never used to go that far with the previous generation of equipment, and thus couldn't even reach the surrounding spots that have become areas of safety concern over the last few years.

Plus, with shots going further with modern equipment, courses that were seen as okay in length a few decades ago are now perceived by some as being too short and thus not attractive for them to play.

All rather a shame.

atb

Thomas I've been beating that drum rather fruitlessly for quite a few years now,
Shame that so few can see the forest for the trees..
I'm sure the tennis players said the same thing as they drove that game right out of its Golden Age and into the ground with modern equipment

[Bill_McBride]

Add to the cauldron the ever deepening and political jackpot the drought is creating.

Golf courses will be in the crosshairs of California's environmentalist politics

As they've been for a long time, right?

[Carl Rogers]

I truly wonder how youngsters are going to get involved in the game.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There are plenty of short or courses less than 6000y around in major metro areas. These courses are good for beginners and seniors and anyone in between.

[Josh Stevens]

Consider the Kingswood GC on the fringe of Melbourne's sandbelt.

Over a hundred years old, but cursed with not only being a tad small, but also an odd shaped plot, such that 10 of its 18 holes run along a boundary.  Predictably, with balls going further, the land could no longer cope and attempts to resolve the issues have failed and so they have decided to sell up and merge with another  club - and take a $120m cheque in the process which will be reinvested in the new merged club and could, if spent well, make it another RM.  That will be a fun process to watch.

Equally predictably, those same neighbours who were complaining about balls coming over the fence, are now up in arms about the course being sold off for housing, as they want to keep it to walk their dogs.

There's no pleasing some people

[Mark_F]

and take a $120m cheque in the process which will be reinvested in the new merged club and could, if spent well, make it another RM. 

I don't know about that - I would settle for both being better than Kingston Heath, which is the minimum standard OCGD should be held to.

[Jason Way]

Timely that this thread comes up for me, as I am part of a group working to save and renovate a short course in an urban setting.  I originally thought that we should concede the battle and go to all par 3s, but having acquainted myself more with the history of the course, and the land itself, I am fighting to keep the few par 4s we have (which happen to be really neat holes), in the face of neighbor complaints about exiting balls.

Currently, we are tweaking the course to route players away from boundaries and trying to take driver out of the hands of those who can hit the ball far but often hit it crooked.  I am much more concerned about keeping the course fun for kids, seniors, and families, rather than the guy with the white belt who thinks it's his birthright to go for the green on every short par 4.  

If we end up opting for a drastic overhaul, including potentially going all par 3, I am sure that we can still make a really neat course on the property.  But I do think that is a lesser outcome, and it gives me concern about our long-term financial viability, as I wonder if we will be able to hold the interest of our players as well.  

Tough questions to answer and challenges to overcome, but that is why I have gotten down in the trenches.  I want golf to be a part of my community and the lives of my kids.  

[Carl Johnson]

Timely that this thread comes up for me, as I am part of a group working to save and renovate a short course in an urban setting.  . . .

Makes me think of an urban 9-hole muni in Charlotte, "The Dr. Charles L. Sifford Golf Course at Revolution Park."  (Yes, the name is almost as long as the course.)  From the dead center, the Trade and Tryon Sts. intersection, of Charlotte's downtown business district the course is 2 miles as the crow flies, though a little longer drive.  Hard to get more urban.  Unfortunately, the city doesn't have the money to keep in good shape, but it's still there and gets play.

[MCirba]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart and one I believe is integral to the healthy future of the game we all love.   I don't have much more to add than that right now, but wanted to thank you for starting this thread, David, as well as your efforts to promote public golf.

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

What sort of tricks or techniques do you use to try and dissuade that golfer you mentioned from hitting drivers or 3-woods even where it's completely stupid from a risk/reward perspective (i.e. shooting a score)?

There are certainly arrested development cases of all ages out there for whom golf is primarily about how far you can hit your driver and what sort of obstacles you can fly it over. In a perfect world, there would be driving ranges for those guys with dogleg holes, tall pine trees to hit over and fake OB stakes. But in the real world they get their jollies from hitting as many stupidly risky shots as possible when they're on the golf course.

As I always point out in these threads, the problem for me is that "short" courses in heavily populated areas always seem to also be "tight" courses where even a 200-yard driver of the ball is constantly in fear of losing balls or banging into houses, cars or other golfers. Even if you could banish all players with 100mph+ clubhead speed from those courses it would not eliminate nearby houses from getting pelted. Same for a reduced-flight golf ball. Some guy that's going to try and drive it 300 yards over a couple of houses inside a dogleg is going to try similar shots with a shorter golf ball.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Don't know how many of you remember the 9 hole par 3 course that was built in downtown Chicago in the early 90's by PB Dye.

When I mean "downtown", I mean that a 100 story skyscraper (at the time the 5th tallest building in the world) sat 250 yards from the first tee. It eventually was bulldozed and there is now a new urban community there with residential highrises, restaurants and office buildings.

Funny, I'm a golf nut and I never played it.