"There are plenty of useless golf courses to repurpose"

[David_Tepper]

Ouch!


https://www.fastcompany.com/90315242/need-land-for-parks-and-housing-there-are-plenty-of-useless-golf-courses-to-repurpose

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Unfortunately, the author is right, particularly in close in suburbs in major metropolitan areas. 

[Jeff Schley]

I wouldn't say useless, I would say underutilized IMO.  Golf in urban environments is a luxury that it's utilization doens't justify the offsetting opportunity cost for other uses.

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, the author is right, particularly in close in suburbs in major metropolitan areas. 

It’s not even unfortunate.  Some must die so that others may thrive, rather than just survive.

[Ben Malach]

This is something that has become personally vary interesting to me. As I think a majority of the work in the field of GCA will be on how to make these sites work. In my personal view there are two types of urban golf the first and sadly most common is are courses with extremely defined playing corridors (See image bellow).



The key issue with these types of courses is that due to there defined nature there it is rare that we can find a cost effective solution to significantly improve the golf course from an architectural perspective. Therefore, all lot of the time if feel the land would be better served as a park or community green space. Honestly isn't that what most people signed up for when they bought in golf course communities in the first place, a well kept patch of park out there window. 


The second and more redeemable of urban courses is one that retains an large interconnected footprint and/or are only slightly bifurcated by allotments or natural areas. These properties have a lot more potential as there are significantly more options at play(see image bellow).



-
This second course has a ton more potential to improve than the first shown even though they were built at a similar time and only a couple miles from each other. Its a real shame that the first model was even attempted as it does a huge disservice to the communities that surround them and the golfing public. As these courses are not very interesting or fun to play but are also in a lot of cases hazardous to the home owners that surround them. As a slightly miscued golf shot has a high potential to end up on their property. The only solution as these courses will continue to fail is to sell of the sections with road access and to rebuild them as parks with a percentage of the sale of the lots being diverted into a trust to help in the maintenance of the parks in the future.

[Lou_Duran]

Unfortunately, the author is right, particularly in close in suburbs in major metropolitan areas. 

It’s not even unfortunate.  Some must die so that others may thrive, rather than just survive.

A new Mike Young disciple, but perhaps with a classical liberal twist on creative destruction.


We can still lament the loss of a favorite course without righteous indignation.  Great Southwest GC closed because a warehouse developer was willing to pay nearly double of what the course could sell for as a going concern.  A lot of people were upset, especially adjoining apartment renters and townhome owners, but most had enjoyed the course as an amenity for many years without incurring costs as members.  A few years later, I doubt that the warehouses are working out financially, but I am sure that nearby Texas Star and some other public and private clubs have benefited considerably from GSW's 250-300 or so members having to pull stakes.   

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The use of " useless" by the author shows her bias towards golf. The facts are that I suggested in my original reply:


Unfortunately, the author is right, particularly in close in suburbs in major metropolitan areas.

In the Philadelphia area, the land is worth more than as a golf course: In the last few years these close in suburban privately owned courses (the first 3 were public)  have been sold for development- Horsham Valley, Center Square, Limekiln, Ashbourne and Edgmont.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:  I saw it first hand in 2008.  Two local courses closed (one was a High Pointe), and all the other local courses were suddenly profitable by picking up those rounds.  But then Lochenheath re-opened, because the homeowners didn’t want to see their back yards become unmaintained, and it was back to all the courses struggling to turn a profit.


Ben:  good observation about the benefits of “core” golf courses in case of future redevelopment.  The residential courses that were built from the 1960’s to 2008 were a flawed business model.  Buyers assumed the golf course in their backyard would always be maintained, but in fact the housing developer washed his hands of the golf as soon as he could, often without leaving a stable successor in place.  I have seen a handful of examples in different countries where the houses actually own the land for the course and just grant the golfers an easement through their back yards; it gives the homeowners more annual costs in return for long-term control of their surrounds.

[Ed Brzezowski]

The use of " useless" by the author shows her bias towards golf. The facts are that I suggested in my original reply:


Unfortunately, the author is right, particularly in close in suburbs in major metropolitan areas.

In the Philadelphia area, the land is worth more than as a golf course: In the last few years these close in suburban privately owned courses (the first 3 were public)  have been sold for development- Horsham Valley, Center Square, Limekiln, Ashbourne and Edgmont.

Drove by Edgemont yesterday, still overgrown with no sign of development.

[Tom_Doak]

It can take several years to get planning permission to redevelop the land for a course.  Often the developer will allow the club to keep playing golf in the waiting period, if they want to pay to maintain the course.

[Ed Brzezowski]

It can take several years to get planning permission to redevelop the land for a course.  Often the developer will allow the club to keep playing golf in the waiting period, if they want to pay to maintain the course.

Which is why this seems so odd Tom. the property did produce income and the tax rate is sky high. Must be very deep pockets? its going on three years now.

[Jason Topp]

I have been watching three courses near my house transform into housing over the last couple of years.


It is depressing when the bulldozers clear the area out for homes. 


Other courses in the area have benefited. 



[size=78%]  [/size]

[Blake Conant]

I wrote my thesis on this issue. Tom sat on my committee and Mike Young was nice enough to have some candid conversations about it.


Just because a course is useless doesn't mean it'll be the course that closes, though.  As Tom states, local golf courses would at least control their fate if they joined forces and decided for themselves how many can exist, which one(s) needed to go, and how to absorb the debt/reallocate assets and employees to other clubs, etc.  It's complicated, but not impossible. 


My fear is small golf courses in urban areas that could potentially provide good social, economic, sustainable benefits are in the most danger of closure.  If I could rewrite my thesis I would've focused more on that.  Sunset Golf Course right in my backyard just closed and it could've remained open if the developers had seen its potential.  Imagine if Candler Park suffers the same fate?  Or if Winter Park had succumbed to that.


Even if Sunset couldn't have remained the 9-hole executive course it was, it couldve become a cool par 3 course without much investment (roughly half the course was located in flood plain where the developer couldn't touch, anyway, and we went to them with an idea for a par 3 course that would've cost peanuts to execute... would've been a unique asset for the apartments they were about to build!).  And for some clubs, maybe it makes sense to sell part of the land and go from 18 to 9, or from 18 to 12, or from an executive course to a par 3 course, etc.  Use that money to pay off debt, improve the golf course, etc.

[Lou_Duran]

Just because a course is useless doesn't mean it'll be the course that closes, though.  As Tom states, local golf courses would at least control their fate if they joined forces and decided for themselves how many can exist, which one(s) needed to go, and how to absorb the debt/reallocate assets and employees to other clubs, etc.  It's complicated, but not impossible. 

Did Tom really state this?  I knew he was a radical of sorts, but even he knows that collusion between owners to thwart competition and set prices is illegal.  What if three or four owners with deep pockets colluded to pursue a predatory pricing strategy to starve and drive-out other less well-structured operators?  It has been awhile since I studied anti-trust, but I do remember that the central thrust is to protect the consumer.  While Mike Young and others justifiably lament the direction of the industry (I know that he doesn't favor this word), the golf consumer in many areas probably has not had it better.


Other than golfers, who would say that urban courses provide superior social benefits than other uses?  Believe me, if you are espousing central planning, golf will suffer much worse than current trends suggest.  What a better site for affordable, subsidized housing than a core golf course built near the center of the city with good access to public transportation, jobs, stores, services.  If maximizing social utility becomes the norm, golf will become even smaller and more exclusionary.

[Tom_Doak]

Just because a course is useless doesn't mean it'll be the course that closes, though.  As Tom states, local golf courses would at least control their fate if they joined forces and decided for themselves how many can exist, which one(s) needed to go, and how to absorb the debt/reallocate assets and employees to other clubs, etc.  It's complicated, but not impossible. 

Did Tom really state this?  I knew he was a radical of sorts, but even he knows that collusion between owners to thwart competition and set prices is illegal.  What if three or four owners with deep pockets colluded to pursue a predatory pricing strategy to starve and drive-out other less well-structured operators?  It has been awhile since I studied anti-trust, but I do remember that the central thrust is to protect the consumer.  While Mike Young and others justifiably lament the direction of the industry (I know that he doesn't favor this word), the golf consumer in many areas probably has not had it better.

Collusion, really?  I was thinking of it more as a series of mergers.  It happens elsewhere around the world:  when an Australian course in Melbourne or Sydney is close to going under, they look to be absorbed by another club, and they can then decide together what part of the combined facilities to keep and what to sell for real estate, so the banks don't foreclose and take the real estate value for themselves.

[Blake Conant]

Other than golfers, who would say that urban courses provide superior social benefits than other uses?  Believe me, if you are espousing central planning, golf will suffer much worse than current trends suggest.  What a better site for affordable, subsidized housing than a core golf course built near the center of the city with good access to public transportation, jobs, stores, services.  If maximizing social utility becomes the norm, golf will become even smaller and more exclusionary.

By your reasoning golf in Scotland would cease to exist.

[Mike Bodo]

Can anyone provide examples of public golf courses in urban cities and communities that are thriving? Winter Park is an anomaly and not a good example for a variety of reasons.


All I know is that the urban golf courses situated in and around Detroit, i.e. Chandler Park, Rouge Park, Palmer Park and Rackham, have been struggling for years. The Tiger effect created a brief blip in interest and play at these courses, but nothing lasting. Essentially, you have an older, dying generation of golfers that still frequent them, but with each passing year there are fewer and fewer golfing rounds due to attrition. As it was, the New Rogell Golf Course (Ross) closed for good several years ago and has sat untouched since. The repair and maintenance costs to keep the surviving courses open are estimated between $5.9 and $8.6 million dollars. Add in upgrades needed to bring them up to modern standards and you are now up to $18 million. (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/04/02/detroit-golf-courses/470061002/). The city of Detroit has pledged their commitment to keep these courses open, but for how long when each now operates at a loss and shows no signs of turning things around? The land at some would fetch a nice financial return for the city from a developer. In a nutshell it's not a matter of if these courses close, but when.


We all want to see the game of golf grow among all the various socio-economic and demographic groups, as well all geographic areas of the country. However, the financial reality tells us this is not workable. It's hard enough as it is attracting younger generations to the game in affluent, suburban communities, let alone struggling urban cities. I don't know what the solution is, but at the rate things are trending golf will become more exclusionary as time and generations pass.

[Lou_Duran]

I am unaware of a group of owners getting to decide which courses should close and the assets and employees distributed to the survivors.  How is it done?  Pick straws?  Finding the head of a prized horse next to you in bed?  I just don't think that divvying up the market is a successful or legal strategy, but I would enjoy reading that thesis.


I suppose one or several owners could form an LLC to target a distressed competitor with the intent of taking capacity off the market.  As I recall, something like this allegedly happened in San Antonio which resulted in the closure and re-purposing of a well-known course with considerable architectural merit.  I remember that there was a big uproar n the media and it was not lost on the critics that by closing the one course, the owners' other operations nearby benefited at the expense of the consumer. 


Typically, courses having financial problems seek ways to overcome them and when they can't, efforts are made to sell them.  I can think of several courses in the D/FW area who have gone through this process, some closing for good and being re-purposed, others being sold and re-capitalized.


I am familiar with an upscale country club with a very expensive clubhouse and a small membership offering itself years ago to a better established club for no other consideration than absorbing its members.  The offer was declined and both clubs survived.

[Lou_Duran]

Other than golfers, who would say that urban courses provide superior social benefits than other uses?  Believe me, if you are espousing central planning, golf will suffer much worse than current trends suggest.  What a better site for affordable, subsidized housing than a core golf course built near the center of the city with good access to public transportation, jobs, stores, services.  If maximizing social utility becomes the norm, golf will become even smaller and more exclusionary.

By your reasoning golf in Scotland would cease to exist.

As Niall reminds me frequently, Scotland is not our 51st state.  Besides, plenty of golf would survive in Scotland on its own merit, though perhaps not nearly as many courses if we make bad choices here in the States.  I still can't fathom that the cost of an annual subscription for the locals at the top courses in the UK are equivalent to 3-4 visitor rounds.  What a fantastic gig!


Other than being on common land, is it customary for the government to subsidize golf in Scotland?  Perhaps planning restrictions on housing and development might save some struggling courses from being re-purposed, but I think that many which barely survive do so in great part because of thrift and frugality.  It doesn't take high green fees and subscriptions if there is minimal debt, a small, functional clubhouse, and ultra-low maintenance costs.

[Blake Conant]

I think that many which barely survive do so in great part because of thrift and frugality.  It doesn't take high green fees and subscriptions if there is minimal debt, a small, functional clubhouse, and ultra-low maintenance costs.

Agree, and explaining how to do that would be a big part of saving some struggling US courses.  Quality and affordability aren't mutually exclusive, and some of these clubs may just need to adjust where they spend their money.  But some are so far in debt that they're beyond helping.  And some just don't need to exist, because they were built anticipating a rising demand that never materialized. 

[SB]

I think that many which barely survive do so in great part because of thrift and frugality.  It doesn't take high green fees and subscriptions if there is minimal debt, a small, functional clubhouse, and ultra-low maintenance costs.

Agree, and explaining how to do that would be a big part of saving some struggling US courses.  Quality and affordability aren't mutually exclusive, and some of these clubs may just need to adjust where they spend their money.  But some are so far in debt that they're beyond helping.  And some just don't need to exist, because they were built anticipating a rising demand that never materialized.

You are confusing a few problems here.  First, most PUBLIC golf courses don't have a problem with high expenses.  Most private clubs DO have a problem with expenses, but they will never cut the size of their clubhouse or be frugal because they think that's why people belong to clubs, and they are not entirely incorrect.  Second, debt doesn't cause golf courses to close.  It causes them to go bankrupt, somebody loses their money, and then a new owner comes in with a lower cost.  Or, they are bulldozed if the value of the land is higher, which is what should have happened in the first place because, you know, capitalism. 
[/size]
[/size]Also worth noting:  The courses that are the most useless are generally the ones that will stay open.  Looking at the two golf course aerials, the one in houses will never close because the homeowners will never let it die, and it will never be developed because there are few ways to stick houses on the open areas.  The second one, however, can be developed with no homeowner complaints and easy zoning changes because it's immediately off a freeway exit, which is where cities want to build densely.   The value of the first as land is close to zero, and the value of the second could be in the tens of millions of dollars depending on location.  And, the first will continue to lower its prices until it drives the second out of business.  Welcome to the free market.

[Mike_Young]

I don't see the 12000 mom and pops in this country sitting down to tell all how they survive.  Not going to happen.  Now if one wishes to call the PGA and have them consult on how to operate, call ASGCA and tell you what the lifespan is of your systems and then send you supt to listen to some guys with 1.5 mil budgets tell him what he needs to do, then I will assure you you will not make it...oh..unless you hire the right management company

[Jeff Schley]

I don't see the 12000 mom and pops in this country sitting down to tell all how they survive.  Not going to happen.  Now if one wishes to call the PGA and have them consult on how to operate, call ASGCA and tell you what the lifespan is of your systems and then send you supt to listen to some guys with 1.5 mil budgets tell him what he needs to do, then I will assure you you will not make it...oh..unless you hire the right management company

Very true Mike.  What you "need" to do is have a bigger budget then you can do what I say is needed. 

[Dave McCollum]

Jeff,


I never noticed before but your avatar photo seems to accomplish what a linebacker friend of mine once described as his ultimate football goal: hit somebody so hard his head comes off.  Payton seems to have done it with a mere swat of an arm. 

[Tim Martin]

Jeff,


I never noticed before but your avatar photo seems to accomplish what a linebacker friend of mine once described as his ultimate football goal: hit somebody so hard his head comes off.  Payton seems to have done it with a mere swat of an arm.

“I’ve had this dream. I’ve had it more than once. It’s always the same. It’s the Super Bowl. We’re in it and the game is almost over. So far I’ve made every tackle. Every single tackle in the game! Everybody is going crazy. My teammates, the coaches, the fans. So excited. I’m excited. We’re ahead by a couple of points, but they’re down by our goal, and their quarterback rolls out on the last play of the game. I don’t know who he is. His face is empty in the helmet. But I get to him as he nears the goal. We meet head on. The top of my helmet rams into his chin and goes right through his head. His head explodes and comes out the two ear holes in his helmet. We both go down—the quarterback dead on the field and me mortally wounded. But I get up and stagger off the field. Millions of people are shouting Rossovich, Rossovich!!!!! It’s the greatest game and greatest crowd ever. Millions of people. I’m reeling as I come off. I give them one last regal wave—and collapse to the ground, dead. I feel myself floating, floating up to Heaven. Happy. Forever. Ahhh!”


From a story on the late, great Tim Rossovich in Sports Illistrated, September 1971.