News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Selling the city owned golf courses in a development deal or land swap is a complete non starter as it would be the opposite of any claimed goal to "increase natural park space and improve access to it". Even a golf course is better environmentally than a bunch of ashphalt. Also, as some have mentioned the courses are mostly on protected flood plains which would limit development and affect the value of the land from a development perspective.

I'm actually surprised that hockey runs at full cost recovery... I would attribute that to A) greater participation rates for hockey vs golf. I'm willing to bet there are far more people playing hockey on a regular basis than there are playing golf and B) A longer season. Hockey season generally begins in late September and runs to early April, about 6 months; but the arena can basically operate at nearly 18 hours a day since daylight is not a requirement, that's ~3,276 available hours per season. Compared to golf where the season generally begins around mid May and runs to mid Oct, 5 months but is limited to full daylight in order to play, even at 12 hour days we are looking at 1,836 available hours per season. So golfers get 56% of the available playing time that a hockey player would, and hockey has a far higher cost of entry (stick, protective pads, skates, gloves, helmets cost well over $600) than golf does (one bag of clubs can be bought for under $300).

If cost recovery is the sole or primary consideration in a sports worth to the city I'd like to see if comparable summer sports run at a full cost recovery such as baseball, soccer, football, tennis, etc or how about other labour intensive sports such as skiing; if the golf courses operate at a better profit, or lessor loss per year would that make it a better option.

Furthermore the golf courses make up a tiny portion of the city's total land area, probably on the order of tenth's or hundredth's of a percent of the land area. Are we really putting this much thought into such a tiny part of the city?

The best suggestion I've heard is to include trails and biking paths along the boundaries of the courses
 
Toronto is 155,700 acres. Dentonia is around 33 acres by my reckoning. Don Valley is around 133 acres. So maybe all the courses are around 400-500 acres? That's more than 0.3% of City of Toronto for public golf courses.
 
If cost recovery is the sole or primary consideration in a sports worth to the city I'd like to see if comparable summer sports run at a full cost recovery such as baseball, soccer, football, tennis, etc or how about other labour intensive sports such as skiing; if the golf courses operate at a better profit, or lessor loss per year would that make it a better option.

- Recreation Ctrs in Toronto include a large number of facilities designated as 'free'. So any programming at those locations is not cost-recovery for those sports that are programmed.

- Outdoor Pools and Family/Free Swim are also typically free City-wide.

-Typically, adult, league-based sports are based at or close to cost-recovery; while kids sports are generally lower (if they are run by non-profits).

****

There are always sports that heavily subsidized, modestly subsidized and not subsidized.

For Instance, the City doesn't generally support Squash/Raquetball

The sports-based argument (as opposed to environment/housing etc.) is really bang for buck (users vs space required); exclusivity of use, and whether or not the price charged really provides affordable public access.

One could legitimately apply that argument to hockey and ask if the City's pricing policy is correct.

But that is a separate discussion.

The best suggestion I've heard is to include trails and biking paths along the boundaries of the courses

Not feasible at Dentonia or Don Valley.

It was looked at, at Don Valley, but determined to be not feasible without a 7-figure reconfiguration of the course.

This is, in part, due to the notion that trail users can't be 'trapped' with a fence on one-side, and riverbank or steep slope on the other.

At Dentonia, a proposal was reviewed to put the trail through the course, and use netting as required to protect trail users.

It was decided to be unworkable both from a trail-use perspective, but also golf-managers were worried about people sneaking onto the course.[/QUOTE]
 
Given the discussion, it might be helpful to link to the active development proposals of two golf courses in Oakville.

Worth noting that on both occasions, the proposal to redevelop the golf courses led to severe OMB fights between the city and local residents and the developer.

1) The Bronte Green Development in Oakville, redevelopment of the former Saw Whet Golf Course lands along Bronte Road. Already under construction.



1599613291043.png


2) 1333 Dorval Drive, redevelopment of the Glen Abbey Golf Club Lands

1599613628556.png

1599613706127.png


 
There's also the former The Country Club (Formerly Known As The Board of Trade) in Woodbridge which sits in the Humber Valley flood plain. It has an active proposal to convert 100 acres of the course into 1200 housing units. Community members are actively trying to get this development cancelled.
 
There's also the former The Country Club (Formerly Known As The Board of Trade) in Woodbridge which sits in the Humber Valley flood plain. It has an active proposal to convert 100 acres of the course into 1200 housing units. Community members are actively trying to get this development cancelled.

Not a city-owned club; but we can have a look at that one. Here is the floodplain map for that club:

1599664880121.png


It looks like they would have to cede the last on the west side of Clarence to the TRCA. However, very little of the rest appears to be within a floodplain.

I see some virtue, in some development here; though I would like to see any meaningful stand of trees preserved. (I'm not advocating here, merely observing)

The opportunity to connect Islington to Clarence for pedestrians, bikes and cars is material.

Something I note here is that some already built homes nearby are within the floodplain.

I would be tempted to entertain a deal where the developer went out and bought up some of those high-risk properties (which would become park) in exchange for right to build on lower risk space.
 
Other 905 golf club conversions;

Glenway golf course in Newmarket - Already mostly complete, with more units on the way.

York Downs, Markham. Private club that sold for something like $200 million. Being replaced with 2,400 units.

09262017a_2_01_Super_Portrait.jpg


Remington Parkview in Markham, Due for about 1,800 units on only about 1/4 of the course

Millcroft Mills in Burlington, in the early process of converting some of it's lands into more housing.


Remington Parkview and York Downs didn't face too much local opposition from my understanding, but they aren't as integrated into the community as many inner city golf courses. Millcroft Mills and Glenway are facing huge local backlash though.
 
Other 905 golf club conversions;

Glenway golf course in Newmarket - Already mostly complete, with more units on the way.

York Downs, Markham. Private club that sold for something like $200 million. Being replaced with 2,400 units.

09262017a_2_01_Super_Portrait.jpg


Remington Parkview in Markham, Due for about 1,800 units on only about 1/4 of the course

Millcroft Mills in Burlington, in the early process of converting some of it's lands into more housing.


Remington Parkview and York Downs didn't face too much local opposition from my understanding, but they aren't as integrated into the community as many inner city golf courses. Millcroft Mills and Glenway are facing huge local backlash though.

Thanks, good post, lots of info to dig into there.

Was looking at the Remington proposal, are you aware of any report since the one you linked to (date Dec 2018) which went to committee in early 2019?

I have to say, I've been spoiled by Toronto's tediously long application/reports. Its so easy to review everything. The scant 9 pages of this report tell you remarkably little.

I looked up the floodplain report for the subject land:

1599681894763.png


Lots of table land to the west available for development; although, I would have to loved to see the entire row of golf courses here, from Cedarbrae on up added to Rouge National Park, myself.
 

Great article. Think the development proponent is probably over doing it a bit in his density numbers; but he's still got the right idea. Los Angeles also doesn't have the same floodplain issues with most of its golf courses as we do.
 
Another golf course heading to redevelopment is a significant part of the Lionhead Gold Club in Brampton:


This one appears to be particularly thoughtful (at first glance) towards naturalization of part of the golf course with the surrounding natural areas:


I've had a quick skim..............

I see a couple of issues.

Subject to further reading on my part, they appear to be contemplating a trail for the community below the top of bank.

Not something I would recommend as this may be prone to erosion.

It definitely strikes me that they are encroaching on a fairly steep hill at the n/e corner of the site.

From a trail safety point of view, I don't like the absence of a connection point to the community interior along the north edge.

May have more to say.......later.

Only a first blush look so I may not have the details fully correct.
 

Back
Top