The Future of City-Owned Golf Courses in Toronto

[Northern Light]

Another argument against converting golf courses that I just thought of: wouldn't it be cheaper to simply build on the existing utilities and infrastructure in service-rich neighbourhoods? We should be looking at revising zoning laws, and not waste our time with this kind of stopgap measure. Look at Tam O'Shanter, for example - why is the golf course there any less "urban" than the single-family homes along Kennedy Road just to the east? Maybe a view of the golf course could be a selling point for future apartments and midrises near Agincourt GO! Just combining this with promoting off-season uses should help to subsidize the summer maintenance costs.

I would argue for most of Tam O'Shanter (the floodplain portion anyway) being park space.

However, more than any other course, it does have some land outside the floodplain.

For the record, this is the density that directly abuts the golf course on its south side.

It is equally true that the north side of the course, and the east side of Kennedy are both low density.

I don't think many people here would argue with upzoning all that land; but it is up to a developer to acquire it. Unlike Tam O'Shanter those houses aren't owned by the City and therefore can't be repurposed by the City unless we've advocating expropriation.

Which, I would be open to; but that really is an entirely separate conversation from making the best use of the land the City already owns.

 

[Northern Light]

For all the peoples advocating for the repurposing of City Golf Courses, your being selfish, i as a property owner and City tax payer enjoy golfing even thou i rarely play on city courses (have not played city course for 10 years), i don't play tennis, baseball, soccer, swim, use hockey arenas, libraries or any other city recreational facilities, should the city repurpose all of these facilities as none of them make money ? IMO the city has a good balance and not every citizen uses the same facilities or activities, so let the people that enjoy golf enjoy playing and the same for all other people that enjoy other recreational facilities.Not everything in life is about money.

Your tone is caustic and unhelpful.

No one is attacking you personally or golfers writ-large.

No one is outlawing golf or seizing your clubs.

Breathe.

This is a rational conversation dealing with finite resources (land, park space, money) and how to maximize benefits (environmentally, for cycling, for mobility, for housing, for a range of recreational uses).

No one here is advocating prison for golfing.

Its a question of mitigating the harm (environmental, obstructed mobility, lack of park space in certain communities) and maximizing opportunity.

We can have a rational conversation about whether the above can be done while retaining publicly-owned golf courses; if so, how those courses could be modified to address concerns; and how more Torontonians could gain access regardless of the financial obstacles.

You're more than welcome to participate in that discussion.

But name-calling and antagonism are not welcome here.

 

[thaivic]

Your tone is caustic and unhelpful.

No one is attacking you personally or golfers writ-large.

No one is outlawing golf or seizing your clubs.

Breathe.

This is a rational conversation dealing with finite resources (land, park space, money) and how to maximize benefits (environmentally, for cycling, for mobility, for housing, for a range of recreational uses).

No one here is advocating prison for golfing.

Its a question of mitigating the harm (environmental, obstructed mobility, lack of park space in certain communities) and maximizing opportunity.

We can have a rational conversation about whether the above can be done while retaining publicly-owned golf courses; if so, how those courses could be modified to address concerns; and how more Torontonians could gain access regardless of the financial obstacles.

You're more than welcome to participate in that discussion.

But name-calling and antagonism are not welcome here.

Excuse me ... Did i call anybody names? If that's what you think i meant by saying people are being selfish that was not my intent to offend anyone in particular, i just said that people that are advocating to repurpose all city owned golf courses are being selfish, i would say the same about people advocating to repurpose all soccer fields, baseball fields, libraries and other city owned amenities , i have read many comments here for the city to repurpose all the golf courses and i am stating that would be selfish as many citizens enjoy the outdoor activity and exercise that they get from playing golf and also paying to do so, we as citizens and tax payers don't all like to participate in the same activities.

 

[Northern Light]

Excuse me ... Did i call anybody names? If that's what you think i meant by saying people are being selfish that was not my intent to offend anyone in particular, i just said that people that are advocating to repurpose all city owned golf courses are being selfish, i would say the same about people advocating to repurpose all soccer fields, baseball fields, libraries and other city owned amenities , i have read many comments here for the city to repurpose all the golf courses and i am stating that would be selfish as many citizens enjoy the outdoor activity and exercise that they get from playing golf and also paying to do so, we as citizens and tax payers don't all like to participate in the same activities.

Selfish is a pejorative term describing someone's intent, not their position or action.

You have no basis on which to ascribe such a motive.

Assets are repurposed all the time.

Wading pools are routinely converted to splash pads, as this saves the City money on life guards.

The planetarium was shut down, to the lament of many, because it financially under performed.

Many in the City used to enjoy a theme park in the west end called Sunnyside, which was erased in favour of the Gardiner Expressway ( I certainly didn't agree with that trade).

Edward's Gardens/Toronto Botannical Garden was once a golf course.

There are good trades and bad trades; some choices are supported by objective evidence, some less so.

But the simple act of considering repurposing space is not malevolent or selfish.

One reason Scarborough has only 2 outdoor skating areas, is that most were converted to indoor hockey arenas.

The City, by the way, is now considering shutting several down and repurposing them as gyms; because Scarborough hockey arenas are under-utilized.

Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to consider.

That doesn't mean its the right choice, nor is it either/or. or all/nothing.

Its something to consider.

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

Reminder, Toronto is expected to add a million people over the coming decades, where else other than golf courses can the City get enough green space for enjoyment by the masses? Does anyone know when Rail Deck Park is going to be done, 2025, 2030, 2035? Converting municipally owned golf courses can bolster the amount of parkland much faster and cheaper than Rail Deck Park. I'm not saying don't do Rail Deck Park, I'm saying Toronto needs more parkland, sooner, rather than later, and it needs to be accessible to downtown residents without a car.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Golf courses are fine in rural areas on the edge of the GTA. In the city they are simply not intensive enough of a use. By refusing to close them, the city is providing a massive subsidy for what is actually a very niche sport in the city. There is a reason there are very few private courses in Toronto, and most of the 905 courses are slowly selling off and developing.

Golf's high cost of entry is an issue, but it's not alone in that. Hockey isn't much cheaper. Hockey isn't as land intensive however, so it doesn't need the same level of subsidization.

Dentonia for example is literally right next door to a subway station and would be a great place for some high density housing. Build 5 or 6 thirty storey towers under Housing Now with a significant affordable housing component, and convert the floodplain lands to a public park. If you want, maybe preserve 9 holes for a reduced course size. That setup will provide 1000x the public benefit that the course does today - providing a select few a day some recreation on land that is literally next door to one of the busier subway stations in the city.

Don Valley similarly has a fairly large amount of land outside of the floodplain within walking distance of the subway.

Tom O'shanter would be a prime spot for a huge housing now missing middle type development if you ask me, with only a small area of it in the floodplain. There is potential to construct a large public park to service nearby high density areas too.

 

[picard102]

Don Valley similarly has a fairly large amount of land outside of the floodplain within walking distance of the subway.

90% of Don Valley is flood plain. The only portion that's not is nowhere near the subway station.
The rest of the adjacent area is already either parkland or suburb. Neither of which more of is needed in a flood plain.

 

[Ward8]

Converting golf courses to parkland in the future as densities around them increase could be a future option. I do sense that building housing, on whatever percentage of the courses are actually developable, is not a long term solution to affordability and would leave the city with less green space no matter what form it takes. In my opinion the elephant in the room is the yellow belt and not golf courses. Building housing in parks or golf courses is a 1 time fix with a limited ceiling of success. Zoning reform, among other tools the city could use, would create significantly more affordable housing options than the golf courses could ever provide.

 

[Northern Light]

Converting golf courses to parkland in the future as densities around them increase could be a future option. I do sense that building housing, on whatever percentage of the courses are actually developable, is not a long term solution to affordability and would leave the city with less green space no matter what form it takes. In my opinion the elephant in the room is the yellow belt and not golf courses. Building housing in parks or golf courses is a 1 time fix with a limited ceiling of success. Zoning reform, among other tools the city could use, would create significantly more affordable housing options than the golf courses could ever provide.

No disagreement there.

I support changes that will allow greater public access, more environmental sensitivity and bike trails.

Housing is only potentially viable on a portion of 2 out of 7 courses.

I'd be willing to consider that (on the applicable portion) but would be quite content to see it stay green.

 

[Northern Light]

I previously posted the floodplain maps for the golf courses in the John Tory thread.

I will move there here for our discussions.

Tam O'Shanter: As can be seen below a large portion of this course is not floodplain, the highest of the bunch. Though the portion surrounded by floodplain would not be viable for development.

Dentonia: The first image here is the floodplain map for the course, but note, that some areas not in the floodplain are slope and protected by the Ravine by-law.

Dentonia 2: This image shows my mark-up of areas that flat, outside the floodplain and could, in theory, support housing (though they could also be used for a soccer pitch or playground etc.

 

[Northern Light]

Don Valley: As one can see there is only one small interior section not within the floodplain and it cannot be accessed and is not a viable development site:

Humber Valley is pretty much 100% floodplain:

Scarlett Woods:

Centennial Park: Courses don't have material floodplain issues but are formally designated as part of the park, so no development here:

 

[christiesplits]

Golf's high cost of entry is an issue, but it's not alone in that. Hockey isn't much cheaper. Hockey isn't as land intensive however, so it doesn't need the same level of subsidization.

I'm happy you noted this. Public golf courses make golf accessible for kids in the city who don't have the means or proximity to a golf course. I lived in the east end in the 90s, and I recall a few gym field trips to Detonia Park where it was my first time swinging a club, and I imagine for other kids too.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm happy you noted this. Public golf courses make golf accessible for kids in the city who don't have the means or proximity to a golf course. I lived in the east end in the 90s, and I recall a few gym field trips to Detonia Park where it was my first time swinging a club, and I imagine for other kids too.

I don't mind this argument, w/the proviso I don't think current City golf prices are all that accessible. Moreso that elite clubs to be sure; but to low-income earners?

Dentonia is the City's cheapest course, I believe, and Juniors pay $16 for a 9-hole round (weekdays only); but if the have to rent clubs its an extra $20 for $36. Not exactly cheap.

Don Valley is the City's most expensive. Junior, 9-hole is $23; club rental is also higher at $25, for a total of $48 for a 1/2 round, weekdays only.

If affordable access to golf is the goal, (merit aside) surely the price would have to be lower.

I don't know what a good number would be, but I can't imagine an all-in price over $20 being reasonable if access by low-income earners is a goal.

So perhaps $10, plus $10 club rental. Even that's a lot to ask of a low-income person. But it might be credible as affordable to most.

I note that NYC has 'junior-weekday' charges as low as $7.75USD ($10.25CAD), no mention of club rental.

 

[Northern Light]

Golf's high cost of entry is an issue, but it's not alone in that. Hockey isn't much cheaper. Hockey isn't as land intensive however, so it doesn't need the same level of subsidization.

On an operating basis, the City does not subsidize arenas, they are full-cost recovery:

City owned/operated arenas are also very pricey at ~$150 for an hour of ice time, for resident, non-profit, youth. Assuming a team of 20 that's $7.50 each per hour of play.

It is an interesting discussion to be had whether the financial barrier to participation is excessive in this case; said barrier, as with golf goes beyond mere base fees.This was the cost-stucture of the GTHL youth league in Toronto, in 2019, as experienced
by the typical player:

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/1273434/breaking-down-the-high-cost-of-playing-hockey-in-toronto/

House Leagues mind you are much cheaper, but still look to be in the $750 range per season, excluding equipment costs:

House League Program - TLGHA

House League Program is for girls aged 8 to 17 with a season that runs for 25 weeks, beginning in mid-September and ending in late March.

www.torontoleasidewildcats.ca

Dentonia for example is literally right next door to a subway station and would be a great place for some high density housing. Build 5 or 6 thirty storey towers under Housing Now with a significant affordable housing component, and convert the floodplain lands to a public park.

I posted the Dentonia Course Flood Plain Map, and a photo showing actual buildable area. While there is indeed some, I'm confident you're over estimating by a sizable margin.

Don Valley similarly has a fairly large amount of land outside of the floodplain within walking distance of the subway.

As per images I posted above, this is not correct.

Tom O'shanter would be a prime spot for a huge housing now missing middle type development if you ask me, with only a small area of it in the floodplain. There is potential to construct a large public park to service nearby high density areas too.

This is relatively accurate, as per the image above.

This course likely has the most buildable area.

That said, one shouldn't oversell that.

Moreover, the largest amount of buildable area at Tam is on the north side, next to a row of Single Family Homes.

Perhaps they could be torn down though.

 

[innsertnamehere]

On an operating basis, the City does not subsidize arenas, they are full-cost recovery:

View attachment 268431

City owned/operated arenas are also very pricey at ~$150 for an hour of ice time, for resident, non-profit, youth. Assuming a team of 20 that's $7.50 each per hour of play.

It is an interesting discussion to be had whether the financial barrier to participation is excessive in this case; said barrier, as with golf goes beyond mere base fees.This was the cost-stucture of the GTHL youth league in Toronto, in 2019, as experienced
by the typical player:

View attachment 268432

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/1273434/breaking-down-the-high-cost-of-playing-hockey-in-toronto/

House Leagues mind you are much cheaper, but still look to be in the $750 range per season, excluding equipment costs:

House League Program - TLGHA

House League Program is for girls aged 8 to 17 with a season that runs for 25 weeks, beginning in mid-September and ending in late March.

www.torontoleasidewildcats.ca

I posted the Dentonia Course Flood Plain Map, and a photo showing actual buildable area. While there is indeed some, I'm confident you're over estimating by a sizable margin.



As per images I posted above, this is not correct.



This is relatively accurate, as per the image above.

This course likely has the most buildable area.

That said, one shouldn't oversell that.

Moreover, the largest amount of buildable area at Tam is on the north side, next to a row of Single Family Homes.

Perhaps they could be torn down though.

I went off TRCA floodplain maps.

Any redevelopment would have to have a detailed review of what is actually developable.

Golf and Hockey work out as roughly similar cost sports at the point of sale - hockey is $7.50 an hour and golf is $7.25 an hour presuming it takes 4 hours to play 18 holes at $29 for a round.

Anyone who plays regularly in either sport will of course purchase their own equipment as well, neither of which is cheap.