The Future of City-Owned Golf Courses in Toronto

[picard102]

No convention required. One can read replies and see your reaction score.

Reaction score, lol okay. How about instead of throwing around ad hominems you stick to the subject.

Citizens of Toronto are not hurting for parkland, per capita we have more than NYC and Chicago.
So there is no surprise when politicians are not devoting resources to the issue.

 

[Amare]

Citizens of Toronto are not hurting for parkland, per capita we have more than NYC and Chicago.
So there is no surprise when politicians are not devoting resources to the issue.

Try telling that to the people living in Downtown Toronto.

In general the inner suburbs of Toronto are much better served by park space compared to Downtown Toronto, where there is nowhere near enough park space. Additionally, there has been a general neglect in creating significant park space in Toronto in the last ~20-30 years. Most of the park space that has been created during the last couple of decades have been "parkettes" which frankly, dont contribute much of anything to the green public space some areas of this city desperately need.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Try telling that to the people living in Downtown Toronto.

In general the inner suburbs of Toronto are much better served by park space compared to Downtown Toronto, where there is nowhere near enough park space. Additionally, there has been a general neglect in creating significant park space in Toronto in the last ~20-30 years. Most of the park space that has been created during the last couple of decades have been "parkettes" which frankly, dont contribute much of anything to the green public space some areas of this city desperately need.

How does turning a golf course not in downtown Toronto into park space help with the lack of park space in downtown Toronto?

 

[Northern Light]

Reaction score, lol okay. How about instead of throwing around ad hominems you stick to the subject.

Citizens of Toronto are not hurting for parkland, per capita we have more than NYC and Chicago.
So there is no surprise when politicians are not devoting resources to the issue.

Lets eschew the flame-war; but for the record, its your choice to address others with condescension and the issues they care about with dismissive indifference; that's where this began.

***

Now on to your point.

Your point lacks all foundation.

1) New York and Chicago are both short of greenspace.

2)The nature of the greenspace is different. Much of Toronto's is forested slopes that are not accessible for sport, play or even hiking (too steep).

3)The parkspace is not distributed evenly.

There is not a single park over 1 acre in size in East York, west of Greenwood.

Thorncliffe's central park (R.V. Burgess) is tiny relative to a very densely populated neighbourhood and can be overcrowded at the best of times.

The former City of York has very little parkland.

As noted downtown Toronto doesn't either.

There are waitlists to get a soccer field or a cricket pitch in this town.

Simply put you're not comparing the right things.

Now, if you wanted to point out that the golf courses themselves would only address a deficiency of parkland outright in one case, (locally); and in terms of sports fields, perhaps 2 others.

While 2 would make no difference for practical purposes whatsoever, that would be a fair and nuanced position.

But that of course, was not your position.

Lets add that those numbers include our 2 largest parks; Centennial and Rouge at either extreme end of the City.

These do little to help someone who would need to take a 60-90 minute transit trip to reach them.

 

[Amare]

How does turning a golf course not in downtown Toronto into park space help with the lack of park space in downtown Toronto?

Did i ever mention that turning a golf course in the suburbs would help with downtown Toronto's lack of park space?

There's nothing wrong with turning under-utlized green space used primarily by the higher income earners, into public space that can be shared for all to use. Doesnt matter if it's downtown or not, the more green space the better.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Did i ever mention that turning a golf course in the suburbs would help with downtown Toronto's lack of park space?

There's nothing wrong with turning under-utlized green space used primarily by the higher income earners, into public space that can be shared for all to use. Doesnt matter if it's downtown or not, the more green space the better.

Not particularly but you were talking about having more parks downtown and I was asking what it specifically had to do with golf courses. There used to be av small 9 hole golf course downtown that was closed to make way for condos though.


I also don't understand why people seem to think that the city owned golf courses are underutilized just because they don't play golf.

 

[Northern Light]

Not particularly but you were talking about having more parks downtown and I was asking what it specifically had to do with golf courses. There used to be av small 9 hole golf course downtown that was closed to make way for condos though.


I also don't understand why people seem to think that the city owned golf courses are underutilized just because they don't play golf.

Haven't we been over this enough?

I'm sorry if I seem impatient, but I've answered this question already in the thread.

Under utilized is space occupied per person, relative to what would be possible if the land were differently purposed.

Maximum occupancy for a golf course at any one time is 72 (assuming 18 holes and a party of 4 at each one).

Maximum occupancy for one soccer field is 22 players, plus coaches/subs.

You can fit more than 40 soccer fields into a golf course.

That's 1,000 people + vs 72

Even in a passive use scenario.

You will get more than 72 people on a bike path on foot or bike, in most parts of the City in any given 2 hour period; not including hikers, picnics, mountain bikers etc.

You will also deliver that access free of charge, at much lower operating costs.

Under-utilization is not a reference to uptake of the capacity of the course; its a reference to the low capacity of the course.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Haven't we been over this enough?

I'm sorry if I seem impatient, but I've answered this question already in the thread.

Under utilized is space occupied per person, relative to what would be possible if the land were differently purposed.

Maximum occupancy for a golf course at any one time is 72 (assuming 18 holes and a party of 4 at each one).

Maximum occupancy for one soccer field is 22 players, plus coaches/subs.

You can fit more than 40 soccer fields into a golf course.

That's 1,000 people + vs 72

Even in a passive use scenario.

You will get more than 72 people on a bike path on foot or bike, in most parts of the City in any given 2 hour period; not including hikers, picnics, mountain bikers etc.

You will also deliver that access free of charge, at much lower operating costs.

Under-utilization is not a reference to uptake of the capacity of the course; its a reference to the low capacity of the course.

Your arguments about getting rid of them are all over the place and I don't really see the point in argueing with you about it. I personally don't see any problems with having them but you do.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Maximum occupancy for a golf course at any one time is 72 (assuming 18 holes and a party of 4 at each one).

That's not very accurate. Groups are rarely evenly distributed 1 per hole on a course. At any one time there may be 2 (1 finishing up on the green, 1 waiting on the tee), 3 (1 finishing up on the green, 1 on the fairway, 1 waiting on the tee), or more groups at any one hole. Most courses follow an industry standard of allowing 10 mins between groups of 4 golfers, so over the course of a typical 4 hour round of golf there would be 96 people (6 groups an hour, times 4 hours, times 4 people per group) on the course at one time. I realize this won't do much to sway your opinion but just saying you are under estimating here

Maximum occupancy for one soccer field is 22 players, plus coaches/subs.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Only in youth leagues would you have coaches/subs. Instead you should be comparing adult leagues to adults playing golf, and in adult leagues there are rarely coaches/subs etc.

Also if you are going to include non active users (coaches/subs) than why not include golfers who are using practice facilities such as a driving range/pitching or putting practice, or getting coaching from a course pro, or using the pro shop/facilities for other things (eating, purchasing equipment, socializing, etc). Let's say that adds 25% to that number, so we have 120 people using a course at any one time.

You can fit more than 40 soccer fields into a golf course.

Golf courses can be built to accommodate uneven/hilly terrain, while soccer, football, baseball/softball, and cricket require finding level terrain or significant terra forming of the area to create flat areas. (yes yes I realize that building golf course often involves significant earth moving but that can also be minimized)

 

[picard102]

These do little to help someone who would need to take a 60-90 minute transit trip to reach them.

Nor will converting these golf courses. There is ample parkland is the majority of the city, if one wants more, then perhaps they should reconsider living in a dense urban environment.

used primarily by the higher income earners

This is the crux of the anti-golf arguments made in this thread.

 

[Amare]

Nor will converting these golf courses. There is ample parkland is the majority of the city, if one wants more, then perhaps they should reconsider living in a dense urban environment.



This is the crux of the anti-golf arguments made in this thread.

1. The access to parkland in this city is unequally distributed geographically. There are neighborhoods in this city that have a severe deficiency of green space. A majority of the city's green space is found along the city's ravine network, which means that there is a clear gap and lack of access in areas further away from the ravine system. Actually you know what, pictures speak 1000 words so here is some evidence straight from the city themselves:

This image below shows the actual amount of park space in the city:

2. I wont even bother with your point of: "the crux of the anti-golf arguments" is that they are used primarily by individuals who tend to be higher income earners. That is 1 argument, but it is not the sole point. Also note when I said "higher income", I dont necessarily mean people making $100K+. It means that they are use more heavily by people with more disposal income available and at higher income brackets, compared to those at the lower income brackets. You can define those brackets however you like.

 

[robmausser]

I have no issue with the golf courses in the ravines.

What I have problem with, is them breaking up the connectivity of the spaces.

They can stay, but they need to allow space for a multi use trail in some fashion that allows people to easy bypass the course.

And im not talking about an allowance for people to walk through the course, which I believe with the city owned ones, is already allowed. However it discourages people, I personally don't feel comfortable biking through an active golf course.

This needs to be mandated by the city in my opinion.

 

[Northern Light]

I have no issue with the golf courses in the ravines.

What I have problem with, is them breaking up the connectivity of the spaces.

They can stay, but they need to allow space for a multi use trail in some fashion that allows people to easy bypass the course.

And im not talking about an allowance for people to walk through the course, which I believe with the city owned ones, is already allowed. However it discourages people, I personally don't feel comfortable biking through an active golf course.

This needs to be mandated by the city in my opinion.

This is an important reason to consider Pitch N' Putt; the shortened fairway courses.

It can allow the course to remain, but free up about 1/2 the area, which affords room for a bike trail, and enough space around it that you're not fenced in; and people can sit or have a picnic or w/e.

 

[picard102]

Those maps only highlight how much public parkland we have,
how most people have access to a park within 1-2km,
and how making golf courses into parkland will do absolutely nothing for those who don't have access to parkland.

 

[Northern Light]

Updating here.

Public meeting on the future of Toronto's Golf Courses is next week, June 14th.

Link to the project page: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...opment/review-of-city-golf-course-operations/

Link to the public meeting: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/public-...o-golf-course-operations-tickets-156743579265

There will be a subsequent round of meetings focused on each specific course with area residents sometime this summer.

*******

The City is open to the following ideas

Improving Golf Courses (for golf)
Improving complementary access to courses that does not interfere with golf
Other recreational opportunities
Ecological restoration
Community Gardens/Urban Agriculture
Indigenous Cultural Practices

****

The City will not accept any idea of residential development on any portion of the course lands
Any disposition of land
Construction of any building or major facility within floodplains
or
The idea of free golf.

******

The City seems to be prepared to consider shortening courses or altering courses to allow for trail connections and the other uses noted above.

But do not appear to be seriously contemplating wholesale closure/repurposing of any course.

*****

Most I can say for now..........for anything else, join the meeting!

****

PS, only covers the City owned and operated courses..............so does not include the courses in Etobicoke Centennial which are fully contracted out under a different arrangement.

No discussion of private courses for this review.