DUMBING DOWN OR
SHORING UP OF GOLF
It seems every few weeks there is a
news article about a golf course under
threat of some kind. With courses
occupying private land the matter is
less of an issue, but when it comes
to public courses and semi-private
courses on local government leased
land it would seem this land might be
up for grabs.
Some of these might be under
performing golf assets and for various
commercial reasons don’t work , but
recently in NSW some very viable
courses have reasons to be nervous
and others perhaps need to take note.
Recently the City of Sydney Council has
suggested that perhaps the 18-hole
Moore Park course designed by Dan
Soutar (founding member of the Aus.
PGA and designer of Kingston Heath)
should be reduced from 18 holes to
9 holes to increase public parkland.
With 35,000 new residents across the
road the pressure on open space is
happening, and with no other land
available or extremely expensive, the
publicly owned golf land is a sitting
duck ready for the taking.
Of course, the perception here is that
golf courses and the ‘expensive’ sport
of golf played by a few old white guys
is at the expense of thousands of, and
increasingly more apartment dwelling
younger families looking for room for
their kids to play, ride bikes, and play
weekend sport.
A classic case here is the 18 hole
Warringah Golf Course on Northern
Beaches council leased land. It has
its 18-hole future in doubt with the
council looking at renewing 9 of its 18
holes on a 5-year lease deal keeping its
options open on the land. Council has
cited the need for more playing fields
for other sports. Yet my understanding
is Warringah Golf Club is doing some
65,000 rounds per year and is a great
community asset that contributes $ to
the council’s coffers.
Perhaps we the golf industry are
partly to blame for this, as post GFC
globally the idea of 9 hole or 12-hole
golf has been perpetuated widely. It
has become very easy for councils
in justifying their case to grab these
sound bites and quote that everyone
is time poor these days and we don’t
need 18 holes anymore – 9 holes will
do.
I’m sure there are other cases like
Moore Park and Warringah around
our main cities where golf on leased
land, and particularly 18-hole public
courses could well be under threat.
The question for golf is what to do?
and how to overcome the broader
communities’ perceptions about the
game? How we in the golf industry
with our own areas of expertise can be
part of the solution?
Part of this solution and need for golf
courses is to shore up their facilities.
Improve what they have and promote
the benefits these assets have not
just for golfers, but for the broader
community including non-golfers who
live nearby.
From the perspective of golf course
architecture, the facts show that by and
large golfers support and will pay for
quality public offerings. This of course
doesn’t mean a Par 72 championship
standard golf course of over 7000
yards. No, it means a fun and user-
friendly golf courses that can be
reasonably strategic and challenging in
play, and with reasonable to good turf
condition.
Whilst budgets can be tight, shoring
up and improving the facilities doesn’t
mean drastic change but an approach
of continual and small but incremental
improvements. This is where a course
improvements plan can help. One
that prioritizes course works as funds
allow and can see good outcomes for
the course quality and its enjoyment. It
may just be drainage works to improve
fairway quality, improved safety, new
greens for better golf and less wear
and tear, even the removal of bunkers
to make a hole less penal and save
maintenance costs. Many distinct
aspects are at stake, but bringing a
golf course architect into this solution
process early on can be very cost
effective and help enormously.
An often overlooked part of the golf
course asset terms of shoring up
facilities is the course landscape. For
which a well managed landscape
can have enormous value, and be a
very important part of the golf asset
value in our increasingly densified
neighbourhoods. On our courses
if the right plantings of vegetation
are established and managed the
environmental benefits, not just
for golfers, but for the broader
community are huge. Note sure if a
council would be game to rip out 9
holes of golf complete with a treed
landscape and wildlife habitat and
replace with a couple of treeless footy
grounds. But they might be prepared
to rip out 9 holes of golf with just a
smattering of non-native exotic trees
and weed trees.
I think most of us in the golf industry
would prefer in most cases to see a
shoring up of our 18-hole public golf
course assets and not a dumbing down
of the game. That said there may
well be a compelling reason where 18
holes has been shoe horned several
decades ago into land way too tight
for a quality and safe golf offering. A
fundamentally flawed situation where
perhaps in these instances a flexible
9, or 12-hole course, reversible holes,
better practice facilities, some short Par
3 holes course or even mini golf could
be a way of shoring up the importance
and relevance of these golfing assets
into the future.
It would seem golf on leased public
land will be incre