News   Nov 25, 2024
Work Advances at Line 5 Condos Near Yonge and Mount Pleasant
 648     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Pinnacle Resubmission Bumps Heights of Lakeside Project at Sherbourne and Lake Shore
 919     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Toronto’s Construction Boom: Prioritizing Worker Safety in High-Risk Environments
 439     0 

The Future of City-Owned Golf Courses in Toronto

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,557
Reaction score
103,626
Location
Toronto/EY
The City has been under pressure for some time, to reconsider being in the golf business.

Many courses obstruct bike trail linkages and wildlife corridors and also basic open/park space which the public can't access w/o paying.

Added to which, the City loses money; yet charges sufficiently high rates as to make the courses in accessible to many due to price.

Parks, Forestry and Recreation has been stalling, trying stubbornly to hold onto the status quo.

Today, a long-anticipated report............was a complete deflation.

It asks to stall for another 2 years, renewing leases for all golf courses through 2022; after which maybe they'll generate another report (stall).

I must confess, I am genuinely angry over this.

Less for keeping some golf courses as is; than for the complete stall and waste of time this report is.......

Report here:

 
^What I find striking is how little of a business case is attempted, either in the current approval memo or in the supporting memos from past decisions. What's the cash flow? How many city and contractor employees are there - how many hours of employment per year? What's the alternative use of the land? What's the baseline cost case if all of the golf courses were simply maintained as publicly accessible green space? What's the potential to add to tree canopy? Is there any value being delivered to the City?

The information seems to hint that the City comes close to breaking even on golf courses. The amounts it spends are pretty small as a proportion of the city budget.... unless you are a resident on a street that needs bike lanes marked, or speed bumps.... in which case those small amounts might actually stretch far enough to deliver some actual benefit to people.

But yeah, the question is..... why? The report provides absolutely no vision.

I wonder how many emergency shelter beds could be provided within the existing clubhouse facilities (which after all have washrooms, showers, kitchens, etc). I'm not really arguing towards that, but it's a useful benchmark for quantifying the value delivered and key human needs met for the same money by offering golf. A second comparison is, what would the 5-year operating and maintenance cost be if the lands were simply allowed to fallow, with a minimum level of upkeep to existing trees, existing paths and laneways, drainage, etc if the land were used for public park access..... and how many jobs would that change create/eliminate.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^What I find striking is how little of a business case is attempted, either in the current approval memo or in the supporting memos from past decisions. What's the cash flow? How many city and contractor employees are there - how many hours of employment per year? What's the alternative use of the land? What's the baseline cost case if all of the golf courses were simply maintained as publicly accessible green space? What's the potential to add to tree canopy? Is there any value being delivered to the City?

The information seems to hint that the City comes close to breaking even on golf courses. The amounts it spends are pretty small as a proportion of the city budget.... unless you are a resident on a street that needs bike lanes marked, or speed bumps.... in which case those small amounts might actually stretch far enough to deliver some actual benefit to people.

But yeah, the question is..... why? The report provides absolutely no vision.

I wonder how many emergency shelter beds could be provided within the existing clubhouse facilities (which after all have washrooms, showers, kitchens, etc). I'm not really arguing towards that, but it's a useful benchmark for quantifying the value delivered and key human needs met for the same money by offering golf. A second comparison is, what would the 5-year operating and maintenance cost be if the lands were simply allowed to fallow, with a minimum level of upkeep to existing trees, existing paths and laneways, drainage, etc if the land were used for public park access..... and how many jobs would that change create/eliminate.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Everything you stated.

But I'll add, the report completely omits the capital expenditures such as irrigation systems and buildings that are being invested in at six figures per year.

That, with a past report suggested under investment has impaired revenue and the golf courses, if kept, are overdue for millions in investment.

This is a total Ostrich strategy.

Stick your head in the sand and pretend their is no problem.

****

Though I clearly have a bias towards naturalization and bike trails..........I am pragmatically open to compromise and alternate solutions/combinations of ideas.

What I am not open to is to deflection, deferment and disingenuous, lazy, reports.
 
Wm Perkins Bull said:
I have seen the point brought up periodically on Twitter that the City owns two golf courses near subway stations, and that converting them to proper parks would add reasonably accessible green space for downtown, at a tiny fraction of the cost of Rail Deck Park.
Click to expand...

Well, near-downtown might be a bit of reach, not most people's walking distance.

But Victoria Park Stn (Dentonia Golf Course) and York Mills (Don Valley Course) are the 2 in question.

Several others are not inaccessible though not as close to subways, nor as comparatively central.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Northern Light said:
Well, near-downtown might be a bit of reach, not most people's walking distance.

But Victoria Park Stn (Dentonia Golf Course) and York Mills (Don Valley Course) are the 2 in question.

Several others are not inaccessible though not as close to subways, nor as comparatively central.
Click to expand...

Would the sale of those two properties for development possibly offset a decent portion of the cost of the Rail Deck Park? Granted there may be some flood plain issues with parts of those properties, but I'm sure there's some developable land there. Master Plan both areas with the flood plain areas kept as natural (or restored to natural), and the development around them.
 
gweed123 said:
Would the sale of those two properties for development possibly offset a decent portion of the cost of the Rail Deck Park? Granted there may be some flood plain issues with parts of those properties, but I'm sure there's some developable land there. Master Plan both areas with the flood plain areas kept as natural (or restored to natural), and the development around them.
Click to expand...

No.

Don Valley is 100% within the regulatory floodplain, there is no development potential at all.

Dentonia does have some land outside the valley/floodplain area, maybe 25% of the course.

However, this is not a high-income community, the 2 sites (at Dentonia) with potential, are either next to single-family bungalows (north), or next to the TCHC complex at Teesdale in the south-east.

Neither would yield anything material in terms of paying for Rail Deck.

The housing opportunities at Dentonia, should the City go that direction, would surely be private-sector rental with affordable; or new TCHC./Co-op/Non-profit.
 
Northern Light said:
Well, near-downtown might be a bit of reach, not most people's walking distance.

But Victoria Park Stn (Dentonia Golf Course) and York Mills (Don Valley Course) are the 2 in question.

Several others are not inaccessible though not as close to subways, nor as comparatively central.
Click to expand...
I said accessible, not walking distance, downtown residents can take the subway, they are in walking distance from the subway.

The Don Valley Golf Course is vastly larger than Rail Deck Park is going to be, and Dentonia is around 1.5x the size.
 
MisterF said:
The rail deck park is right downtown while those golf courses are a half hour subway ride away. Converting those courses to parkland is in no way a substitute for the rail deck park. They really have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the Island Airport is 80ha/200 acres right at downtown's doorstep......... 😉
 
MisterF said:
The rail deck park is right downtown while those golf courses are a half hour subway ride away. Converting those courses to parkland is in no way a substitute for the rail deck park. They really have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

The only tie-in is if the City could trade some of that golf course land to the developers (who want the stars and the moon for a much smaller tract of downtown land). It would not be a 1:1 trade - more likely would have to be 5:1 or more, with some pretty permissive zoning thrown in. Given that the golf courses are largely floodplain, there would still be lots left as parkland.....but maybe something might be possible.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The only tie-in is if the City could trade some of that golf course land to the developers (who want the stars and the moon for a much smaller tract of downtown land). It would not be a 1:1 trade - more likely would have to be 5:1 or more, with some pretty permissive zoning thrown in. Given that the golf courses are largely floodplain, there would still be lots left as parkland.....but maybe something might be possible.

- Paul
Click to expand...
A developer with a prime downtown site would never trade it for land as far away as those two golf courses. Not that the developable golf course land is undesirable, but it's a completely different market and not a replacement for downtown land. It's like asking someone to give up their Ferrari for five farm tractors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top