Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
probably. golf courses eat up far more land than any other sport (if you can call it a sport) and can't be used for anything but playing golf. they are a totally useless eyesore.
Lol, and just when I thought I've seen the most ridiculous things posted on here....
No, they are not "greatest waste of space ever invented", and I don't even play golf. Just like other places that you don't like are not "wastes of space" just because you don't like them.
What's NOT a totally useless, wasteful, dull and boring eyesore in your opinion?
lets just say its a fairly land intensive form of recreation.
given that they are losing members ANYWAY, it would be great if there was someway to rationalize them - to shut down the ones best positioned for redevelopment, while shifting the members to the others. Given the way decline works, fixed costs, etc I fear in this instance the free market will not downsize optimally.
I don't golf but they are definitely some of the most beautiful tend areas in any developed area compared to what slse exist. Defintitely nice than parks which if nice cost taxpyers a huge amount of money from human destructive behaviour.
What's NOT a totally useless, wasteful, dull and boring eyesore in your opinion?
Public parks because they are multi-functional with an unlimited variety of uses. They can be used and enjoyed by families, kids, adults, people of all ages and everyone in the neighborhood, not just a few old geezers with a private membership card.
We've got three lightly (well, one is pretty popular) public golf courses in the city. They're all in neighborhoods that have declined. At one point it was probably a big sell for the middle class dad to have the course in walking distance, but as poor folks play golf at a rate probably lower than any sport, they aren't really benefitting from their presence. I guess it's nice to look at?
Useful in some spots. For instance underneath flight path adjacent to airports. Very little can go there anyway.
Golf courses cater to a very small percentage of populace with a very large amount of land. They're less objectionable as part of private developments where they are loss leaders.
Even small courses though take up enormous swaths of land and aren't appropriate for center cities. You'd be better off converting them to more general use parks where at least more than a handful of people would use them. Otherwise almost anything would be a higher and better use than a golf course in most urban locations. Same does not apply to suburban or rural courses.
They may take up a lot of land but people can spend thousands of dollars on country club membership. So economically it may be the most efficient use of the land. If something was more economically efficient, i'm sure a developer would rather build that than a golf course.
They may take up a lot of land but people can spend thousands of dollars on country club membership. So economically it may be the most efficient use of the land. If something was more economically efficient, i'm sure a developer would rather build that than a golf course.
What about courses owned by municipalities?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
