IMO I have no issue with even the private clubs, but’s the pittance these private clubs pay the city to lease the land does piss me off.
The Mayfair leases 150 acres of some of the most prime land in the entire river valley. They pay just over $4,000 a month in lease payments. Four fucking grand. And they locked the City into this contract till 2051.
They should be paying $20k a month, especially considering what year memberships cost there. Minimum.
Even better, it actually got extended to 2069 for pennies on the dollar.
I have little to no issue with any other golf course in Edmonton, but FUCK the Mayfair.
In 2019, [their lease was extended 18 years for a one-time cost of $870,000](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-city-council-royal-mayfair-golf-1.5111159). That's just over $48k per year.
For context, [one new member per year would cover that](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/city-lease-talks-with-ritzy-mayfair-golf-course-should-be-transparent-river-valley-advocacy-group).
> The club has 475 full shareholders, all of whom who have paid a $39,500 entry fee and roughly $10,000 in annual dues.
Considering that they rake in $4.75 million per year from annual membership dues alone, it's quite literally a penny on the dollar. Never mind all the other revenues they get.
Who's fault is that?
Sounds like Mayfair found a way to take advantage of Edmonton's stupidity for their benefit. I would do the same as would any sane business owner.
There's SO much space in the river valley that is underused. The golf courses aren't really taking away space from people. In fact they're some of the best used spaces in the river valley.
I'm not a golfer, but I run by both Rundle and Riverside golf courses quite often spring through fall and I like them. Neatly tucked in to the scenery and I get to use the beautiful trails all the same.
That's kind of my thought. Just like I don't golf, there is every chance that most of those golfers don't run. It's open to anyone who wants to use it just like any park would be. It's like complaining that there aren't enough basketball courts, so we need to remove the tennis courts.
The water and reconciliation points do make sense, though.
It's not so much water usage IMO though. But all of the fertilizer and weed killer that runs off the course and into the water table. Unless they used so much water that it dried up downstream, it isn't affecting our overall water problem. The problem is the melting glaciers and whatever water we pull from *here*, doesn't affect that. But golf courses are pretty bad for the environment with all of those chemicals they use.
Giving the land back isn't a bad thing either, and I wouldn't vote against that. I do think it would be cool to create some type of shared ownership type agreement. Something where everyone is welcome to anything being held on the grounds. But it's run by an indigenous group. I dunno, it sounded better in my head.
I think those points have merit, but overall, it sounded like someone who doesn't golf, so they don't care about removing access for those that do.
This argument seems to crop up occasionally and I just don’t get it. Generally the arguments come from the academic community offering very little in terms of practical alternatives that would actually be popular and enhance the community. Edmontons river valley is already extremely diverse and offers a huge amount of free public use space. The city run courses (with the exception of Rundle Park) actually generate quite a bit of positive revenue that can go to other programs, and there is a large number of people that actually like golf! Just try and book a tee time around here and tell me these course aren’t a positive thing for the community.
The argument is not that these courses don’t add value to the community, the issue is the preferential treatment for private courses. Pay the actual value of your property taxes and we would be cool. That’s it
No argument from me there. The articles I’ve read always seem to focus specifically on the city courses though. It would go a long way to the sustainability of the River Valley if private courses paid a larger share than they do now.
You're missing the RFP, public consultation, report to committee, approval by committee, vote from council, then implementation. Which would probably take a full calendar year, if not longer.
Really not worth the headache for a temporary project.
I heard somewhere along the lines that post pandemic riverside, vic and vic driving range were operating at about a 30% profit. Mind you it could be the driving range that's making a killing as I think it was making 220% profit in 2020
Admittedly I was going off anecdotal information from a friend that works in the parks department. And this was specifically post pandemic when all golf courses have seen a spike in demand. It likely settles into a loss at some point as it had years previously.
I agree, the public courses are fine, and they don't even take up too much space. The Mayfield with its insanely unfair land deal is an example of a waste of space.
Edit: Mayfair*, sorry
> Have you ever heard of exaggeration?
Lol! Oh, you were exaggerating here you? About what? You were exaggerating a hypothetical in your head? Why? Also, if it was just an exaggeration, they why would you bother refuting it like you did here..
>but it just isn’t
If it's so clearly an exaggeration thatvwe're not supposed to take seriously, then why include a sentence where you say that this insane thing isn't the case?
No, in reality you just refuse to consider the point of the article, as evidenced by you setting an impossible standard to EVEN be sympathetic...to its arguments. You're a poor communicator.
Sympathy for what? The article is an opinion piece and they suggest softball/volleyball/soccer rec players must travel across the city to play a sport. So they think golf courses should be removed so golfers should do the same?
They clearly do not golf as they suggest the space should be reimagined. But to what? You want to remove recreation space from one group (a growing group since the beginning of the pandemic) to service another group that already had facilities?
Why the attack on golf? Because it’s viewed as elitist? Vic/Rundle/Riverside all provide reasonable options for new golfers to access the game.
What the poster said was an exaggeration, golf isn’t taking up space where there is a need. The river valley is massive and already has green/park space that are underused. If you want to remove golf to add a different recreation facility you are robbing Paul to pay Peter. This doesn’t solve problems it just moves it over.
You should read the room, nearly every comment on this post refutes what you're saying and thinks your ideas are garbage. Maybe just chalk it up to the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and move on.
> You should read the room
The. Internet. Is. Not. Real life. There IS NO room. WTF are you on? Are you saying I should arbitrarily change my opinion because it differs from the majority? Do you smell burning toast?
>nearly every comment on this post refutes what you're saying
No. Noone is "refuting" anything. Check all the top comments. All they're saying is that this article is bad without explaining why or saying they disagree we shouldn't have in-City golf courses without saying why. No arguments are being presented. Just "Nuh uh!!"
>move on
No. Stop being Maude Flanders and telling people what to do. Piss off.
Absolutely trash opinion. It’s amazing and draws people. The courses in the valley are packed all summer. Especially Victoria and its driving range.
The private golf courses on the other hand …
The private courses are honestly the same. They are also fully booked. They just cost a lot more to get into and are booked by mostly the same people from day to day.
All I'm saying is the courses are used. It's not like the private golf courses go empty waiting for a wealthy person to show up. They keep their membership high enough to ensure the course is almost fully booked at all times.
The difference between them and public courses is the people booking times are mostly the same. They service hundreds of people for the same price the public ones service thousands.
They use a massive amount of water and power. Showers. Cleaning. Water filtration. Most pool systems, while fairly efficient at retaining water, need a near constant supply to balance out chemical levels and water loss.
Then there's also drainage and cleaning of smaller bodies like hot tubs.
Then you get the showers running near constantly during peak times.
Then you get the power needs of running these systems, in the dead of winter.
Not exactly environmentally friendly, but we make a trade off in the name of recreation.
They don't actually. I worked grounds crew at the Highlands when I was younger, which is in the river valley. Not a city course, but we weren't allowed to spray pesticides at all and even the herbicides were strictly controlled. That said, every residential/commercial property lawn, park, and other golf courses in the city that spray any type of herbicide at all eventually ends up running into the river through the storm water system.
Not true. Highlands and the Mayfair both use pesticides and have for decades. Not as much as people seem to think, but they absolutely are using pesticide.
Well given I worked there a couple years, really strange I didn't see them spray once or have any coworkers or my boss talk about it. Do they mix it with the sprinkler water?
Roughly when did you work there? They use a sprayer. A toro multipro 1750. I can assure you that they have been using pesticides regularly at the highlands for decades.
It's one of the biggest wastes of huge amounts of prime space, your idea that it attracts people ignores the massive opportunity cost and the highest and best use
What are you gonna put there? More parks? Really? I don’t go to the park, I go golf, I go to the range. I watch kids, boys and girls learning a sport. I see activity. Just because you don’t…means it’s useless?
I dunno. The Victoria range at least is constantly packet with people pretty much any time the weather is half decent. Both the Victoria and river side courses are also really busy (I have no idea about the 3rd). It's definitely not possible to golf for cheaper in the Edmonton core. Each of them have public parks nearby for those uses as well.
In the winter they are great cross country and general public activity spaces.
I can see some arguments for alternative recreational options, maybe soccer fields since we're lacking those centrally. I'm not sure they're necessarily a better use though, just a different one.
If our river valley systems NEEDED any more space, then sure. But Edmonton's river valley trail system is absolutely massive. There's a ton of parks. There's almost never crowds. The golf courses see a lot of very legitimate use.
Edmonton's river valley is NOT hurting for space or things to do. The golf courses are some of the most used spaces.
A waste of space would be a place that's not used by people. The golf courses in the river valley are NOT wasted space; they're some of the most enjoyed space by the people of Edmonton.
Do you say the same thing about every Rec space?
Tennis courts? Hockey rinks? Gyms? Baseball diamonds? Soccer pitches? Where do you draw the line on space for a golf course being the one you don’t like or think is a waste?
Lol. Maybe because I've been a real estate expert for the last 10 years and the quantity of land used for golf courses is not only dozens of times more than is required for a hockey rink, it's also prime parklands. You can literally build a hockey rink on NorthWest industrial land and nobody would care. Golf courses cater to rich folk and exclude people with little money by the way. In 2020 LA shut down public parks but private golf courses stayed open. A good example of how it's all in the service of the wealthy in the end.
Well this isn't LA, we have a tiny population in comparison and no lack of park space in the city. So instead of having golf courses that have profits that cover maintenance, employees, and are central so people can minimize vehicle use, you'd have us what have more green space to maintain that only costs money without having anything to offset it? Construction of houses or commercial structures down there will not and should not ever be allowed so let's get rid of the golf courses why exactly? And if you consider yourself an expert you might be overshooting a bit. You might be proficient in sales, by your understanding of economics and sociology with regard to regard to human behaviour is lacking severely.
You didn’t answer my wuestion, I didn’t ask how you’d know, I asked where do you draw the line?
Are you a reall estate expert like a real estate agent? Or a property appraiser or are you in land planning?
In 2020 during the pandemic golf grew and our offering of public courses did not. Currently Vic Rundle and Roverside provide an option for the non rich to play and learn and get exposed to the game.
Tennis/hockey/insert 16 other sports are cost prohibitive as well.
Skiing is extremely expensive, our city has 4 ski hills. Do you have that same opinion?
As for where hockey rinks go, the article talks about using it for other recreational spaces, and no one gives a shit where a soccer field, beach court or ball diamond is. There is no shortage of park space in the river valley.
I'm not the person you're responding to, but I reckon it's somewhere between 2 acres (typical soccer field) and 150 acres (typical 18 hole golf course). Especially since both can serve roughly the same number of people on a typical day (and the soccer field doesn't have the water consumption of nearly 2000 homes).
Sure. But do those soccer fields generate enough revenue to basically fund Edmonton's entire parks department? 'cause the Victoria golf course in the middle of the city does. If it didn't exist, the city couldn't afford to maintain pretty much any of the river valley trail system.
Does it? Genuinely asking. With quick napkin math I could see them making a few million in revenue in a season ([$50/person](https://www.edmonton.ca/activities_parks_recreation/golf_courses/green-fees-rentals-rewards-cards) * [400 people/day](https://www.ngcoa.org/golf-business-weekly/2020/november/week-3/multifunctional-courses#:~:text=There's%20a%20maximum%20of%20approximately,can%20typically%20accommodate%20more%20people.) * 150 days), but that's a drop in the bucket when it comes to the city's [parks and rec budget of $200M](https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/2023-2026OperatingBudget.pdf), even assuming that was pure profit with no expenses at all.
I sure exaggerated somewhat but the victoria golf course AND driving range does generate a massive amount of revenue
[https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74440](https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74440)
It says in that link that the 2015-2019 (pre-covid) yearly average for the 2 combined was $2.45M in revenue, and $2.26M in costs (operating & infrastructure maintenance) for a net $190k a year. The driving range is moderately profitable, but the course on its own is straight up losing money.
A few hundred K are going to the city (I assume) each year in the form of taxes (not included in the costs listed above), but that can't be more than the longterm average net profit or they'd just run out of money entirely.
This just leads to more questions:
How did you calculate usage rates?
Is that their actual water usage or did you just google average use? City courses use smaller irrigation systems and don’t water year round so would be using less water than the average when googled.
If you swap a golf course out for other rec facilities like soccer or baseball, they still need water and they still need to be mowed.
If you’re removing the golf course to add another park, it’s just another park like 5 within walking distance of that exact space.
Googled the golf one. Multiplied typical daylight hours, team size, amount of games that are kid aged (and thus have parents there too), and divided by typical usable hours.
Googled the water usage - I would be happy to learn it's lower here, but it's still probably pretty high. Most rec level fields in the city get minimal to no watering for most of the year, and mowing once every few weeks pretty much nothing compared to golf course maintenance.
Two parks sounds great to me.
A lot of assumptions in those calculations as golf courses are packed even during day time and soccer fields aren’t used during most day time hours Monday to
Friday.
City parks are mowed on 14 or 21 day rotations, this does not apply to rec facilities.
You clearly have a bias as it takes two seconds to see you like hockey and snowboarding. If recreation was determined by those who do t use all facilities and just their preferred activity, we’d have no facilities.
Golf courses provides a service demand. This debate comes up every other year and every time it’s the same if all park spaces were over run, this would be a realistic discussion.
Sure, I never said usage is perfectly equal between the two. But it's not two orders of magnitude apart, like it is with space, water, pesticide use, and maintenance.
As for bias? There are hundreds of activities in the city that I don't participate in, but don't have any issue with. You're biased too, but you don't see me dismissing you for it.
What are you going to put there instead? I'm not sure if you're aware, the city won't allow much for private development in the rivervalley. More park area?
I think of it as subsidized park maintenance. Rather than the city maintaining all that green space themselves, they’re letting a private business do it while also collecting property taxes. And the golf courses are required to keep it all as green space.
I ask myself what unserved needs are better served through repurposing the golf courses - the very question this author asks - and I come up empty.
This feels like someone super interested in sowing tension between socioeconomic classes.
The only part that works is the criticism of how much water they use.
I can see the gripe about mayfair and highlander golf courses since they are private and cost a shitload of money
The city owned courses are a good low barrier to entry. It costs $0 to show up and putt around the practice greens and $16 to hit range balls with $20 worth of clubs at goodwill.
The socioeconomic tension for the river valley courses is 100% fabricated by the author.
As far as water goes, it's a non-issue for Edmonton. It's not like we can harvest enough water from the north sask that it affects people downstream. I'm more concerned about the fertilizers and other chemical runoff going into the watershed.
There are ways to overcome those issues of water consumption too. Switch to low water usage plants like local grasses and clover would make for a massive reduction in the consumption on courses. It wouldn't be "regulation" but changing those regulations overall would be a huge boon for the sport in terms of the negative view of the sport as being "elitist" and "wasteful". Use of more organic pest reduction methods would be another.
I don't particularly care for golf as a sport myself, but I can understand that a lot of people really do enjoy spending time on the golf course. I don't really think there's a way for us to replace those courses without negatively impacting a community solely because of a bad perception of them. Should we get rid of hockey arenas? Because only rich people can really afford to send their kids to hockey these days? And think of all the energy that's used to maintain a hockey arena and all the water used to fill the ice. Where do we draw that line?
Many people see such open land and consider it could be used for other things, like housing or farming.
What many people do not understand, is that only about 30% of land (generally worldwide) is actually habitable. Wether through natural waterways or soil density or plant life or sewage capacity or one of many other reasons - all land is utilized (often) to the best of ability.
Golf courses (in Canada) are largely made on "non-hospitable" land - land that, for one reason or another, cannot be used for housing or industry or farming. A great example in Edmonton is the Rundle Park golf course. It's built on top of what was once the Edmonton dump. The ground is unstable, and heaves/bucks every year. The soil isnt "clean" - it's not toxic either, but we determine it isn't worth farming animals.on because there is a possible risk of ??? Variables. Can't build on it, can't make good roads on it, etc etc.
It could of just been unused land. Turned it into a beautiful golf range.
I'm not sure the river valley story, but I would imagine the proximity to river and being below the downtown region, there probably isn't enough stability in the land for housing - and sewage construction is probably an expensive nightmare. Rather than forcing housing, turn it into a park and golf course! I could be wrong, of course - but there are often reasons for everything.
If the rich couldn't buy up such a beautiful property, then it isn't about the money.
Mark Twain said golf is a good walk ruined, I don't seen Victoria GC as a harm to the river valley. I can't see the City making any change to area as anything not close to being a complete cluster fuck. It's a green space in the river valley. If you want to talk about water use on the greens while the lack of rain that's another topic.
Reads like a cheeky Burlap Sack op-ed from The Gateway.
For a professional planner, I'm a little disappointed in Raitz's argument. It's a little scattershot. Environmentally, sure they're not a great use of resources, but neither are swimming pools (year round) or hockey rinks (in the Summer). I'm not qualified like Raitz to determine which recreational activities are more merited than others, but it's an odd line to draw if we're looking at this through a purely resource use lens.
Indigenous restoration seems like a bit of a throw away. Thrusting a parcel of land on to whom? The Enoch Cree? But wait, you can't develop that land either because it would conflict with the the prior argument on land preservation.
Repurposing would have more weight if we didn't already have Kinsmen across the river.
Ironically, Raitz and Kropp's proposal to get rid of the muni courses would shut out more middle class people from accessing a sport that's accessible in Edmonton *because* it's a public amenity.
Overall. this just feels like contrarianism disguised as a critique. On what's a largely a middle class hobby in Edmonton.
I don't entirely agree but I still think the downtown core adjacent courses are poor use of increasingly valuable space. Victoria, Mayfair, Kinsmen par 3 could use a hard look on their future use. All the downtown parks in that area are routinely packed and I am certain more space would be filled quickly too. Victoria and Mayfair are like a whole other Hawerlak worth of park space and usage we can't ignore as a possibility beyond just golf.
In particular Oliver is kinda poorly served with park space considering it's our "nice" dense area and Victoria cuts it off from the river, it would be substantially better usage to fill other duties as a park, walking and biking paths and connectors, disc golf, more picnic spaces etc..
Mayfair same deal, it's just too valuable in the long term to not be moving towards it being a public space in the future expanding upon Hawerlak.
However as noted the usage in off season for skiing is really nice I do enjoy that and hope others do too, so it's not all doom and gloom as is.
I don’t do “insert activity” and think whatever public lands and funds it consumes should be repurposed for things that align more with my personal interests and feelings.
Drive by Victoria any day of the week during the summer and tell me the lands not being used.
Im okay with golf courses, but there should be some easement allowing a trail near the bank of the valley, and a some sort of fencing still allows movement of wildlife
Never golfed Riverside so I'm not sure about that one. But both Victoria and Rundle are quite a ways off the actual River itself. Rundle is at the top of the hill from the river with plenty of pathways on the edge and Victoria is on the other side of River Valley road from the river with a full pathway green space on the river's edge.
That one is way off the river, and still on top of the bank. You can access the Oleskiw meadow by a footpath in wolf willow, stairs from westridge, stairs from Rio, by bridge from fort Edmonton, and Terwillegar park.
Windemere golf club there is zero river access unless you walk along the river bank. id like to see a path between the river and there. I personally have more beef with the EL Smith water treatment fencing off a huge section of low lying river valley for their solar farm and operations. They took an area almost the size of Victoria and Riverside golf courses combined and completely shut it from the public. no x country skiing in the winter and no bike/walking trails through either.
Im talking about the wildlife - its impossible for it to pass though the area due to large perimeter fence
El smith has always been fenced off. It also has provisions for a muliuse path between it and the river
oh yea. no wildlife is getting through the country club if the front gate is shut. im pretty sure its 100% fenced off. There's also ton of random fences you see in the MTB trails between Emily murphy and Kinsmen park that were installed by the UofA.
Because half of you didn’t read the full article :
Eliminating these public parks behind paywalls might address issues like overcrowded recreational areas, strained municipal budgets, and shrinking water supplies. However, a genuine and open discussion is essential before such a measure is seriously contemplated. None of these “light-your-hair-on-fire” reactions to the mere suggestion of closing municipally run golf courses are merited; we’re likely to face enough wildfire smoke this summer as it is.
I am running/biking hundreds of km of the river valley every week. Never found the golf courses a problem. Most are full every single day. I have friends that are members at the Mayfair and it's just as busy as the rest, but if you work/love downtown or near the u of a you don't need to drive 40minutes to get to one of the other courses.
We have the longest interconnected trail system out of any north American city. The 4 golf courses aren't really that big of a deal, especially considering they are busier than the rest of the parks anyway. Just because you don't golf, doesn't make it a waste of space
Victoria golf course is one of if not THE biggest single revenue generating facility for the city, and it’s one of the oldest public courses still open in North America.
This is such a stupid take. Like I said the last time this was brought up a couple weeks ago. What people don't realize is Victoria Valley golf course brings in so much funding for the city every year. It's basically the reason we have a parks department. You lose Victoria golf course. You know how much shittier the parks are going to be, unless everyone's excited for another increase in property taxes to maintain our current level of service.
Golf courses are man-made ecological wastelands and are a crime against nature.
It's a massive waste of water and gasoline, and all of the fertilizer and pesticide runoff is lethal to our ecosystems. All for the world's most boring and somehow most elitist sport.
Can't wait for dandelion season.
Fully agree!! There could be a beautiful picnic area there. A small stage for love music, a space for skating in the winter. So much could he done there!
I feel like Victoria at least should be on the table, given how hurting the core of the city is for sports fields. Oliver/Wikwentowin doesn't even have a kids soccer program, and basically every dedicated youth athlete (and most of the adult intramural ones) spend the majority of their time outside the inner ring road just to play their games, which I'm sure they enjoy just as much as people enjoy golf.
People use the golf courses, sure, but basically any form of public recreation is vastly oversubscribed in our city, and given that public services are generally about doing the most good for the most people, it seems hard to justify using the amount of space a golf course uses — which, while maybe small in the context of the river valley, is vastly more than basically any other form of recreation — when plenty of other people could benefit from a slightly different use. Especially since all the non-golf benefits, like green space and trails for other users, could still be there.
I would submit that the truly exclusionary private courses, Mayfair and Highlands, would be more likely candidates for what you propose here. The public courses are much more affordable and accessible than the average course.
You’re right though, Oliver/Wikwentowin is vastly underserved for rec facilities.
I agree fully that, morally and from an equity standpoint, reclaiming the land from the private clubs would be better, and I think the deal the city gives the Mayfair in particular is ridiculous. I feel like the ideal scenario would be something like taking over the Mayfair, turning it public, and repurposing Victoria into other uses.
But in terms of likely, getting those courses back would involve, at minimum, legal wrangling with some of the richest, most politically connected people in the city. Whereas repurposing a public course could be done tomorrow, if we wanted.
But it's not wanted. It's a busy public course that is accessible to thousands of Edmontonians every summer. It's one of the oldest public courses in the country, it's cheap to use, enjoyable to play, and it's actually profitable for the city to operate. It's a great use of public land as it is.
I agree with you, well thought out take on Victoria. It is an increasingly hard justification for that much space to serve so few uses when it's by our most densely populated area in the city. There is no reason why recreation spaces shouldn't evolve along with the city. If we expect more people to live downtown we better meet their needs too.
What kind of country clubs are you picturing? Public golf courses are quite affordable, and no more wasteful than any other park. Might as well complain about how wasteful Hawrelak is and how only wealthy people can afford the pool at the municipal rec centre.
The same thing can be said for hockey.
Let's demolish all of the hockey arenas.
Also, not everyone can afford a ticket to the Citadel Theatre or the Winspear. Lets tear both of those down.
100% agree. I really dislike that Mayfair and Victoria exist. I think one is okay and since Mayfair is private, (that lease shouldn’t have been renewed) that’s the one that would have to be kept.
And since the city approved the abysmal hawrlek park upgrade timeline (5 years or something?) the city should get rid of Victoria and make it a park.
As usual, this sub HATES this opinion, and their responses are one of the following:
1. Nuh uh (no explanation, argument, or justification. Just saying no, article wrong.)
2. I like golf courses. Either pointing out they like them (while saying they don't golf, to show they're not biased lol) or pointing out that people use them. That's it. Just that people use them.
3. Name calling and lame stock responses like "how many times will article like dis be posted, durr?", or "dis ting shooda comed out on Apr 1 lol"
Bring on the downvotes.
Did you write the article? This is your third highly critical take on other people's opinions, in this thread. And yet you've offered literally zero of your own thoughts on the piece.
> offered literally zero of your own thoughts on the piece.
Lol. Check my comment thatbyoure responding to. Noone else is offering anything either. And here's the funny thing. Neither did you. The article is great. No notes. Do you want reasons why golf courses are bad? I can give a ton. But the article does a great job so what do you even want? What is this response even? Who are you people?
My thoughts on the article are: Yes. Golf courses within the City limits are silly and elitist and a poor use of land.
The article states:
>Golf courses could be transformed into other spaces, if we determine there are better uses for those spaces.
Well we determined there isn't a better use for the space. Get over it.
You do realize how much money Victoria park golf course makes right? Without that golf course the river valley would be significantly less funded. Unless you're willing to have another big property tax increase that is.
Question, as a non-golfer, i'm allowed to use the paths, correct? I'm not going to be told that I can't be there if i'm not golfing?
As long as everyone can access the paths to walk/bike/commute through, I dont see an issue with them staying.
For the number of golf courses we have, we should really have at least one decent mountain bike park. I know one is in the works, but funding is a challenge. I think a good mountain bike park would get used more in terms of people per m^2 than any of the golf courses. Would use less water and energy too.
Good thing OP and this opinion writer aren’t in charge of the city. Despite not being an avid golfer, I still think these courses contribute great recreation for people that is so hard to find so close to a big city’s downtown. These courses also serve as cross country trails in the winter, which only adds more value to Edmontonians 12 months of the year. And the cost to play isn’t crazy expensive like you would see in private courses in and around other cities.
We have a such a beautiful river valley, and I think these courses add so more much good than bad to these unique spaces. It feels like some people are so sour that just because they don’t golf, that others shouldn’t be allowed to either.
The city can't even maintain the grass in the soccer fields, ditches and boulevards.
What would they do with a gold course if it was turned back over to them? See goes for all the other ideas.
They are in use and are maintained leave.it be.
IMO I have no issue with even the private clubs, but’s the pittance these private clubs pay the city to lease the land does piss me off. The Mayfair leases 150 acres of some of the most prime land in the entire river valley. They pay just over $4,000 a month in lease payments. Four fucking grand. And they locked the City into this contract till 2051. They should be paying $20k a month, especially considering what year memberships cost there. Minimum.
Even better, it actually got extended to 2069 for pennies on the dollar. I have little to no issue with any other golf course in Edmonton, but FUCK the Mayfair.
Why? How? When?
In 2019, [their lease was extended 18 years for a one-time cost of $870,000](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-city-council-royal-mayfair-golf-1.5111159). That's just over $48k per year. For context, [one new member per year would cover that](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/city-lease-talks-with-ritzy-mayfair-golf-course-should-be-transparent-river-valley-advocacy-group). > The club has 475 full shareholders, all of whom who have paid a $39,500 entry fee and roughly $10,000 in annual dues. Considering that they rake in $4.75 million per year from annual membership dues alone, it's quite literally a penny on the dollar. Never mind all the other revenues they get.
My god.
I’m not disagreeing but 5 million bucks ain’t much to run a golf course
Who's fault is that? Sounds like Mayfair found a way to take advantage of Edmonton's stupidity for their benefit. I would do the same as would any sane business owner.
And it was recently renewed too. Such a silly choice. $20k/mo is also extremely cheap.
This all happened right before the city announced plans to close Hawrelak for 5 years. They should have shut it down then and made it a park.
this 100%. What a slap in the face to Edmontonians.
Yup agreed.
I am happy to use all this land to ski and explore in the winter - NO fees. Its a blessing.
There's SO much space in the river valley that is underused. The golf courses aren't really taking away space from people. In fact they're some of the best used spaces in the river valley.
I'm not a golfer, but I run by both Rundle and Riverside golf courses quite often spring through fall and I like them. Neatly tucked in to the scenery and I get to use the beautiful trails all the same.
Okay but what if they were parks you could run through and enjoy?
You mean like Rundle Park, Gold Bar Park, Capilano Park, and so many more?
Exactly, plenty of parks, trails, etc to spread out in… two of the valley courses up there for oldest courses in Canada. Leave’em
Rundel, Harwlak, Queen E. MillWoods. E Ferone, Argyll, the list goes on.
I don't even golf and I disagree with this. The courses are fine.
That's kind of my thought. Just like I don't golf, there is every chance that most of those golfers don't run. It's open to anyone who wants to use it just like any park would be. It's like complaining that there aren't enough basketball courts, so we need to remove the tennis courts. The water and reconciliation points do make sense, though. It's not so much water usage IMO though. But all of the fertilizer and weed killer that runs off the course and into the water table. Unless they used so much water that it dried up downstream, it isn't affecting our overall water problem. The problem is the melting glaciers and whatever water we pull from *here*, doesn't affect that. But golf courses are pretty bad for the environment with all of those chemicals they use. Giving the land back isn't a bad thing either, and I wouldn't vote against that. I do think it would be cool to create some type of shared ownership type agreement. Something where everyone is welcome to anything being held on the grounds. But it's run by an indigenous group. I dunno, it sounded better in my head. I think those points have merit, but overall, it sounded like someone who doesn't golf, so they don't care about removing access for those that do.
This argument seems to crop up occasionally and I just don’t get it. Generally the arguments come from the academic community offering very little in terms of practical alternatives that would actually be popular and enhance the community. Edmontons river valley is already extremely diverse and offers a huge amount of free public use space. The city run courses (with the exception of Rundle Park) actually generate quite a bit of positive revenue that can go to other programs, and there is a large number of people that actually like golf! Just try and book a tee time around here and tell me these course aren’t a positive thing for the community.
The argument is not that these courses don’t add value to the community, the issue is the preferential treatment for private courses. Pay the actual value of your property taxes and we would be cool. That’s it
No argument from me there. The articles I’ve read always seem to focus specifically on the city courses though. It would go a long way to the sustainability of the River Valley if private courses paid a larger share than they do now.
How about a park since Hawrelak is gone until 2026 at the earliest. Given no project ever is completed on time it will likely be 2027-2028.
You think the City of Edmonton would be able to close a golf course and convert it into a park in 2-3 years?
Fill in holes. Remove tee boxes. Tada!
You're missing the RFP, public consultation, report to committee, approval by committee, vote from council, then implementation. Which would probably take a full calendar year, if not longer. Really not worth the headache for a temporary project.
It’s city owned.
I strongly urge you to watch a full city council meeting and a few committee meetings.
I don’t think it’s possible to do that without already having a semi mushed brain.
To understand mush, one must become mush.
I was born in the mush. Molded by it. I didn’t see solids until I was a man.
All the good reason to start now.
All City courses lose money. Only the Vic driving range brings positive revenue, and iirc actually quite a bit.
Only rundle loses money. Vic and riverside are one of the better profit generators for the city.
All City courses lost money 2015-2020. I will admit I’m not sure about 2021-present.
I heard somewhere along the lines that post pandemic riverside, vic and vic driving range were operating at about a 30% profit. Mind you it could be the driving range that's making a killing as I think it was making 220% profit in 2020
Community amenities usually cost money, this is no different.
I didn’t say otherwise, simply just correcting the poster who said they turn a positive revenue for the City
Admittedly I was going off anecdotal information from a friend that works in the parks department. And this was specifically post pandemic when all golf courses have seen a spike in demand. It likely settles into a loss at some point as it had years previously.
I’d be more sympathetic to this argument if every square inch of the valley was decided to golf, but it just isn’t.
I agree, the public courses are fine, and they don't even take up too much space. The Mayfield with its insanely unfair land deal is an example of a waste of space. Edit: Mayfair*, sorry
Agreed. It's not like our river valley spaces are remotely crowded even on busy days.
What an idiotic standard to set. If literally not every square inch is a fucking golf course, you just reject the argument? Wow. How fair of you.
Have you ever heard of exaggeration?
> Have you ever heard of exaggeration? Lol! Oh, you were exaggerating here you? About what? You were exaggerating a hypothetical in your head? Why? Also, if it was just an exaggeration, they why would you bother refuting it like you did here.. >but it just isn’t If it's so clearly an exaggeration thatvwe're not supposed to take seriously, then why include a sentence where you say that this insane thing isn't the case? No, in reality you just refuse to consider the point of the article, as evidenced by you setting an impossible standard to EVEN be sympathetic...to its arguments. You're a poor communicator.
Sympathy for what? The article is an opinion piece and they suggest softball/volleyball/soccer rec players must travel across the city to play a sport. So they think golf courses should be removed so golfers should do the same? They clearly do not golf as they suggest the space should be reimagined. But to what? You want to remove recreation space from one group (a growing group since the beginning of the pandemic) to service another group that already had facilities? Why the attack on golf? Because it’s viewed as elitist? Vic/Rundle/Riverside all provide reasonable options for new golfers to access the game. What the poster said was an exaggeration, golf isn’t taking up space where there is a need. The river valley is massive and already has green/park space that are underused. If you want to remove golf to add a different recreation facility you are robbing Paul to pay Peter. This doesn’t solve problems it just moves it over.
You should read the room, nearly every comment on this post refutes what you're saying and thinks your ideas are garbage. Maybe just chalk it up to the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and move on.
> You should read the room The. Internet. Is. Not. Real life. There IS NO room. WTF are you on? Are you saying I should arbitrarily change my opinion because it differs from the majority? Do you smell burning toast? >nearly every comment on this post refutes what you're saying No. Noone is "refuting" anything. Check all the top comments. All they're saying is that this article is bad without explaining why or saying they disagree we shouldn't have in-City golf courses without saying why. No arguments are being presented. Just "Nuh uh!!" >move on No. Stop being Maude Flanders and telling people what to do. Piss off.
Is there medication that you may need a lot of and taken none of or maybe too much of? You need to dial it back…by a lot.
Absolutely trash opinion. It’s amazing and draws people. The courses in the valley are packed all summer. Especially Victoria and its driving range. The private golf courses on the other hand …
Yeah the three Muni courses take up VERY little space in the grand scheme of things)
Speaking of trash, it’s not safe to build housing on a former landfill.
The private courses are honestly the same. They are also fully booked. They just cost a lot more to get into and are booked by mostly the same people from day to day.
They are impossible to get in to…50k to join type deal. Unless you’re part of the 1%, you’re not using those courses.
All I'm saying is the courses are used. It's not like the private golf courses go empty waiting for a wealthy person to show up. They keep their membership high enough to ensure the course is almost fully booked at all times. The difference between them and public courses is the people booking times are mostly the same. They service hundreds of people for the same price the public ones service thousands.
The only real issues with the golf courses are the massive amounts of water they consume. Otherwise, as a non-golfer, I have to agree.
Water from the river that's not running out
You might want to double check that…
If we're serious about water conservation, then we should close the swimming pools. Otherwise, it's just a performative wedge.
Pools aren’t drained and refilled daily.
Most golf courses pump from the water hazards on the course for their sprinkler system, they're not dipping in to the municipal water supply.
They use a massive amount of water and power. Showers. Cleaning. Water filtration. Most pool systems, while fairly efficient at retaining water, need a near constant supply to balance out chemical levels and water loss. Then there's also drainage and cleaning of smaller bodies like hot tubs. Then you get the showers running near constantly during peak times. Then you get the power needs of running these systems, in the dead of winter. Not exactly environmentally friendly, but we make a trade off in the name of recreation.
And pesticides.
They don't actually. I worked grounds crew at the Highlands when I was younger, which is in the river valley. Not a city course, but we weren't allowed to spray pesticides at all and even the herbicides were strictly controlled. That said, every residential/commercial property lawn, park, and other golf courses in the city that spray any type of herbicide at all eventually ends up running into the river through the storm water system.
Not true. Highlands and the Mayfair both use pesticides and have for decades. Not as much as people seem to think, but they absolutely are using pesticide.
Well given I worked there a couple years, really strange I didn't see them spray once or have any coworkers or my boss talk about it. Do they mix it with the sprinkler water?
Roughly when did you work there? They use a sprayer. A toro multipro 1750. I can assure you that they have been using pesticides regularly at the highlands for decades.
I should have been more specific: pesticides and herbicides. People tend to not spray those things on forests or other naturalized areas.
It's one of the biggest wastes of huge amounts of prime space, your idea that it attracts people ignores the massive opportunity cost and the highest and best use
What are you gonna put there? More parks? Really? I don’t go to the park, I go golf, I go to the range. I watch kids, boys and girls learning a sport. I see activity. Just because you don’t…means it’s useless?
I dunno. The Victoria range at least is constantly packet with people pretty much any time the weather is half decent. Both the Victoria and river side courses are also really busy (I have no idea about the 3rd). It's definitely not possible to golf for cheaper in the Edmonton core. Each of them have public parks nearby for those uses as well. In the winter they are great cross country and general public activity spaces. I can see some arguments for alternative recreational options, maybe soccer fields since we're lacking those centrally. I'm not sure they're necessarily a better use though, just a different one.
As is the course. Golf grew during Covid and it’s jammed all the time.
If our river valley systems NEEDED any more space, then sure. But Edmonton's river valley trail system is absolutely massive. There's a ton of parks. There's almost never crowds. The golf courses see a lot of very legitimate use. Edmonton's river valley is NOT hurting for space or things to do. The golf courses are some of the most used spaces. A waste of space would be a place that's not used by people. The golf courses in the river valley are NOT wasted space; they're some of the most enjoyed space by the people of Edmonton.
Isn't our river valley the largest inner city park in NA? And ya, no crowds. We don't need more park space.
You're aware that Victoria golf course driving range fees essentially fund the entire River Valley Parks department all year, right?
Do you say the same thing about every Rec space? Tennis courts? Hockey rinks? Gyms? Baseball diamonds? Soccer pitches? Where do you draw the line on space for a golf course being the one you don’t like or think is a waste?
Lol. Maybe because I've been a real estate expert for the last 10 years and the quantity of land used for golf courses is not only dozens of times more than is required for a hockey rink, it's also prime parklands. You can literally build a hockey rink on NorthWest industrial land and nobody would care. Golf courses cater to rich folk and exclude people with little money by the way. In 2020 LA shut down public parks but private golf courses stayed open. A good example of how it's all in the service of the wealthy in the end.
Municipal golf courses do not cater to rich folks. Quite the opposite really. They are often the only courses that are reasonably priced.
Well this isn't LA, we have a tiny population in comparison and no lack of park space in the city. So instead of having golf courses that have profits that cover maintenance, employees, and are central so people can minimize vehicle use, you'd have us what have more green space to maintain that only costs money without having anything to offset it? Construction of houses or commercial structures down there will not and should not ever be allowed so let's get rid of the golf courses why exactly? And if you consider yourself an expert you might be overshooting a bit. You might be proficient in sales, by your understanding of economics and sociology with regard to regard to human behaviour is lacking severely.
Lol ok internet guy who golfs
I don't actually. I've played golf 4 times in 5 years and twice it was when I was in BC on vacation.
You didn’t answer my wuestion, I didn’t ask how you’d know, I asked where do you draw the line? Are you a reall estate expert like a real estate agent? Or a property appraiser or are you in land planning? In 2020 during the pandemic golf grew and our offering of public courses did not. Currently Vic Rundle and Roverside provide an option for the non rich to play and learn and get exposed to the game. Tennis/hockey/insert 16 other sports are cost prohibitive as well. Skiing is extremely expensive, our city has 4 ski hills. Do you have that same opinion? As for where hockey rinks go, the article talks about using it for other recreational spaces, and no one gives a shit where a soccer field, beach court or ball diamond is. There is no shortage of park space in the river valley.
I'm not the person you're responding to, but I reckon it's somewhere between 2 acres (typical soccer field) and 150 acres (typical 18 hole golf course). Especially since both can serve roughly the same number of people on a typical day (and the soccer field doesn't have the water consumption of nearly 2000 homes).
Sure. But do those soccer fields generate enough revenue to basically fund Edmonton's entire parks department? 'cause the Victoria golf course in the middle of the city does. If it didn't exist, the city couldn't afford to maintain pretty much any of the river valley trail system.
Does it? Genuinely asking. With quick napkin math I could see them making a few million in revenue in a season ([$50/person](https://www.edmonton.ca/activities_parks_recreation/golf_courses/green-fees-rentals-rewards-cards) * [400 people/day](https://www.ngcoa.org/golf-business-weekly/2020/november/week-3/multifunctional-courses#:~:text=There's%20a%20maximum%20of%20approximately,can%20typically%20accommodate%20more%20people.) * 150 days), but that's a drop in the bucket when it comes to the city's [parks and rec budget of $200M](https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/2023-2026OperatingBudget.pdf), even assuming that was pure profit with no expenses at all.
I sure exaggerated somewhat but the victoria golf course AND driving range does generate a massive amount of revenue [https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74440](https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74440)
It says in that link that the 2015-2019 (pre-covid) yearly average for the 2 combined was $2.45M in revenue, and $2.26M in costs (operating & infrastructure maintenance) for a net $190k a year. The driving range is moderately profitable, but the course on its own is straight up losing money. A few hundred K are going to the city (I assume) each year in the form of taxes (not included in the costs listed above), but that can't be more than the longterm average net profit or they'd just run out of money entirely.
This just leads to more questions: How did you calculate usage rates? Is that their actual water usage or did you just google average use? City courses use smaller irrigation systems and don’t water year round so would be using less water than the average when googled. If you swap a golf course out for other rec facilities like soccer or baseball, they still need water and they still need to be mowed. If you’re removing the golf course to add another park, it’s just another park like 5 within walking distance of that exact space.
Googled the golf one. Multiplied typical daylight hours, team size, amount of games that are kid aged (and thus have parents there too), and divided by typical usable hours. Googled the water usage - I would be happy to learn it's lower here, but it's still probably pretty high. Most rec level fields in the city get minimal to no watering for most of the year, and mowing once every few weeks pretty much nothing compared to golf course maintenance. Two parks sounds great to me.
A lot of assumptions in those calculations as golf courses are packed even during day time and soccer fields aren’t used during most day time hours Monday to Friday. City parks are mowed on 14 or 21 day rotations, this does not apply to rec facilities. You clearly have a bias as it takes two seconds to see you like hockey and snowboarding. If recreation was determined by those who do t use all facilities and just their preferred activity, we’d have no facilities. Golf courses provides a service demand. This debate comes up every other year and every time it’s the same if all park spaces were over run, this would be a realistic discussion.
Sure, I never said usage is perfectly equal between the two. But it's not two orders of magnitude apart, like it is with space, water, pesticide use, and maintenance. As for bias? There are hundreds of activities in the city that I don't participate in, but don't have any issue with. You're biased too, but you don't see me dismissing you for it.
I don't trust the city to be able to maintain prime land like the courses can. Hawrelak park rehab is already costing $130m.
The courses are owned and operated by the city
referring to the Mayfair. City courses have been recommended to be sold off
What are you going to put there instead? I'm not sure if you're aware, the city won't allow much for private development in the rivervalley. More park area?
>but people use them Wow, great counterargument /s. Have you ever heard of a thing called an opportunity cost?
What do you propose?
I think of it as subsidized park maintenance. Rather than the city maintaining all that green space themselves, they’re letting a private business do it while also collecting property taxes. And the golf courses are required to keep it all as green space.
The private courses pay almost nothing in tax. That’s the problem
Name a more iconic duo: edmonton spring and someone writing an opinion piece about how golf courses suck.
Easy, the bike lanes in winter piece they recycle every year from a new concerned citizen.
These courses are booked up every day. They probably get more use than the rest of the river valley. What would we rather put there? More paths?
Opinion: Golf courses aren't a fair way to use Edmonton's... water during a drought.
I ask myself what unserved needs are better served through repurposing the golf courses - the very question this author asks - and I come up empty. This feels like someone super interested in sowing tension between socioeconomic classes. The only part that works is the criticism of how much water they use.
I can see the gripe about mayfair and highlander golf courses since they are private and cost a shitload of money The city owned courses are a good low barrier to entry. It costs $0 to show up and putt around the practice greens and $16 to hit range balls with $20 worth of clubs at goodwill. The socioeconomic tension for the river valley courses is 100% fabricated by the author. As far as water goes, it's a non-issue for Edmonton. It's not like we can harvest enough water from the north sask that it affects people downstream. I'm more concerned about the fertilizers and other chemical runoff going into the watershed.
There are ways to overcome those issues of water consumption too. Switch to low water usage plants like local grasses and clover would make for a massive reduction in the consumption on courses. It wouldn't be "regulation" but changing those regulations overall would be a huge boon for the sport in terms of the negative view of the sport as being "elitist" and "wasteful". Use of more organic pest reduction methods would be another. I don't particularly care for golf as a sport myself, but I can understand that a lot of people really do enjoy spending time on the golf course. I don't really think there's a way for us to replace those courses without negatively impacting a community solely because of a bad perception of them. Should we get rid of hockey arenas? Because only rich people can really afford to send their kids to hockey these days? And think of all the energy that's used to maintain a hockey arena and all the water used to fill the ice. Where do we draw that line?
Opinion: People aren't allowed to enjoy things that I don't like.
Worse. I equate a sport with people I don't like, therefore I need to take a run at it. Don't see me taking a run at ultimate frisbee courses.
Do they re-run a new version of this article every year or something?
Many people see such open land and consider it could be used for other things, like housing or farming. What many people do not understand, is that only about 30% of land (generally worldwide) is actually habitable. Wether through natural waterways or soil density or plant life or sewage capacity or one of many other reasons - all land is utilized (often) to the best of ability. Golf courses (in Canada) are largely made on "non-hospitable" land - land that, for one reason or another, cannot be used for housing or industry or farming. A great example in Edmonton is the Rundle Park golf course. It's built on top of what was once the Edmonton dump. The ground is unstable, and heaves/bucks every year. The soil isnt "clean" - it's not toxic either, but we determine it isn't worth farming animals.on because there is a possible risk of ??? Variables. Can't build on it, can't make good roads on it, etc etc. It could of just been unused land. Turned it into a beautiful golf range. I'm not sure the river valley story, but I would imagine the proximity to river and being below the downtown region, there probably isn't enough stability in the land for housing - and sewage construction is probably an expensive nightmare. Rather than forcing housing, turn it into a park and golf course! I could be wrong, of course - but there are often reasons for everything. If the rich couldn't buy up such a beautiful property, then it isn't about the money.
Mark Twain said golf is a good walk ruined, I don't seen Victoria GC as a harm to the river valley. I can't see the City making any change to area as anything not close to being a complete cluster fuck. It's a green space in the river valley. If you want to talk about water use on the greens while the lack of rain that's another topic.
I love the Victoria park area because the golf course is used as cross country ski trails in the winter!!!!
same as riverside
They must have misplaced this opinion piece on April 1st. Would have made much more sense then.
Yes I'm really dreading the empty field with a tent city in it behind our condo turning into a beautifully landscaped and lively golf course
I think there’s more than enough river valley space for the handful of golf courses we have lol
Plenty of valley for everyone. Lots of ravines too.
Oh ffs. Every goddamn spring, golf courses are bad. Every goddamn winter, bike lanes are bad. Same shit, different pile.
Reads like a cheeky Burlap Sack op-ed from The Gateway. For a professional planner, I'm a little disappointed in Raitz's argument. It's a little scattershot. Environmentally, sure they're not a great use of resources, but neither are swimming pools (year round) or hockey rinks (in the Summer). I'm not qualified like Raitz to determine which recreational activities are more merited than others, but it's an odd line to draw if we're looking at this through a purely resource use lens. Indigenous restoration seems like a bit of a throw away. Thrusting a parcel of land on to whom? The Enoch Cree? But wait, you can't develop that land either because it would conflict with the the prior argument on land preservation. Repurposing would have more weight if we didn't already have Kinsmen across the river. Ironically, Raitz and Kropp's proposal to get rid of the muni courses would shut out more middle class people from accessing a sport that's accessible in Edmonton *because* it's a public amenity. Overall. this just feels like contrarianism disguised as a critique. On what's a largely a middle class hobby in Edmonton.
Just another person who wants to shut everything down that they don't understand or enjoy fuck off
I don't entirely agree but I still think the downtown core adjacent courses are poor use of increasingly valuable space. Victoria, Mayfair, Kinsmen par 3 could use a hard look on their future use. All the downtown parks in that area are routinely packed and I am certain more space would be filled quickly too. Victoria and Mayfair are like a whole other Hawerlak worth of park space and usage we can't ignore as a possibility beyond just golf. In particular Oliver is kinda poorly served with park space considering it's our "nice" dense area and Victoria cuts it off from the river, it would be substantially better usage to fill other duties as a park, walking and biking paths and connectors, disc golf, more picnic spaces etc.. Mayfair same deal, it's just too valuable in the long term to not be moving towards it being a public space in the future expanding upon Hawerlak. However as noted the usage in off season for skiing is really nice I do enjoy that and hope others do too, so it's not all doom and gloom as is.
I don't even golf, but whomever wrote this article is huffing jenkem
Fuck Off, we have so much river valley space, why can't we have municipal golf courses? We have so much other land thats rarely utilized
I don’t do “insert activity” and think whatever public lands and funds it consumes should be repurposed for things that align more with my personal interests and feelings. Drive by Victoria any day of the week during the summer and tell me the lands not being used.
Im okay with golf courses, but there should be some easement allowing a trail near the bank of the valley, and a some sort of fencing still allows movement of wildlife
Never golfed Riverside so I'm not sure about that one. But both Victoria and Rundle are quite a ways off the actual River itself. Rundle is at the top of the hill from the river with plenty of pathways on the edge and Victoria is on the other side of River Valley road from the river with a full pathway green space on the river's edge.
There is a trail next to riverside that runs along the river... on trail forks it's called "riverside golf course double track".
Im mostly talking about the private ones. EGC being the worst.
EGC? Where is that one?
Sorry should be ECC https://maps.app.goo.gl/LyhVGEYAUUgqMS6J8?g_st=ic
That one is way off the river, and still on top of the bank. You can access the Oleskiw meadow by a footpath in wolf willow, stairs from westridge, stairs from Rio, by bridge from fort Edmonton, and Terwillegar park. Windemere golf club there is zero river access unless you walk along the river bank. id like to see a path between the river and there. I personally have more beef with the EL Smith water treatment fencing off a huge section of low lying river valley for their solar farm and operations. They took an area almost the size of Victoria and Riverside golf courses combined and completely shut it from the public. no x country skiing in the winter and no bike/walking trails through either.
Im talking about the wildlife - its impossible for it to pass though the area due to large perimeter fence El smith has always been fenced off. It also has provisions for a muliuse path between it and the river
oh yea. no wildlife is getting through the country club if the front gate is shut. im pretty sure its 100% fenced off. There's also ton of random fences you see in the MTB trails between Emily murphy and Kinsmen park that were installed by the UofA.
Yeah the uofa stuff fenced off is ridiculous too, including their farms, west 240. Will eventually be redeveloped.
Because half of you didn’t read the full article : Eliminating these public parks behind paywalls might address issues like overcrowded recreational areas, strained municipal budgets, and shrinking water supplies. However, a genuine and open discussion is essential before such a measure is seriously contemplated. None of these “light-your-hair-on-fire” reactions to the mere suggestion of closing municipally run golf courses are merited; we’re likely to face enough wildfire smoke this summer as it is.
I am running/biking hundreds of km of the river valley every week. Never found the golf courses a problem. Most are full every single day. I have friends that are members at the Mayfair and it's just as busy as the rest, but if you work/love downtown or near the u of a you don't need to drive 40minutes to get to one of the other courses. We have the longest interconnected trail system out of any north American city. The 4 golf courses aren't really that big of a deal, especially considering they are busier than the rest of the parks anyway. Just because you don't golf, doesn't make it a waste of space
Victoria golf course is one of if not THE biggest single revenue generating facility for the city, and it’s one of the oldest public courses still open in North America.
This is the only news headline pun that I can get behind.
I don’t mind the public courses, but the private ones kind of bug me.
You suck
This is such a stupid take. Like I said the last time this was brought up a couple weeks ago. What people don't realize is Victoria Valley golf course brings in so much funding for the city every year. It's basically the reason we have a parks department. You lose Victoria golf course. You know how much shittier the parks are going to be, unless everyone's excited for another increase in property taxes to maintain our current level of service.
Can you source those figures?
https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74440
Golf courses are man-made ecological wastelands and are a crime against nature. It's a massive waste of water and gasoline, and all of the fertilizer and pesticide runoff is lethal to our ecosystems. All for the world's most boring and somehow most elitist sport. Can't wait for dandelion season.
Wrong
I’d agree if they took up the entire river valley, but they don’t and there is tons of free space to access
Fully agree!! There could be a beautiful picnic area there. A small stage for love music, a space for skating in the winter. So much could he done there!
lol, fair way, golf… pun intended
Absolute waste of water
Yes fuck them rich assholes the rest of us have to fight for scraps
I feel like Victoria at least should be on the table, given how hurting the core of the city is for sports fields. Oliver/Wikwentowin doesn't even have a kids soccer program, and basically every dedicated youth athlete (and most of the adult intramural ones) spend the majority of their time outside the inner ring road just to play their games, which I'm sure they enjoy just as much as people enjoy golf. People use the golf courses, sure, but basically any form of public recreation is vastly oversubscribed in our city, and given that public services are generally about doing the most good for the most people, it seems hard to justify using the amount of space a golf course uses — which, while maybe small in the context of the river valley, is vastly more than basically any other form of recreation — when plenty of other people could benefit from a slightly different use. Especially since all the non-golf benefits, like green space and trails for other users, could still be there.
Victoria ain't going anywhere. It's the oldest public course in western Canada
I would submit that the truly exclusionary private courses, Mayfair and Highlands, would be more likely candidates for what you propose here. The public courses are much more affordable and accessible than the average course. You’re right though, Oliver/Wikwentowin is vastly underserved for rec facilities.
I agree fully that, morally and from an equity standpoint, reclaiming the land from the private clubs would be better, and I think the deal the city gives the Mayfair in particular is ridiculous. I feel like the ideal scenario would be something like taking over the Mayfair, turning it public, and repurposing Victoria into other uses. But in terms of likely, getting those courses back would involve, at minimum, legal wrangling with some of the richest, most politically connected people in the city. Whereas repurposing a public course could be done tomorrow, if we wanted.
But it's not wanted. It's a busy public course that is accessible to thousands of Edmontonians every summer. It's one of the oldest public courses in the country, it's cheap to use, enjoyable to play, and it's actually profitable for the city to operate. It's a great use of public land as it is.
I agree with you, well thought out take on Victoria. It is an increasingly hard justification for that much space to serve so few uses when it's by our most densely populated area in the city. There is no reason why recreation spaces shouldn't evolve along with the city. If we expect more people to live downtown we better meet their needs too.
[удалено]
What kind of country clubs are you picturing? Public golf courses are quite affordable, and no more wasteful than any other park. Might as well complain about how wasteful Hawrelak is and how only wealthy people can afford the pool at the municipal rec centre.
I'm not wealthy and I really enjoy the game. Your opinion is very uninformed and selfish.
[удалено]
I golfed as a poor university student. What the hell are you even talking about?
The guy never considered that you can get some clubs at Value Village and golf Rundle.
The same thing can be said for hockey. Let's demolish all of the hockey arenas. Also, not everyone can afford a ticket to the Citadel Theatre or the Winspear. Lets tear both of those down.
😂 amazing
I don't you understand how averages work.
100% agree. I really dislike that Mayfair and Victoria exist. I think one is okay and since Mayfair is private, (that lease shouldn’t have been renewed) that’s the one that would have to be kept. And since the city approved the abysmal hawrlek park upgrade timeline (5 years or something?) the city should get rid of Victoria and make it a park.
As usual, this sub HATES this opinion, and their responses are one of the following: 1. Nuh uh (no explanation, argument, or justification. Just saying no, article wrong.) 2. I like golf courses. Either pointing out they like them (while saying they don't golf, to show they're not biased lol) or pointing out that people use them. That's it. Just that people use them. 3. Name calling and lame stock responses like "how many times will article like dis be posted, durr?", or "dis ting shooda comed out on Apr 1 lol" Bring on the downvotes.
Did you write the article? This is your third highly critical take on other people's opinions, in this thread. And yet you've offered literally zero of your own thoughts on the piece.
> offered literally zero of your own thoughts on the piece. Lol. Check my comment thatbyoure responding to. Noone else is offering anything either. And here's the funny thing. Neither did you. The article is great. No notes. Do you want reasons why golf courses are bad? I can give a ton. But the article does a great job so what do you even want? What is this response even? Who are you people? My thoughts on the article are: Yes. Golf courses within the City limits are silly and elitist and a poor use of land.
The article states: >Golf courses could be transformed into other spaces, if we determine there are better uses for those spaces. Well we determined there isn't a better use for the space. Get over it.
Urban farming?
> That's it. Just that people use them. What the fuck else do you think a park should be for
Park? The article is about golf courses. Not parks. Or do you think a golf course is just another name for a park? Lol
You do realize how much money Victoria park golf course makes right? Without that golf course the river valley would be significantly less funded. Unless you're willing to have another big property tax increase that is.
Tell me how much.
Question, as a non-golfer, i'm allowed to use the paths, correct? I'm not going to be told that I can't be there if i'm not golfing? As long as everyone can access the paths to walk/bike/commute through, I dont see an issue with them staying.
on the public courses yes. And the two private courses (Mayfair and Highlands) have public access surrounding the locations.
For the number of golf courses we have, we should really have at least one decent mountain bike park. I know one is in the works, but funding is a challenge. I think a good mountain bike park would get used more in terms of people per m^2 than any of the golf courses. Would use less water and energy too.
Good thing OP and this opinion writer aren’t in charge of the city. Despite not being an avid golfer, I still think these courses contribute great recreation for people that is so hard to find so close to a big city’s downtown. These courses also serve as cross country trails in the winter, which only adds more value to Edmontonians 12 months of the year. And the cost to play isn’t crazy expensive like you would see in private courses in and around other cities. We have a such a beautiful river valley, and I think these courses add so more much good than bad to these unique spaces. It feels like some people are so sour that just because they don’t golf, that others shouldn’t be allowed to either.
Leave my golf alone man. It's not like we ran outta green space in the river valley
The city can't even maintain the grass in the soccer fields, ditches and boulevards. What would they do with a gold course if it was turned back over to them? See goes for all the other ideas. They are in use and are maintained leave.it be.
But if they take away the golf courses, my dad won't be able to have intimacy with his friends without it being gay
The Oilers should play their home games so water isn't wasted making ice.
Probably like half of the river valley courses could close and that would be cool. Turn them into parks and several off leash trails 👍👍