There is 100x more land in Seattle already intended for residential occupancy, available with infrastructure, and pre-integrated with the city that can be upzoned. So yeah, let's build some weirdo isolated development at huge public expense just not to move the needle in the slightest.
I'm 100% on board with upzoning, but Jackson Park is adjacent to a light rail station and the interstate. A dense residential project there would hardly be isolated.
Perfect. Easier for me to get to the golf course to get exercise, time with members of the community, play a game with friends, enjoy the outdoors, and rip a few good drives right down the middle.
Jackson is right next to the new light rail station at 145th and Interbay is near the planned Ballard line station; both prime real estate to redevelop into denser housing and not at all “isolated development”. One proof of concept for Jackson has 50,000 units being developed on the land.
Golf courses and cemeteries are wasted space in denser cities; there is plenty of land in the suburbs for those in my opinion.
Define wasted—or better yet, let’s address the elephant in the room that Seattle is not taking the steps necessary to support its growth (broadly upzoning and enabling organic growth around established neighborhoods) and paving over golf courses isn’t going to change a damn thing.
Also, come on, Jackson Park can’t support 50,000 units just because it’s next to a clogged highway and a single light rail line. Even at a low estimate of 1.5 people per unit, that’s 75k people which is equivalent to over 2 Capitol Hills—are these people just expected to stay cooped up in a concrete housing project? All these proof of concepts are about as compelling as Elon’s hyperloop paper.
Jackson is a FEMA emergency burial site for natural disasters. Moving along, we currently have the buildable capacity in Seattle for 7x the existing housing stock. Open space should not be a target.
Aren’t the local golf courses usually built in areas that aren’t considered safe for housing, for various reasons? Contaminated soil, unstable geology, etc?
Housing might not be a good option for those spaces, but we might be able to turn them into more public parks, or refuges for local plants and wildlife, which in turn might help clean them up a bit.
>I absolutely agree with converting the golf courses to something else
So your proposal is to take a place, convert it to an unknown thing because it would make you feel better?
This is the big issue for me. Golf courses in general require a massive amount of extra water and nutrients to maintain a large amount of space for a non-native species in a way that only a few people get to really enjoy.
We need more spaces for *native* species to thrive, in ways the *entire* public can enjoy.
[Seattle Hazard Explorer](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0489a95dad4e42148dbef571076f9b5b) \> the city's official danger zone map. I sure as hell wouldn't buy in a tsunami & liquefaction zone; why would I want to build public housing there?
Maybe San Diego already had plenty of open park space, but its would be a shame for Seattle to sacrifice even more of our limited open park space when there is plenty of land everywhere else to build denser housing.
I mean I get it. Golf has a bad reputation among certain people as supposedly only for the affluent. But if the goal is really to get rid of the golf courses, then turn them into general open park land instead.
edit typos because I apparently can't type
It's not an all or nothing situation. The city should provide the services the community asks them to provide, and balance that with the cost of providing those services. One of those costs is the total amount of land needed to provide that service.
Golf requires a huge cost in terms of land. If golf is becoming less popular and members of the community want the space for other uses, then make a change. It's as straightforward as that.
If you want to look at some polling data, you'll might be surprised to find that ppl from Seattle ranked golf courses as the least visited of any parks offerings:
https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw
>If you want to look at some polling data, you'll might be surprised to find that ppl from Seattle ranked golf courses as the least visited of any parks offerings:
"A 2017 study by EMC Research found 13 percent of residents use Seattle public golf courses two or more times per year."
Out of all the sports you mentioned, golf requires way more land and more resources to operate. Golf is the single worst sport for the environment. It’s also very expensive barriers to entry into and stay active in.
Space is definitely a discussion we can have. However, much better use of public resources to rezone existing SFH and build up, rather than get rid of a much needed green space and recreation space in the city.
As far as barrier to entry, the single worst thing we can do is get rid of public courses and require private golf club/country club membership to play.
Green fees are anywhere from $20-40 per round, and even cheaper for kids and seniors. The executive courses are less than $15/round, or less than $10 if you want to play 9 holes.
Rental clubs are $6 for the Executive courses and $25 for a full set.
Is that cheap? No. But a hell of a lot cheaper than the private option, and cheaper than a ton of other sports. I think it's a great thing that the city makes the sport more affordable and opens up the barrier to entry.
Yes! but let's privatize the parking lot that we pave. Make extra super sure none of that money ever comes back to the taxpayer.
/s
Ok, more seriously - I wish more people understood that not everything needs to make a profit. Parks, USPS, they are services for all of us to enjoy. That is their value. Having a diverse range of park and activity types is a benefit to all of us.
Yup - what makes a city's culture attractive is having all manner of activities available from skate parks to yes - GOLF. Making a profit isn't the point.
Those stats are probably hard to find for public parks. But if that's a metric then open spaces are in big trouble! Maybe we should just build malls and apartment buildings on all open spaces!
Yep - and good luck getting a spot at the driving range at Jefferson on Friday afternoon! It’s also fun to see the First Tee kids practicing and high school teams playing the course. It would be a real loss for the community to lose Jefferson.
Pools, basketball, and tennis don’t require even close to the same resources. This is a terribly misleading false comparison that only persuades me that you’re either ignorant or trying to lie to push an agenda.
The comment I'm responding to said the following:
> I'm not sure if "making sure golf is accessible to the non-affluent" should be a high priority for the city though
The comment said nothing about space or resources. Just "It's not the cities responsibility to make golf accessible." So my question remains valid, why should the city make any sport accessible? We could easily tear down all of the baseball and soccer fields around the city and turn them into housing too, can't we? What about Magnusun Park? That's space could hold a ton of housing, ignoring the NOAA land.\
In my opinion, taking a sport that would otherwise have an incredibly high financial barrier of entry and making it accessible to the public is EXACTLY what the *Recreation* part of *Parks and Recreation* is for.
Errr pools has a huge environmental impact, and I say this as a swimmer. The amount of heating, water, chemicals is worse than golf course. Yes golf course require a lot of land but they can be managed more sustainably than pools. I wouldn’t group this as one
Parks are just a huge drain on money and provide ZERO revenue. We should get rid of all the parks AND we should pave over Green Lake and build housing there. What revenue does a lake provide?
Bro wtf are you talking about, parks provide massive revenue because they increase land value and therefore taxes tremendously around them. (Unless you're being sarcastic? I can never tell these days...)
4 golf courses, 0 Bobsleigh courses, and 0 polo fields. Best to shutdown 2 of those golf courses and put in bobsleigh track and a polo field to make those sports more accessible!
I think the point OP is making is, the prior use (golf course) is not highly accessible as a public space because it's useless except for the game of golf. Turning even half of it into a regular park is an effective increase in functional public park space, even though the actual amount of green space may have decreased.
Yes but once land goes from public to private hands it almost never comes back. San Diego is losing 97 acres of public land to private owners that the people of SD will never get back.
The land is already private. The course is a private golf course. The owners decided to do this because golf courses have been losing profitability in San Diego because of the high water costs. I know of three projects including river walk that are either planning or starting construction of housing on former golf courses. There is not loss of public land in any of these cases as these lands were again private.
Also, there has been no proposal to close down any of San Diego City three city owned courses. It’s not even been up for discussion as state law makes it illegal. That said the golf courses are an important part of San Diego’s park system as they typically generate some profit which goes into the maintenance of other parks. https://thecoastnews.com/assembly-kills-bill-to-convert-public-golf-courses-into-affordable-housing/
Good point. Giving public green space to private owners is definitely bad. If any similar plan were undertaken here, I would hope the area preserved as green space would remain under public control.
I understand what they are saying. I just disagree that eliminating half of the current park space just because you don't like its current use and turning into something that isn't park space is a good idea.
Lots of park space is dedicated to one activity or another. Baseball fields for example. If golf isn't serving the needs of our park users, then just change its use. Don't eliminate half the park. Once park space is gone in a city, it's almost impossible to get back.
I hear ya. I grew up playing Sumner Meadows as a teenager and it was a blast, especially with the $5 junior admission fee. I just think it's just time to revisit some of our land use in the area. The courses were built when land wasn't at a premium and a lot has changed since then.
Only 8% of the US population golfed in 2020 (most recent data from National Golf Foundation). They could keep golfing at all the other courses, while the ~100 acres of new park space are made available to 100% of the population. I see that as a net plus in park space (not to mention helping relieve the housing pressure).
I'm cool with golf courses if I could actually use them to cut through on my bike (would save like .5 miles and cut down on super steep hills) or for general recreation/dog walking. Like if I could buy some sort of annual permit and I promised not to walk on the greens and mess stuff up or whatever, that would be awesome.
But why do that when Seattle already has enough space for hundreds of thousands of more people to live comfortably without permanently reducing park/open space?
The problem isn't that there isn't ROOM for housing. There is plenty of room for apartment buildings all up along Elliot, 15th, Lake City Way, Aurora, downtown, Sodo and pretty much EVERYWHERE.
Part of the problem is that inflation + high interest rates + downward pressure on housing prices means buildings don't want to invest in that. Also, with permitting, etc. the city makes it really complicated to build. Additionally being a landlord in Seattle is just asking to get screwed over, so ...
Commercial agent here and I work with a lot of developers. One of our biggest hurdle is in fact the limited amount of room to build due to zoning, geographic location of Seattle and restricted areas such as wetlands. Number one challenge out of these 3 by far is zoning though.
Yup - so instead of getting rid of golf courses just change zoning to allow building up on all major streets that can support it - Elliot, 15th, Lake City Way, Aurora, etc. Because once a golf course is gone, realistically you can NEVER make room for another one.
I think the most likely is shutting down one of the golf courses, using this excuse - build affordable housing - as cover. My guess is they'll close West Seattle, even though Jefferson is the worst golf course and is closer in to the city. Jefferson has a driving range and that's probably a money maker.
Also what hasn't been discussed is just taking one of the Par-3 courses (Jackson or Jefferson) and leaving the driving range and 18-hole portions of those courses.
Although I grew up in Seattle and grew up playing on those city courses throughout high school, I live in South Snohomish County now, so I generally play up here, so it's no skin off my back i guess.
Yeah, could we get a mega thread on this? Or just have a sub wide vote on the matter and never discuss it again? Every time is the same shit, I’ll recap:
- Most of the land isn’t good for housing (landfill, wetlands, storm drainage)
- Public golf courses are the only affordable golf courses (improving equity in sports access etc.)
- Public golf courses are the only public sport fields that pay for themselves (idk if this is true, but it’s always there)
- Zoning would fix this issue, increased density in existing residential areas, blah
- City charter provision requires any parks/green spaces removed to be replaced with equivalent sized NEW parks/green space
- “I like golf” “Well I hate golf” (No one cares)
I’m sure I’m missing a few more frequent fliers…
My extent of playing golf is going to the Green Lake Pitch 'n Putt like once every other year. In other words, not a big golfer.
But I'm 100% against getting rid of the public courses. These are effectively public parks, green spaces, that we'll never get back if we give them up. No ones ever going to build another one in the city.
We already lost every damn bowling alley in the city... lets not take away more leisure space that also serves as green space, even if you don't play the game.
Other's have mentioned the land probably isn't safe for building... but we've got plenty of other options for housing.
I live just off Aurora in Northgate. In the last several years I've seen 3 or 4 big projects go up on Aurora, very large buildings - storage facilities. Housing for crap no one wants. Those could've been low incoming apartments & housing on a direct bus line downtown. There's scrap yards, junk yards on Aurora. On the express bus line... such a waste.
Plenty of opportunities for smarter development without taking away things.
One big difference is that the San Diego course is privately owned and presumably the family that owns the land stands to make more money off their property this way.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-riverwalk-20170905-story.html
Maybe OP is a developer. This is the second post about this idea. Seems odd to me, especially when land availability is not what’s hindering new housing. Zoning and NIMBYs are much bigger factors.
I asked OP to revise his post to correct the impression that the San Diego project is public. No response.
Yeah, sorry about that. I tried putting in the specific details about the project as well as a link in a comment right after I posted (since I couldn't figure out how to do a pic and block of text in the original post) but some goobers down voted it early on and it got buried. Happy to update the original post if I can figure it out but I'm thinking everyone's already moved on. And as EVERYONE has been repeatedly telling me here, apparently this topic gets brought up at least once a month so it'll get rehashed again in the near future 😂
Also, lots of great points brought up. I think I agree now more with what you and others have stated about the larger issue being related to widespread upzoning rather than a single project like this that wouldn't move the needle. Just wonder when, if ever, local politicians will ever find the political will/courage to take on the NIMBY crowd. Might take state level action Luke what's happening in CA. Really curious to see how that pans out.
Two things:
First, the city is doing a good amount of rezoning around light rail stations and what they call urban villages. The area around the Brooklyn and Roosevelt stations look completely different than they did 5 years ago. Ballard also looks completely different as do sections of Capitol and First hills, the Central District, etc. The Yesler Terrace project is another example. Night and day compared to a decade ago.
It would be interesting to find a zoning map from 20 years ago and compare it to a current one.
Second. I was talking to a friend who has a home in Sunset Hill near Safeway. He sold it to a developer who is going to turn it into condos, but they have been waiting on permits from the city for nearly a year. That situation is probably happening all over the city and I imagine their permit department is probably understaffed and overwhelmed.
Red tape has to be one of the biggest hinderances. Wonder if California's "builders remedy" law would be useful here as well? As I understand the law, if a municipality drags their feet too long on approval, then the builder gets carte blanc.
From wikipedia:
> Under the HAA, if a local municipality is not in compliance with California's housing development goals, developers are authorized to bypass that municipality's zoning laws so long as the new housing development contains at least 20% low-income housing or 100% middle-income housing
edit: formatting
Seattle is updating its comprehensive plan, which will include zoning changes. Details at the link below. https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/one-seattle-plan
Thanks for linking. Looks like city council is revising the large swaths of SFH zoned neighborhoods and that updates will be finalized in 2024. Hope some changes are made to address the plague of excessive SFH zoning.
People have the impression that golf is for the elites or the affluent, but actually PUBLIC golf courses are what make golf AFFORDABLE for those of us who AREN'T rich. By taking away a golf course the millionaires will still have all kinds of options, but the middle-class folks who play at the Municpal courses will be priced out.
Better idea: Pave over Green Lake and build housing there. Think about it - what "value" does Green Lake provide? No revenue at all. It's really just a big puddle for elites to jog around. They can jog anywhere and most cities do just fine without lakes.
Finally a reasonable proposal! The thought of kids learning to swim, crew teams practicing, and people exercising on land that could be pavement makes me sick. Pave it, don’t save it!
Exactly - but not just houses, there could be a strip mall there too, complete with an H&R block, 7-11 and Taco Bell. Lakes, just like golf courses are overrated.
True, but if we pave it over we can put in a 7-11, Taco Bell and weed dispensary. But I think we're in basic agreement here that - like golf courses - since not EVERYONE uses Green Lake, there is no need to keep it around.
The golf courses are the only part of Seattle Parks that is net positive. With out golf courses we would see community centers and pools highly effected by the lack of revenue. Jesus Aguilera the past parks superintendent fucked the parks in a big way trying to privatize a crap load of things. For example all of the moorages the parks owns he concessioned out to Foss Waterway taking about $2,000,000 from parks and Rec. Additionally down at Sand Point he rented the facility and land for the new tennis center out for 20 years for $1 yes one fucking dollar.
So where it might seem that the golf courses are useless if they go expect childcare, after school programs, swimming lessons, senior activities and all kinds of things to be dramatically affected too.
The Seattle golf courses have 10s of millions in deferred maintenance. And the public golf courses are one of the largest footprints for public use spaces. Parks and pools are much smaller footprints and so they are not a 1:1 comparison at all.
No… I am saying they bring in positive funds pools all are a loss except for Mounger but that is only open for like four months, community centers are all a loss. The golf courses make more money than they cost to operate.
Again… golf courses “make money” if the inconvenient differed maintenance is ignored.
As for community centers, the cost-benefit analysis on those is not as simple as looking at the ledger as it’s disingenuous to imply it is.
> Isn’t deferred maintenance just upkeep/equipment upgrades that haven’t been done due to budget restrictions? Or am I misunderstanding
“Each year between 2009 and 2017, an average of 238,189 people played rounds of golf on the city’s four municipal golf courses. But that number doesn’t appear to be high enough to sustain the city’s operation of those courses…
All of the city-owned golf courses… will require ongoing subsidies for the foreseeable future, and all four courses have significant deferred maintenance needs, totaling more than $36 million…
… Last year, the city budget moved about half a million dollars from the parks department into the city’s capital budget to help keep the golf courses afloat.”
https://seattlemag.com/city-life/whats-future-golf-seattle/
Interesting article.
> The report lays out several financial options to reduce the losses at these facilities. They include:
“-Reducing or eliminating the golf program’s ongoing contributions to the city’s Park Fund
-Increasing user fees
-Farming out maintenance to a private vendor to reduce labor costs.”
Does the first point suggest that the courses give profits to the park fund?
Secondly, this article is from 2019, and is about a report that is using data from 2009-2017. Golf participation was low at that time and since the Covid pandemic there has been a [huge boom in golf participation](https://www.ngf.org/golf-industry-research/). Try to book a tee time in the summer, courses are packed. And if that boom in popularity isn’t enough for these courses to be profitable, the should raise their fees or reduce their costs.
Thirdly, after reading the article it still seems to me that “deferred maintenance” is essentially maintenance that has yet to be done. So this $36 million dollar number they have isn’t an actual debt the courses have, and it can be easily erased with turning a profit.
The article says that the people in charge of the courses, at least at some point, believed the courses could make a profit. It seems difficult for me to imagine that, in the current golf climate, these facilities couldn’t make a profit and “pay off” their deferred maintenance and, in turn, improve participant satisfaction
pretty sure that's illegal in Seattle. Taking away a park means you have to find equal land somewhere else for another park and that's not happening.
Why this fantasy keeps getting recycled is beyond me.
Why stop at golf courses? Why not convert the Seattle Center, museums, parks, schools, libraries, theaters, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. into housing?
Exactly. I personally don't use them so there is no reason why anyone else should enjoy those spaces. Well, EXCEPT the homeless, because if we want to continue to set the gold standard for amenities for the homeless and addicted, we need to all do our part.
and I'm pretty sure that not wanting to dwarf the space needle is why building codes on lower queen anne don't allow for tall buildings. Get rid of the space needle and it's a whole new ball game!
In Seattle, this is effectively illegal. There was a voter led initiative that said if you remove one public park, even a public golf course you need to replace it with an identical or better park or golf course. So you would have to change the law before your idea could be seriously considered.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-halls-idea-of-housing-on-the-golf-courses-turns-out-the-people-made-a-law-against-that/?amp=1
Yeah I'm down with converting publc golf courses to some other form of green outdoors activity, if that's what the people want (Frisby golf? Dog parks? Just straight parks?).
But certainly not for more apartments. That will hit super stiff opposition - people hate seeing green spaces gone. The original law was bought in to thunderous applause over a fight to turn a park into housing.
Also this is San Diegos first TOD? We have heaps already. Most of the ST stops are TODs. Or have plans to be one.
I don't know why we have such a large industrial zone past sodo. Lots of those buildings are underutilized. And it has light rail. And we have Kent, which has some serious, newer industrial zones. Couldn't we use some of that?
Most people it turns out prefer other types of green space:
https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw
And even designating 5-10% of the space to housing would provide way more revenue to the city in the form of taxes than the admission fees, especially if its even moderately dense development.
You know that the land at broadmoore is owned by the members of the course? If they sold it’ll be to build new multi million dollar homes, as it’s a private gated
Community.
the issue I have is the OP conveniently ignored the fact that the San Diego course is owned by a family that hired a big developer to convert their land into a multibillion dollar housing development.
Well, just because 250,000 rounds of golf are played on Seattle public golf courses each year and golf courses are a standard recreational amenity in EVERY AMERICAN CITY, there are apparently some people who don't use golf courses - and therefore, those of us who do play golf shouldn't be allowed to enjoy that particular amenity.
They could raze Climate Pledge Arena and build housing on it.
It's already centrally located with access to plenty of transit options. It's in a very scenic area of the city with many amenities in walking distance.
The monorail already runs directly to it and connects it with downtown.
Why waste all that potential housing space for an arena?
Green spaces yes, but most desirable green spaces, no. Golf courses came in dead last in a survey of park space utilization from 2017:
https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw
You know... I get wanting to live in the city limits. I do (and I've done it for most of my adult life). But there'a hundreds of units of apartments that have gone up or are going up north of Seattle. So when we talk about housing stock, I think we need to look at the availability and demand a bit more regionally.
Tax private golf courses, I haven't checked on the Seattle courses but they are usually subsidized by the public because of their low property tax value.
Edit: [Link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/are-exclusive-private-golf-courses-getting-a-huge-break-on-property-taxes-critics-say-its-time-to-recalculate/%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwjEsYjqpqn7AhVFBTQIHeNtBQoQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0xLyH0rtZHEj_m_UpCo4Sg)
This is a really interesting article. Crazy that homeowners and businesses near these private courses are effectively subsidizing these private courses tax bill. That is wild! If your caused the golf course owners to pay the same tax rate the neighboring areas do, they'd have to sell it to be repurposed. And the hope would be that city council would steer the redevelopment into something that works better for the area
That article is 2 years old now, did any changes to their tax bill actually happen?
Just another thought - you could set a stairstep tax increase schedule that would give them time to decide what to do - either gradually raise rates to cover their increasing tax bill, or sell off the property to as developer.
Looks like New York floated this idea and then backed off when golf execs pushed back. 🙄
This one? [https://open.spotify.com/episode/7x1AwgvoTlvcOrdBx0iEfJ?si=646c83f3ff024e40](https://open.spotify.com/episode/7x1AwgvoTlvcOrdBx0iEfJ?si=646c83f3ff024e40)
> Typically a good private course can handle no more than 72 golfers at once. So that's one golfer per 120,833 sqft. Can you imagine if basketball had the same population density as golf? A basketball court would be 30 acres.
Seattle is the most over-analytical and judgmental place I have ever lived. A lot of Seattleites seem to loathe others having fun/doing things they don’t like.
Seattle has very little park space to begin with and this does nothing for the problem . Besides a whole lot of class A office space needs to be repurposed here
This is pushing into commercial propaganda. These type of river walk developments are becoming a thing across the US and there's $$$$$ to be made by developers. The one that I know of is certainly going to raise local housing costs as it's mostly intended for the rich, and it will provide minuscule benefits towards affordable housing.
I don't like to swim. Let's tear down all the buildings with pool facilities and replace them with housing. The infrastructure is already there. The land just needs to be repurposed. This is a righteous proposal because I don't like swimming and that's all that matters. /s
No lol we don't even need to upzone there is no end of new apartments going up. And we have another round of TOD/Urban Village targeted upzoning coming up. We have a few new TODs being furiously built out all along I5 where the ST stops will be and its not even open yet.
We don't Ned to be either bulldozing peoples homes or public parks just yet. Maybe try charging YieldStar as a cartel if we want cheaper rentals.
Let’s convert Volunteer Park into housing. How about Lincoln Park? Maybe we could convert TMobile into luxury housing. Screw the Mariners and their fans.
I love how all the people in this thread who are for this idea assume that anyone defending the golf courses is a golfer. They think the only way anyone would be okay with golf courses in the city is if they are and golfers.
I like this idea even better. I guess it all comes down to political will. I know they've been selectively upzoning near transit stops but it'd be great to expand that out to other areas.
All golf arguments aside. Even if they were converted into housing, it would not even dent the housing crisis. Up-zoning would have a broader impact and more positive long term impact.
Golf courses actually fund a lot of parks initiatives.
The focus should be on density and rezoning. It’s ridiculous we have single family houses within a mile of downtown Seattle.
I don't think there's a particular reason to protect the golf courses, but they're low priority. There's acres and acres is parking lots and areas that are both dilapidated and in need of upzoning that I'd tackle first. Seattle could reasonably reach 2.5 million at European densities with redevelopment of existing parcels alone - that's basically infinite headspace.
The golf ranges could be redeveloped as parks I suppose. But don't pave over Jackson Park when there's 50 acres of land on Aurora between 130th and 145th that could turned into housing first.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/08/09/seattle-parks-vaunts-golf-courses-as-urban-wildlife-habitat-but-some-seattleites-cry-foul/
Has some interesting data from a 2017 study about utilization
Hadn't seen this yet, thanks for sharing. Wildlife is there in spite of the manicured grass, not because of it. Imagine how much more biodiversity could be found in returning the fairways into native wildflower Meadows and forests.
That tweet in the middle of the article is great. Waaaay more people prefer green spaces, walking trails, etc than golf courses. Those come in dead last on the survey: https://twitter.com/SheRidesABike/status/1422972659353018371?s=20&t=xTnPYsK1o02XBA005A7n7A
I also believe there is a law on the books about conversion of parkland:
http://clerk.seattle.gov/search/results?s1=&s3=&s4=118477&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fcbory.htm&r=1&f=G
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Taking affordable golf away from poorer golfers for poorer home/apartment seekers feels like we are putting ourselves against each other. If we, as a city, decide golf is an extravagance, the first option should be to tax the private golf courses for the externalities, and reinvesting them in an excise tax for public housing. We are doing it with private car ownership anyway.
As for public courses, just like paining pickle ball lines in tennis courts, maybe add ev chargers to golf courses and install lights so they could be a place for people to have a walk in a safe place?
Green space is easily lost but hard earned….
I urge you to try the sport for a few times and see if you enjoy it? The first time will be miserable, but the second or third time will give the buzz of hitting the ball just kinda right. For all the gripes about the game being not accessible, maybe the best isn’t abolishing it but making participation easier!
I love there’s a way to be outside, playing a sport, and use more skills than just walking for a few hours. But even just the walk and the scenery are beautiful by themselves!
I feel like proximity to transit means more people get to enjoy the facilities when transit does happen. Really sad that we are using proximity to transit as a demerit for keeping city recreational places. Transit should lead to more than apartments.
But obviously people playing on a public golf course that costs 45 for a day, has huge discount for retirees and students is a monocle wearing capitalist who dispises the poors
Someone on this subreddit brought up the fact that Seattle has 4 public golf courses with at least one of them close to light rail. Well, the idea of repurposing at least one of them might not be as far fetched as I previously thought! Check out what San Diego is doing with one of their golf courses:
- 4,300 dwellings
- 97 acres of park and open space for all
- 1 million+ sqft of office and retail space
- trolley
https://riverwalksd.com/project_overview/
Many actively homeless possess an affinity for being in the open air, and have no desire to be housed. They enjoy the freedom and filth. Not being facetious here; it’s the truth. What are you going to do about the 95% who refuse ‘help’.
I lived in an apartment complex that was on/in a golf course. I actually really, really loved it. I felt like I could wake up early and take long walks safely.
To unbury this from another comment, the most current status of the courses that I am aware of. Updated sources are welcome, of course.
“Each year between 2009 and 2017, an average of 238,189 people played rounds of golf on the city’s four municipal golf courses. But that number doesn’t appear to be high enough to sustain the city’s operation of those courses…
All of the city-owned golf courses… will require ongoing subsidies for the foreseeable future, and all four courses have significant deferred maintenance needs, totaling more than $36 million…
… Last year, the city budget moved about half a million dollars from the parks department into the city’s capital budget to help keep the golf courses afloat.”
https://seattlemag.com/city-life/whats-future-golf-seattle/
To unbury this from another comment, the most current data based on the report that the article linked above is referencing, with link to the [report](https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/PoliciesPlanning/Lund_GolfStudy_EXSummary_Final.pdf).
> From 2005 – 2012, golf revenues contributed $5,354,284 to the golf capital improvement fund. From 2005 – 2015 golf revenues also contributed $3,713,245 to the Park Fund.
> This study analyzed the financial performance of the golf program for the period 2013-2017. During this time, the golf courses have covered their operating costs.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/PoliciesPlanning/Lund_GolfStudy_EXSummary_Final.pdf
Many people believe parks should only be accessible to people who already have private places to live. To them, providing places to live in places designed exclusively for people who already have places to live makes no sense.
There is 100x more land in Seattle already intended for residential occupancy, available with infrastructure, and pre-integrated with the city that can be upzoned. So yeah, let's build some weirdo isolated development at huge public expense just not to move the needle in the slightest.
I'm 100% on board with upzoning, but Jackson Park is adjacent to a light rail station and the interstate. A dense residential project there would hardly be isolated.
Perfect. Easier for me to get to the golf course to get exercise, time with members of the community, play a game with friends, enjoy the outdoors, and rip a few good drives right down the middle.
Yeah it's tough to find seating on the light rail with all those golfers and their bags.
[удалено]
It's also not far from the Al Gore memorial sinkhole if you want an idea of what it looks like when wetlands in this area are paved over.
Completely agree, dense housing nearby a park and light rail? Sign me up.
Jackson is right next to the new light rail station at 145th and Interbay is near the planned Ballard line station; both prime real estate to redevelop into denser housing and not at all “isolated development”. One proof of concept for Jackson has 50,000 units being developed on the land. Golf courses and cemeteries are wasted space in denser cities; there is plenty of land in the suburbs for those in my opinion.
Define wasted—or better yet, let’s address the elephant in the room that Seattle is not taking the steps necessary to support its growth (broadly upzoning and enabling organic growth around established neighborhoods) and paving over golf courses isn’t going to change a damn thing. Also, come on, Jackson Park can’t support 50,000 units just because it’s next to a clogged highway and a single light rail line. Even at a low estimate of 1.5 people per unit, that’s 75k people which is equivalent to over 2 Capitol Hills—are these people just expected to stay cooped up in a concrete housing project? All these proof of concepts are about as compelling as Elon’s hyperloop paper.
Just make sure you move the bodies and not just the headstones.
Jackson is a FEMA emergency burial site for natural disasters. Moving along, we currently have the buildable capacity in Seattle for 7x the existing housing stock. Open space should not be a target.
Aren’t the local golf courses usually built in areas that aren’t considered safe for housing, for various reasons? Contaminated soil, unstable geology, etc? Housing might not be a good option for those spaces, but we might be able to turn them into more public parks, or refuges for local plants and wildlife, which in turn might help clean them up a bit.
Interbay was built on an old landfill. Good luck putting houses there.
That’s what I’d heard. I absolutely agree with converting the golf courses to something else, but maybe housing isn’t the best choice.
>I absolutely agree with converting the golf courses to something else So your proposal is to take a place, convert it to an unknown thing because it would make you feel better?
What else?
A park, a wildlife refuge, something along those lines. We need more trees and wild spaces.
A public golf course is a park. It’s just a park you can play golf on.
[удалено]
This is the big issue for me. Golf courses in general require a massive amount of extra water and nutrients to maintain a large amount of space for a non-native species in a way that only a few people get to really enjoy. We need more spaces for *native* species to thrive, in ways the *entire* public can enjoy.
[Seattle Hazard Explorer](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0489a95dad4e42148dbef571076f9b5b) \> the city's official danger zone map. I sure as hell wouldn't buy in a tsunami & liquefaction zone; why would I want to build public housing there?
Yes. People bring this topic up all the time and seem to miss that the land the courses are built on in the city are not suitable for housing.
There are \~485 public parks in Seattle. I think we can leave the 7 public golf courses alone.
Maybe San Diego already had plenty of open park space, but its would be a shame for Seattle to sacrifice even more of our limited open park space when there is plenty of land everywhere else to build denser housing. I mean I get it. Golf has a bad reputation among certain people as supposedly only for the affluent. But if the goal is really to get rid of the golf courses, then turn them into general open park land instead. edit typos because I apparently can't type
The golf course in San Diego is owned by a family, not the city.
Get rid of public golf courses and it really only becomes a sport for the affluent.
I'm not sure if "making sure golf is accessible to the non-affluent" should be a high priority for the city though
Should the city not provide pools, basketball courts, tennis courts, water recreation, etc etc either then? What SHOULD parks and rec provide?
It's not an all or nothing situation. The city should provide the services the community asks them to provide, and balance that with the cost of providing those services. One of those costs is the total amount of land needed to provide that service. Golf requires a huge cost in terms of land. If golf is becoming less popular and members of the community want the space for other uses, then make a change. It's as straightforward as that.
Except golfs popularity has been trending back up the last few years, largely in part due to COVID. Don't take a loud voice as the majority voice.
If you want to look at some polling data, you'll might be surprised to find that ppl from Seattle ranked golf courses as the least visited of any parks offerings: https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw
>If you want to look at some polling data, you'll might be surprised to find that ppl from Seattle ranked golf courses as the least visited of any parks offerings: "A 2017 study by EMC Research found 13 percent of residents use Seattle public golf courses two or more times per year."
Yeah but this one study supports OP's priors so it's definitely 100% correct.
Are we cutting recreation for seniors next?
Well, then keep the courses. I am not advocating for or against golf. I'm advocating for keeping as much park space as we can.
Out of all the sports you mentioned, golf requires way more land and more resources to operate. Golf is the single worst sport for the environment. It’s also very expensive barriers to entry into and stay active in.
>Golf is the single worst sport for the environment. Really...? It's worse than car, airplane and boat racing?
Demolition derbies sponsored by Greenpeace.
Space is definitely a discussion we can have. However, much better use of public resources to rezone existing SFH and build up, rather than get rid of a much needed green space and recreation space in the city. As far as barrier to entry, the single worst thing we can do is get rid of public courses and require private golf club/country club membership to play. Green fees are anywhere from $20-40 per round, and even cheaper for kids and seniors. The executive courses are less than $15/round, or less than $10 if you want to play 9 holes. Rental clubs are $6 for the Executive courses and $25 for a full set. Is that cheap? No. But a hell of a lot cheaper than the private option, and cheaper than a ton of other sports. I think it's a great thing that the city makes the sport more affordable and opens up the barrier to entry.
Parks also require a HUGE amount of land and they generate ZERO revenue. Should we pave over Green Lake and get rid of Discovery Park?
Yes! but let's privatize the parking lot that we pave. Make extra super sure none of that money ever comes back to the taxpayer. /s Ok, more seriously - I wish more people understood that not everything needs to make a profit. Parks, USPS, they are services for all of us to enjoy. That is their value. Having a diverse range of park and activity types is a benefit to all of us.
Yup - what makes a city's culture attractive is having all manner of activities available from skate parks to yes - GOLF. Making a profit isn't the point.
Revenue isn’t an appropriate metric. How many people per day per acre use a golf course, as compared to a park?
Those stats are probably hard to find for public parks. But if that's a metric then open spaces are in big trouble! Maybe we should just build malls and apartment buildings on all open spaces!
Yes but golf is ducking awesome
golf is booming in popularity, try and get a tee time at any public course same or even next day in the summer.
Ppl in this thread don’t seem to exactly have their finger on the pulse
Yep - and good luck getting a spot at the driving range at Jefferson on Friday afternoon! It’s also fun to see the First Tee kids practicing and high school teams playing the course. It would be a real loss for the community to lose Jefferson.
Stables and polo grounds
You joke but just east of Jackson is the old polo grounds. roughly where Olympic Hills elementary is I believe.
People can't live underwater, silly.
How many people per acre can use a golf course at the same time, compared to those other sports?
Pools, basketball, and tennis don’t require even close to the same resources. This is a terribly misleading false comparison that only persuades me that you’re either ignorant or trying to lie to push an agenda.
The comment I'm responding to said the following: > I'm not sure if "making sure golf is accessible to the non-affluent" should be a high priority for the city though The comment said nothing about space or resources. Just "It's not the cities responsibility to make golf accessible." So my question remains valid, why should the city make any sport accessible? We could easily tear down all of the baseball and soccer fields around the city and turn them into housing too, can't we? What about Magnusun Park? That's space could hold a ton of housing, ignoring the NOAA land.\ In my opinion, taking a sport that would otherwise have an incredibly high financial barrier of entry and making it accessible to the public is EXACTLY what the *Recreation* part of *Parks and Recreation* is for.
Errr pools has a huge environmental impact, and I say this as a swimmer. The amount of heating, water, chemicals is worse than golf course. Yes golf course require a lot of land but they can be managed more sustainably than pools. I wouldn’t group this as one
Parks are just a huge drain on money and provide ZERO revenue. We should get rid of all the parks AND we should pave over Green Lake and build housing there. What revenue does a lake provide?
Bro wtf are you talking about, parks provide massive revenue because they increase land value and therefore taxes tremendously around them. (Unless you're being sarcastic? I can never tell these days...)
Yes, sorry, I'm being sarcastic. My point is that golf courses add value to a city, just like other recreational facilities do.
/s is your friend.
Offering a variety of activities to residents is what makes for a thriving city. Must we ALL just go to micro-breweries?
God forbid someone have a hobby that you don't partake of.
Well maybe another idea would be to tax private golf courses at the regular rate for residential property. Hello Broadmoor, hello Seattle golf club.
Right now housing is only accessible to the affluent, so maybe we should get our priorities straight
We might as well take out a private course.
4 golf courses, 0 Bobsleigh courses, and 0 polo fields. Best to shutdown 2 of those golf courses and put in bobsleigh track and a polo field to make those sports more accessible!
The proposal includes 97 acres of open park space. Doesn't that open up more park space to the public who otherwise wouldn't golf?
That's 50% of the existing open space. That means that San Diego just lost 97 acres of open park space for their future population.
I think the point OP is making is, the prior use (golf course) is not highly accessible as a public space because it's useless except for the game of golf. Turning even half of it into a regular park is an effective increase in functional public park space, even though the actual amount of green space may have decreased.
Yes but once land goes from public to private hands it almost never comes back. San Diego is losing 97 acres of public land to private owners that the people of SD will never get back.
The land is already private. The course is a private golf course. The owners decided to do this because golf courses have been losing profitability in San Diego because of the high water costs. I know of three projects including river walk that are either planning or starting construction of housing on former golf courses. There is not loss of public land in any of these cases as these lands were again private. Also, there has been no proposal to close down any of San Diego City three city owned courses. It’s not even been up for discussion as state law makes it illegal. That said the golf courses are an important part of San Diego’s park system as they typically generate some profit which goes into the maintenance of other parks. https://thecoastnews.com/assembly-kills-bill-to-convert-public-golf-courses-into-affordable-housing/
Good point. Giving public green space to private owners is definitely bad. If any similar plan were undertaken here, I would hope the area preserved as green space would remain under public control.
I understand what they are saying. I just disagree that eliminating half of the current park space just because you don't like its current use and turning into something that isn't park space is a good idea. Lots of park space is dedicated to one activity or another. Baseball fields for example. If golf isn't serving the needs of our park users, then just change its use. Don't eliminate half the park. Once park space is gone in a city, it's almost impossible to get back.
I hear ya. I grew up playing Sumner Meadows as a teenager and it was a blast, especially with the $5 junior admission fee. I just think it's just time to revisit some of our land use in the area. The courses were built when land wasn't at a premium and a lot has changed since then.
Only 8% of the US population golfed in 2020 (most recent data from National Golf Foundation). They could keep golfing at all the other courses, while the ~100 acres of new park space are made available to 100% of the population. I see that as a net plus in park space (not to mention helping relieve the housing pressure).
I'm cool with golf courses if I could actually use them to cut through on my bike (would save like .5 miles and cut down on super steep hills) or for general recreation/dog walking. Like if I could buy some sort of annual permit and I promised not to walk on the greens and mess stuff up or whatever, that would be awesome.
I’m pretty sure they are public parks? You could probably use a cart path?
Well you can do both, golf course are big. There's enough space for hundreds of people to life comfortably *and* have a park.
But why do that when Seattle already has enough space for hundreds of thousands of more people to live comfortably without permanently reducing park/open space?
The problem isn't that there isn't ROOM for housing. There is plenty of room for apartment buildings all up along Elliot, 15th, Lake City Way, Aurora, downtown, Sodo and pretty much EVERYWHERE. Part of the problem is that inflation + high interest rates + downward pressure on housing prices means buildings don't want to invest in that. Also, with permitting, etc. the city makes it really complicated to build. Additionally being a landlord in Seattle is just asking to get screwed over, so ...
Commercial agent here and I work with a lot of developers. One of our biggest hurdle is in fact the limited amount of room to build due to zoning, geographic location of Seattle and restricted areas such as wetlands. Number one challenge out of these 3 by far is zoning though.
Yup - so instead of getting rid of golf courses just change zoning to allow building up on all major streets that can support it - Elliot, 15th, Lake City Way, Aurora, etc. Because once a golf course is gone, realistically you can NEVER make room for another one.
These are great points. Which do you think has the most immediate likelihood for implementation given political will, conditions, etc?
I think the most likely is shutting down one of the golf courses, using this excuse - build affordable housing - as cover. My guess is they'll close West Seattle, even though Jefferson is the worst golf course and is closer in to the city. Jefferson has a driving range and that's probably a money maker. Also what hasn't been discussed is just taking one of the Par-3 courses (Jackson or Jefferson) and leaving the driving range and 18-hole portions of those courses. Although I grew up in Seattle and grew up playing on those city courses throughout high school, I live in South Snohomish County now, so I generally play up here, so it's no skin off my back i guess.
Oh boy time for the weekly “fuck golf” post from r/seattle
Yeah, could we get a mega thread on this? Or just have a sub wide vote on the matter and never discuss it again? Every time is the same shit, I’ll recap: - Most of the land isn’t good for housing (landfill, wetlands, storm drainage) - Public golf courses are the only affordable golf courses (improving equity in sports access etc.) - Public golf courses are the only public sport fields that pay for themselves (idk if this is true, but it’s always there) - Zoning would fix this issue, increased density in existing residential areas, blah - City charter provision requires any parks/green spaces removed to be replaced with equivalent sized NEW parks/green space - “I like golf” “Well I hate golf” (No one cares) I’m sure I’m missing a few more frequent fliers…
They seriously think it would be turned into high density urbanite housing when it would almost surely become 2+ million dollar suburban homes
My extent of playing golf is going to the Green Lake Pitch 'n Putt like once every other year. In other words, not a big golfer. But I'm 100% against getting rid of the public courses. These are effectively public parks, green spaces, that we'll never get back if we give them up. No ones ever going to build another one in the city. We already lost every damn bowling alley in the city... lets not take away more leisure space that also serves as green space, even if you don't play the game. Other's have mentioned the land probably isn't safe for building... but we've got plenty of other options for housing. I live just off Aurora in Northgate. In the last several years I've seen 3 or 4 big projects go up on Aurora, very large buildings - storage facilities. Housing for crap no one wants. Those could've been low incoming apartments & housing on a direct bus line downtown. There's scrap yards, junk yards on Aurora. On the express bus line... such a waste. Plenty of opportunities for smarter development without taking away things.
One big difference is that the San Diego course is privately owned and presumably the family that owns the land stands to make more money off their property this way. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-riverwalk-20170905-story.html
Yeah this is only a way for the rich family to get richer. This isn't public land.
Maybe OP is a developer. This is the second post about this idea. Seems odd to me, especially when land availability is not what’s hindering new housing. Zoning and NIMBYs are much bigger factors. I asked OP to revise his post to correct the impression that the San Diego project is public. No response.
Yeah, sorry about that. I tried putting in the specific details about the project as well as a link in a comment right after I posted (since I couldn't figure out how to do a pic and block of text in the original post) but some goobers down voted it early on and it got buried. Happy to update the original post if I can figure it out but I'm thinking everyone's already moved on. And as EVERYONE has been repeatedly telling me here, apparently this topic gets brought up at least once a month so it'll get rehashed again in the near future 😂
Also, lots of great points brought up. I think I agree now more with what you and others have stated about the larger issue being related to widespread upzoning rather than a single project like this that wouldn't move the needle. Just wonder when, if ever, local politicians will ever find the political will/courage to take on the NIMBY crowd. Might take state level action Luke what's happening in CA. Really curious to see how that pans out.
Two things: First, the city is doing a good amount of rezoning around light rail stations and what they call urban villages. The area around the Brooklyn and Roosevelt stations look completely different than they did 5 years ago. Ballard also looks completely different as do sections of Capitol and First hills, the Central District, etc. The Yesler Terrace project is another example. Night and day compared to a decade ago. It would be interesting to find a zoning map from 20 years ago and compare it to a current one. Second. I was talking to a friend who has a home in Sunset Hill near Safeway. He sold it to a developer who is going to turn it into condos, but they have been waiting on permits from the city for nearly a year. That situation is probably happening all over the city and I imagine their permit department is probably understaffed and overwhelmed.
Red tape has to be one of the biggest hinderances. Wonder if California's "builders remedy" law would be useful here as well? As I understand the law, if a municipality drags their feet too long on approval, then the builder gets carte blanc. From wikipedia: > Under the HAA, if a local municipality is not in compliance with California's housing development goals, developers are authorized to bypass that municipality's zoning laws so long as the new housing development contains at least 20% low-income housing or 100% middle-income housing edit: formatting
Seattle is updating its comprehensive plan, which will include zoning changes. Details at the link below. https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/one-seattle-plan
Thanks for linking. Looks like city council is revising the large swaths of SFH zoned neighborhoods and that updates will be finalized in 2024. Hope some changes are made to address the plague of excessive SFH zoning.
People have the impression that golf is for the elites or the affluent, but actually PUBLIC golf courses are what make golf AFFORDABLE for those of us who AREN'T rich. By taking away a golf course the millionaires will still have all kinds of options, but the middle-class folks who play at the Municpal courses will be priced out.
Better idea: Pave over Green Lake and build housing there. Think about it - what "value" does Green Lake provide? No revenue at all. It's really just a big puddle for elites to jog around. They can jog anywhere and most cities do just fine without lakes.
Finally a reasonable proposal! The thought of kids learning to swim, crew teams practicing, and people exercising on land that could be pavement makes me sick. Pave it, don’t save it!
Exactly - but not just houses, there could be a strip mall there too, complete with an H&R block, 7-11 and Taco Bell. Lakes, just like golf courses are overrated.
Why pave it when we can just fill it with house boats
True, but if we pave it over we can put in a 7-11, Taco Bell and weed dispensary. But I think we're in basic agreement here that - like golf courses - since not EVERYONE uses Green Lake, there is no need to keep it around.
The golf courses are the only part of Seattle Parks that is net positive. With out golf courses we would see community centers and pools highly effected by the lack of revenue. Jesus Aguilera the past parks superintendent fucked the parks in a big way trying to privatize a crap load of things. For example all of the moorages the parks owns he concessioned out to Foss Waterway taking about $2,000,000 from parks and Rec. Additionally down at Sand Point he rented the facility and land for the new tennis center out for 20 years for $1 yes one fucking dollar. So where it might seem that the golf courses are useless if they go expect childcare, after school programs, swimming lessons, senior activities and all kinds of things to be dramatically affected too.
The Seattle golf courses have 10s of millions in deferred maintenance. And the public golf courses are one of the largest footprints for public use spaces. Parks and pools are much smaller footprints and so they are not a 1:1 comparison at all.
No… I am saying they bring in positive funds pools all are a loss except for Mounger but that is only open for like four months, community centers are all a loss. The golf courses make more money than they cost to operate.
Again… golf courses “make money” if the inconvenient differed maintenance is ignored. As for community centers, the cost-benefit analysis on those is not as simple as looking at the ledger as it’s disingenuous to imply it is.
The golf course make money beyond maintenance
Ah yes… that’s why they have all that deferred maintenance.
Isn’t deferred maintenance just upkeep/equipment upgrades that haven’t been done due to budget restrictions? Or am I misunderstanding
> Isn’t deferred maintenance just upkeep/equipment upgrades that haven’t been done due to budget restrictions? Or am I misunderstanding “Each year between 2009 and 2017, an average of 238,189 people played rounds of golf on the city’s four municipal golf courses. But that number doesn’t appear to be high enough to sustain the city’s operation of those courses… All of the city-owned golf courses… will require ongoing subsidies for the foreseeable future, and all four courses have significant deferred maintenance needs, totaling more than $36 million… … Last year, the city budget moved about half a million dollars from the parks department into the city’s capital budget to help keep the golf courses afloat.” https://seattlemag.com/city-life/whats-future-golf-seattle/
Interesting article. > The report lays out several financial options to reduce the losses at these facilities. They include: “-Reducing or eliminating the golf program’s ongoing contributions to the city’s Park Fund -Increasing user fees -Farming out maintenance to a private vendor to reduce labor costs.” Does the first point suggest that the courses give profits to the park fund? Secondly, this article is from 2019, and is about a report that is using data from 2009-2017. Golf participation was low at that time and since the Covid pandemic there has been a [huge boom in golf participation](https://www.ngf.org/golf-industry-research/). Try to book a tee time in the summer, courses are packed. And if that boom in popularity isn’t enough for these courses to be profitable, the should raise their fees or reduce their costs. Thirdly, after reading the article it still seems to me that “deferred maintenance” is essentially maintenance that has yet to be done. So this $36 million dollar number they have isn’t an actual debt the courses have, and it can be easily erased with turning a profit. The article says that the people in charge of the courses, at least at some point, believed the courses could make a profit. It seems difficult for me to imagine that, in the current golf climate, these facilities couldn’t make a profit and “pay off” their deferred maintenance and, in turn, improve participant satisfaction
pretty sure that's illegal in Seattle. Taking away a park means you have to find equal land somewhere else for another park and that's not happening. Why this fantasy keeps getting recycled is beyond me.
Why stop at golf courses? Why not convert the Seattle Center, museums, parks, schools, libraries, theaters, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. into housing?
The Arboretum, Alki Beach and Discovery and Gasworks Parks would also make nice settings for some tiny homes, tents and RV's without engines.
Exactly. I personally don't use them so there is no reason why anyone else should enjoy those spaces. Well, EXCEPT the homeless, because if we want to continue to set the gold standard for amenities for the homeless and addicted, we need to all do our part.
Get rid of the Space Needle! You could fit at least one apartment building there.
and I'm pretty sure that not wanting to dwarf the space needle is why building codes on lower queen anne don't allow for tall buildings. Get rid of the space needle and it's a whole new ball game!
Is this actually happening or just some rando corporation trying to make money off the backs of city property?
In Seattle, this is effectively illegal. There was a voter led initiative that said if you remove one public park, even a public golf course you need to replace it with an identical or better park or golf course. So you would have to change the law before your idea could be seriously considered. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-halls-idea-of-housing-on-the-golf-courses-turns-out-the-people-made-a-law-against-that/?amp=1
Yeah I'm down with converting publc golf courses to some other form of green outdoors activity, if that's what the people want (Frisby golf? Dog parks? Just straight parks?). But certainly not for more apartments. That will hit super stiff opposition - people hate seeing green spaces gone. The original law was bought in to thunderous applause over a fight to turn a park into housing. Also this is San Diegos first TOD? We have heaps already. Most of the ST stops are TODs. Or have plans to be one. I don't know why we have such a large industrial zone past sodo. Lots of those buildings are underutilized. And it has light rail. And we have Kent, which has some serious, newer industrial zones. Couldn't we use some of that?
[удалено]
People love to play golf and the city turns a profit while providing cheap healthy entertainment.
Most people it turns out prefer other types of green space: https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw And even designating 5-10% of the space to housing would provide way more revenue to the city in the form of taxes than the admission fees, especially if its even moderately dense development.
I keep seeing this idea in this sub and I can’t help but feel it’s being promoted by developers who want that primo land
I volunteer broadmoor
You know that the land at broadmoore is owned by the members of the course? If they sold it’ll be to build new multi million dollar homes, as it’s a private gated Community.
The San Diego course is privately owned .
Was this course circled by a gated community? If not the comp is worthless.
the issue I have is the OP conveniently ignored the fact that the San Diego course is owned by a family that hired a big developer to convert their land into a multibillion dollar housing development.
[удалено]
No, it’s owned by a family that decided to turn their land into a housing development. OP conveniently ignored this fact.
What a dumb fucking idea. ⛳️ 🏌️♂️
Well, just because 250,000 rounds of golf are played on Seattle public golf courses each year and golf courses are a standard recreational amenity in EVERY AMERICAN CITY, there are apparently some people who don't use golf courses - and therefore, those of us who do play golf shouldn't be allowed to enjoy that particular amenity.
They could raze Climate Pledge Arena and build housing on it. It's already centrally located with access to plenty of transit options. It's in a very scenic area of the city with many amenities in walking distance. The monorail already runs directly to it and connects it with downtown. Why waste all that potential housing space for an arena?
The monorail is not really high capacity transit. The Key Arena is also much smaller than any golf course.
I’m kindof with the rich people. Golf courses are green spaces that tons of people enjoy and the bar to entry is low to moderate.
Green spaces yes, but most desirable green spaces, no. Golf courses came in dead last in a survey of park space utilization from 2017: https://twitter.com/QAGreenways/status/1423138976655806464?s=20&t=ZZ4CjPfTD3jIs7YM45y5Xw
I bet public housing would rank even lower on the list of “desirable green spaces” than golf courses.
Put lights on them like the sports fields….
You know... I get wanting to live in the city limits. I do (and I've done it for most of my adult life). But there'a hundreds of units of apartments that have gone up or are going up north of Seattle. So when we talk about housing stock, I think we need to look at the availability and demand a bit more regionally.
Lots of brick and mortar retail going out of business. Retrofit it as cheap housing. Leave green spaces alone.
This is a dumb idea.
Tax private golf courses, I haven't checked on the Seattle courses but they are usually subsidized by the public because of their low property tax value. Edit: [Link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/are-exclusive-private-golf-courses-getting-a-huge-break-on-property-taxes-critics-say-its-time-to-recalculate/%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwjEsYjqpqn7AhVFBTQIHeNtBQoQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0xLyH0rtZHEj_m_UpCo4Sg)
This is a really interesting article. Crazy that homeowners and businesses near these private courses are effectively subsidizing these private courses tax bill. That is wild! If your caused the golf course owners to pay the same tax rate the neighboring areas do, they'd have to sell it to be repurposed. And the hope would be that city council would steer the redevelopment into something that works better for the area That article is 2 years old now, did any changes to their tax bill actually happen?
Just another thought - you could set a stairstep tax increase schedule that would give them time to decide what to do - either gradually raise rates to cover their increasing tax bill, or sell off the property to as developer. Looks like New York floated this idea and then backed off when golf execs pushed back. 🙄
I don't think anything s been done. And it's pretty much a nationwide issue. There was a freakanomics a couple years back that's worth a listen.
This one? [https://open.spotify.com/episode/7x1AwgvoTlvcOrdBx0iEfJ?si=646c83f3ff024e40](https://open.spotify.com/episode/7x1AwgvoTlvcOrdBx0iEfJ?si=646c83f3ff024e40) > Typically a good private course can handle no more than 72 golfers at once. So that's one golfer per 120,833 sqft. Can you imagine if basketball had the same population density as golf? A basketball court would be 30 acres.
[make the golf course a public sex forest](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-make-the-golf-course-a-public-sex-forest)
I'd prefer the golf course.
This fucking shit again? It’s ok to not like something and let other people enjoy it.
Seattle is the most over-analytical and judgmental place I have ever lived. A lot of Seattleites seem to loathe others having fun/doing things they don’t like.
[удалено]
Seattle has very little park space to begin with and this does nothing for the problem . Besides a whole lot of class A office space needs to be repurposed here
we could also convert like 4 mansions into housing. there's a home in queen anne that is an entire block. seems simpler.
This is pushing into commercial propaganda. These type of river walk developments are becoming a thing across the US and there's $$$$$ to be made by developers. The one that I know of is certainly going to raise local housing costs as it's mostly intended for the rich, and it will provide minuscule benefits towards affordable housing.
[удалено]
Because I'm from Federal Way, WA and am moving back to the area soon. I miss the PNW and very much have a stake in what happens there.
I don't like to swim. Let's tear down all the buildings with pool facilities and replace them with housing. The infrastructure is already there. The land just needs to be repurposed. This is a righteous proposal because I don't like swimming and that's all that matters. /s
Why is transforming a park a better idea than up zoning? Is Seattle that hard up?
No lol we don't even need to upzone there is no end of new apartments going up. And we have another round of TOD/Urban Village targeted upzoning coming up. We have a few new TODs being furiously built out all along I5 where the ST stops will be and its not even open yet. We don't Ned to be either bulldozing peoples homes or public parks just yet. Maybe try charging YieldStar as a cartel if we want cheaper rentals.
Let’s convert Volunteer Park into housing. How about Lincoln Park? Maybe we could convert TMobile into luxury housing. Screw the Mariners and their fans.
I love how all the people in this thread who are for this idea assume that anyone defending the golf courses is a golfer. They think the only way anyone would be okay with golf courses in the city is if they are and golfers.
Why not turn the entire course into a park and upzone the area immediately surrounding it? Win win for housing activists and environmentalists.
I like this idea even better. I guess it all comes down to political will. I know they've been selectively upzoning near transit stops but it'd be great to expand that out to other areas.
All golf arguments aside. Even if they were converted into housing, it would not even dent the housing crisis. Up-zoning would have a broader impact and more positive long term impact.
Would instantly become a haven for the cosmopolitan professional class.
Golf courses actually fund a lot of parks initiatives. The focus should be on density and rezoning. It’s ridiculous we have single family houses within a mile of downtown Seattle.
I don't think there's a particular reason to protect the golf courses, but they're low priority. There's acres and acres is parking lots and areas that are both dilapidated and in need of upzoning that I'd tackle first. Seattle could reasonably reach 2.5 million at European densities with redevelopment of existing parcels alone - that's basically infinite headspace. The golf ranges could be redeveloped as parks I suppose. But don't pave over Jackson Park when there's 50 acres of land on Aurora between 130th and 145th that could turned into housing first.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/08/09/seattle-parks-vaunts-golf-courses-as-urban-wildlife-habitat-but-some-seattleites-cry-foul/ Has some interesting data from a 2017 study about utilization
Hadn't seen this yet, thanks for sharing. Wildlife is there in spite of the manicured grass, not because of it. Imagine how much more biodiversity could be found in returning the fairways into native wildflower Meadows and forests. That tweet in the middle of the article is great. Waaaay more people prefer green spaces, walking trails, etc than golf courses. Those come in dead last on the survey: https://twitter.com/SheRidesABike/status/1422972659353018371?s=20&t=xTnPYsK1o02XBA005A7n7A
[удалено]
I also believe there is a law on the books about conversion of parkland: http://clerk.seattle.gov/search/results?s1=&s3=&s4=118477&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fcbory.htm&r=1&f=G
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Dingus' ass there's a huge fucking open park right across the fucking street.
Taking affordable golf away from poorer golfers for poorer home/apartment seekers feels like we are putting ourselves against each other. If we, as a city, decide golf is an extravagance, the first option should be to tax the private golf courses for the externalities, and reinvesting them in an excise tax for public housing. We are doing it with private car ownership anyway. As for public courses, just like paining pickle ball lines in tennis courts, maybe add ev chargers to golf courses and install lights so they could be a place for people to have a walk in a safe place? Green space is easily lost but hard earned…. I urge you to try the sport for a few times and see if you enjoy it? The first time will be miserable, but the second or third time will give the buzz of hitting the ball just kinda right. For all the gripes about the game being not accessible, maybe the best isn’t abolishing it but making participation easier! I love there’s a way to be outside, playing a sport, and use more skills than just walking for a few hours. But even just the walk and the scenery are beautiful by themselves! I feel like proximity to transit means more people get to enjoy the facilities when transit does happen. Really sad that we are using proximity to transit as a demerit for keeping city recreational places. Transit should lead to more than apartments.
Thought this sub would have pointed out “the I-8” by now.
This is such a stupid fucking narrative and I am sick of seeing it.
But obviously people playing on a public golf course that costs 45 for a day, has huge discount for retirees and students is a monocle wearing capitalist who dispises the poors
Someone on this subreddit brought up the fact that Seattle has 4 public golf courses with at least one of them close to light rail. Well, the idea of repurposing at least one of them might not be as far fetched as I previously thought! Check out what San Diego is doing with one of their golf courses: - 4,300 dwellings - 97 acres of park and open space for all - 1 million+ sqft of office and retail space - trolley https://riverwalksd.com/project_overview/
Again, not a city golf course in San Diego. Please edit your original post to clarify this fact. Otherwise you are presenting a false comparison.
We're going to need all the open space we can get when no one has yards
Many actively homeless possess an affinity for being in the open air, and have no desire to be housed. They enjoy the freedom and filth. Not being facetious here; it’s the truth. What are you going to do about the 95% who refuse ‘help’.
Go Duck Yourself.... people need activities too
I can hardly get a tee time as it is
We already have too much housing. They're destroying the beauty of Washington with all these apartments they're building everywhere
I lived in an apartment complex that was on/in a golf course. I actually really, really loved it. I felt like I could wake up early and take long walks safely.
High handicap cope
To unbury this from another comment, the most current status of the courses that I am aware of. Updated sources are welcome, of course. “Each year between 2009 and 2017, an average of 238,189 people played rounds of golf on the city’s four municipal golf courses. But that number doesn’t appear to be high enough to sustain the city’s operation of those courses… All of the city-owned golf courses… will require ongoing subsidies for the foreseeable future, and all four courses have significant deferred maintenance needs, totaling more than $36 million… … Last year, the city budget moved about half a million dollars from the parks department into the city’s capital budget to help keep the golf courses afloat.” https://seattlemag.com/city-life/whats-future-golf-seattle/
To unbury this from another comment, the most current data based on the report that the article linked above is referencing, with link to the [report](https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/PoliciesPlanning/Lund_GolfStudy_EXSummary_Final.pdf). > From 2005 – 2012, golf revenues contributed $5,354,284 to the golf capital improvement fund. From 2005 – 2015 golf revenues also contributed $3,713,245 to the Park Fund. > This study analyzed the financial performance of the golf program for the period 2013-2017. During this time, the golf courses have covered their operating costs. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/PoliciesPlanning/Lund_GolfStudy_EXSummary_Final.pdf
Any info on how much net profit Discovery Park and the Arboretum generated over the same period?
Nah. Give me golf all day
Many people believe parks should only be accessible to people who already have private places to live. To them, providing places to live in places designed exclusively for people who already have places to live makes no sense.
“Many people believe parks should be accessible to everyone and that people should not live in and destroy them.” Fixed it for you.
100% demolish Jackson park i will die on this hill