"London golf courses could provide homes for 300,000 people, study says"
- Thread starter GuyInLyon
- Start date
bobmac
Major Champion
Why does London need 300,000 more people?
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 13,885
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
Guardian thinks it needs 3 million.
bradleywedge
Active member
Them Afghans have got to live somewhere.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
They've got their eyes on crews hill, which is very sad - it's a great, good value Harry colt classic.
Dave1980
Assistant Pro
I think you just have to look at who wrote the research behind this "Russell Curtis an Architect" he will obviously benefit financially if all of a sudden there was masses of green belt land he could design new housing estates for.
The number of empty buildings in the high streets of the London boroughs will probably provide just as much housing, but its harder to convert and existing building then it is to build a new estate from scratch.
The number of empty buildings in the high streets of the London boroughs will probably provide just as much housing, but its harder to convert and existing building then it is to build a new estate from scratch.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
It’s not environmentally sound either, concentrating a huge population in one area. There should be policies in place asking businesses to justify their existence in the capital and why they need a workforce on site, before any green belt is damaged. Plus as all ready stated there are unoccupied buildings, some councils though have restrictions on their conversion to homes, but this can be changed, the high street is dead …
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Its just another fanciful anti-golf piece. Yes, of course, if you built houses on golf courses, you could build a lot of houses. But it simply doesnt justify any actual need to do so, nor consider any of the other suitable land where they. could be built
Why stop at golf courses, there are football pitches, rugby pitches, bowling greens, tennis courts (hello Wimbledon). If we really want to build let's concrete some parks, Regents is pretty handy for the centre of London.
Tosh, best ignored (something I've clearly not done ??)
Tosh, best ignored (something I've clearly not done ??)
Sports_Fanatic
Assistant Pro
Clearly a vested interest and a reasonable point about how much housing should be centered around London, but I thought there were reasonable points in there.
IF the example of Enfield is right and the council receives only £13.5k a year for a 39 hectare site then is that the best use of land. Yes, they presumably save maintenance costs but limit the use to 200 people a day. I would expect 500 people maybe over the course of the week if that's their membership base.
I think council/government have a role in keeping people active, making sports accessible so if there is significant value to the community then great. If not, should councils be considering making them 9 hole courses, opening up the land for mixed use (e.g. parks, skate parks, tennis courts, more youth focused) or if required housing. I wouldn't want to see the green space completely removed so it should be mixed use but I don't think an argument of anti-golf, or it's always been there should stop a debate on use. Particularly as there are 43 public golf courses in London (although it is obviously a big place!)
I just wonder if golf could be more inventive with 9 hole courses or even 9 hole and a par 3 course so it can attract more to the game and fit with people having less time to commit to golf potentially, than always thinking 18 holes.
IF the example of Enfield is right and the council receives only £13.5k a year for a 39 hectare site then is that the best use of land. Yes, they presumably save maintenance costs but limit the use to 200 people a day. I would expect 500 people maybe over the course of the week if that's their membership base.
I think council/government have a role in keeping people active, making sports accessible so if there is significant value to the community then great. If not, should councils be considering making them 9 hole courses, opening up the land for mixed use (e.g. parks, skate parks, tennis courts, more youth focused) or if required housing. I wouldn't want to see the green space completely removed so it should be mixed use but I don't think an argument of anti-golf, or it's always been there should stop a debate on use. Particularly as there are 43 public golf courses in London (although it is obviously a big place!)
I just wonder if golf could be more inventive with 9 hole courses or even 9 hole and a par 3 course so it can attract more to the game and fit with people having less time to commit to golf potentially, than always thinking 18 holes.
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
Wimbledon have just purchased Wimbledon Park GC to turn into practice courts and parking!
Still mainly green, hopefully, although stretching that one ?. I think it is appalling that people are so keen to concrete over green spaces. Once gone that's it, you can't get them back. We need green areas for wildlife, for general environmental reasons, water absorption, human wellbeing.
Concreting green spaces is lazy, there are plenty of brownfield sites, plenty of existing houses or office / retail space that could be converted. We should be concentrating there rather than open spaces, whatever occurs on those spaces currently.
Sats
Challenge Tour Pro
Wall off London a-la Escape from New York if you ask me. Horrendous place. As said before there are tennis courts/parks/sport pitches etc that "could" be used for housing as well.
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Interesting fact (or not, perhaps) that the report glosses over.
It says London has 1 in 20 of the UK's golf courses. But doesn't mention that 1 in 7 of the UK's population lives here. We're under represented and need more courses.
It says London has 1 in 20 of the UK's golf courses. But doesn't mention that 1 in 7 of the UK's population lives here. We're under represented and need more courses.
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Orikoru
Tour Winner
You could certainly house a lot of people in there ?You forgot Buckingham Palace as well.
sunshine
Well-known member
I noticed this too. If London is 0.65% of the UK's land area but houses 15% of the population, surely the policy should be to reduce density not increase it.
There are a lot of "stats" in this report which are skewed to support the author's argument, e.g. calculating the capacity of a golf course at 72 at any one time, I would expect max capacity of 2x4balls on every hole = 144. Little things like this add up over the whole picture portrayed in the study.
sunshine
Well-known member
There was an interesting link in the article to the land taken up by golf courses:
Course Directory – The Golf Belt (defective.info)
I found this really interesting to see which courses are spacious and which are cramped. Average golf course in London is 46 hectares (23 for 9 holes).
Don't understand how Grims Dyke can fit 18 holes into 24ha, compared to Stockley Park which has 69ha.
Course Directory – The Golf Belt (defective.info)
I found this really interesting to see which courses are spacious and which are cramped. Average golf course in London is 46 hectares (23 for 9 holes).
Don't understand how Grims Dyke can fit 18 holes into 24ha, compared to Stockley Park which has 69ha.
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Two sentences from the same page in his report
"If new homes were to be built on all of the publicly-owned courses in the borough, at this density it would deliver circa 871 homes."
"None are publicly owned."
Not quite sure how you build 871 homes on no land?
"If new homes were to be built on all of the publicly-owned courses in the borough, at this density it would deliver circa 871 homes."
"None are publicly owned."
Not quite sure how you build 871 homes on no land?
Similar threads
