EarthGolf

This question arose after reading an article in our local newspaper yesterday about an executive course under construction in Duluth, Georgia. The course is set to open towards the end of summer and will be a 9-hole course - with 18 tees. It also will include a driving range.

[Chip] Randall is … is spending $2.5 million to $3 million to develop 46 acres of land on Satellite Boulevard into a golf center that will include a nine-hole executive course and a driving range.
…
Randall said within a 5-mile radius of his development, located just south of the intersection of Boggs Road and Satellite Boulevard, there are more than 200,000 people who lack a convenient public golf course.
…
Randall said he wants his course to be “very public,” with tennis shoes and T-shirts allowed, and said he expects playing nine holes to cost $20 to $25. He said the driving range would offer small, medium and large buckets, which would cost about $5, $8 and $10, respectively.

My answer is yes - that executive courses in urban/suburban settings are needed and will be needed to fuel the future growth of the game. They’re hugely beneficial on many levels. They allow those just getting into the game to learn on a course that isn’t overwhelming. It’s especially true if the beginner is a child - it allows the confidence to build and the early successes necessary to keep motivation at a high level. It allows the working stiffs (like me) in the area a chance to play a quick round of golf either over lunch or after work without the six or more hours on the weekend (by the time you drive to the course and back, eat, play, etc.). Finally, it usually is a reasonable price to allow those without the means a chance to pick up interest in the game.

Last year the number of golf course closings topped those that opened for the first time since the National Golf Foundation kept track of such statistics. Unfortunately, contrary to the NGF’s spin that this is a good thing, looking at what closed is the exact opposite of what will be necessary for the long term health of the game.

NGF recorded a 56% jump in the number of closures between 2005 and 2006, from 93.5 to 146. These 146 closures represent about 1% of the total supply of golf courses in the U.S. Closures were primarily public (97%). They were disproportionately short courses (executive and par-3) – 20% were short courses vs. 8% of total facilities. And, they were disproportionately stand-alone 9-holers, 46% vs. 28% of total facilities. Closures were predominately values courses, with nearly half having peak green fees under $25. Closures occurred in 39 of 50 states.

In the above linked article, Lorin Anderson advocates another good idea - 6 hole tee times which are also an excellent suggestion, particularly in the evenings.

I know this sounds simple, but the more access to more people that golf provides, the better for the game. The pressure on golf courses in urban and developing suburban to sell their property for development can be extraordinary - and the owners of the property can’t be faulted for selling their property for a nice profit.

The Duluth golf course is a good example of using a piece of property that wasn’t suitable for commercial or residential development because of the environmental limitations on the property. I suspect that the course will be highly successful given the very low number of affordable public courses in the area, which will hopefully further spur on development of affordable, public access courses in the north Atlanta suburbs. This, in turn, is good for the game.

Popularity: 6% [?]