Land use changes par for course in housing crisis

The future of sports venues that sprawl across great swathes of leased inner-city public land are increasingly in question in the Bay of Plenty’s cities. In Rotorua’s Westbrook, a residential revolt is simmering over a proposal to put housing and a sport and recreation precinct over an area that includes the Springfield golf course.

“How dare you”, demanded one opposer of the Rotorua Lakes Council at a meeting this week to discuss the new proposal for the council/community’s land, which the golf club leases.

Oxygen-giving heritage trees were invoked, Greta Thunberg was invoked. It was a lot.

In the west of the Bay of Plenty, in the region’s largest city, Tauranga Racecourse and Tauranga Golf Club will probably one day be in a similar position.

Clubs lease Crown-owned land in Greerton that has been earmarked in city planning documents for other uses: open space, community amenities, housing, education, tourism. Murmurings of discontent from their supporters have begun.

But the writing is in the wall: these growing cities need housing and they need multi-use public spaces - and they need both to be in central places, not the sprawling fringes.

Golf courses have their place, but the arguments for having several inside a city’s suburban boundaries - a perk both Rotorua and Tauranga golfers enjoy - are wearing thin.

Golf courses are rarefied ground. They cost a lot to maintain and a lot to use, which makes the sport inaccessible to some and adds to an elitist aura that is reinforced by traditions such as dress codes and golfing requiring its own class of vehicle.

A full membership at Springfield is $975 a year for people aged 40 and over. The Tauranga equivalent is $1330. Not cheap. To their credit (and, I’d say, necessary for their survival) both offer cheaper group pricing for younger players.

Unlike netball/basketball/ tennis/badminton/volleyball courts and rugby/soccer/cricket/athletics/ league/touch fields, golf is not a sport that lends itself to sharing the extensive space it demands with other codes - unless you count weddings as a sport.

Even where courses are on public land, use of that land is limited for non-members, if it’s allowed at all.

The greens, fairways and water hazards might offer a nice outlook for the neighbours (if you don’t mind the odd broken window), but the argument that such courses provide green space of great value to the wider community just doesn’t hold water.

Personally, I like my public parks to come with significantly less risk of flying projectiles.

Racecourses have a bit more

"Golf courses have their place, but the arguments for having several inside a city’s suburban boundaries are wearing thin."

multifunctionality than golf venues, but much less attractive greenery, in my experience. But the horse racing industry has also been in steady decline and with its political champion Winston Peters no longer in Parliament and increasing pressure from the animal welfare lobby, the future appears bleak to me.

Increasingly, horse racing can be seen as a destination sport with no overwhelming need for it to happen in the central city.

Golf is more local - there are people who play every day or multiple times a week and won’t want to travel far.

Luckily, no one is suggesting getting rid of all of the suburban golf courses, just turning some of those on public land into multifunctional spaces that benefit a much wider range of people in a great many more ways.

Time to learn to share.