Should we be considering golf courses when talking about city-owned parkland for housing, especially during a housing crisis?
Followers of our website and Facebook page have often asked what other parcels of city-owned lands would be better suited for multi-residential developments, especially the very large 400 unit complexes proposed for Arundel and Tokio. Although City Administration provided Council with a list of 40 parcels, that list is top-secret, and the City refuses to make it publicly available.
We took a look at the City Web Map and spotted the municipally owned Strathcona Golf Club. Although considered “Parks/Open Space”, it’s not really open to the public because you have to “pay to play”. Why is the City in the business of running golf courses, especially when those golf courses have, in the past, run at a loss? We’re not the first ones to ask that question. Municipalities across Canada, the US, and our very own City Council have questioned that as well.
In 2016, Thunder Bay’s Chamber of Commerce president, as well as former mayor, Keith Hobbs, suggested Strathcona be sold off for housing. Hobbs was quoted as saying, “Strathcona is probably the smartest one to look at when you look at how we could make lots of money and bring in revenues from taxation.”
A Program and Service Review was completed for the City in 2020 by Grant Thornton. Their review recommended the two city-owned golf courses be closed for an estimated savings of $100K per year, with the land repurposed or naturalized. In 2021, Council again questioned the wisdom of maintaining the two municipally-run golf courses. So, this question has been around for many years.
The two City owned golf courses, Strathcona and Chapples, take up a massive amount of city-owned real estate. Opened “seasonally”, these city-owned parcels sit idle for months, not collecting fees. Is providing a service 6-7 months a year, only to those who can afford the time, equipment, seasonal pass or greens fees, an equitable use of taxpayer dollars and city-owned land? Is this a business the City should be operating? Should taxpayers fund a hobby for only a minority of City residents, when there are multiple private courses available in the Thunder Bay area? These are all good questions that should be asked of our City Councillors and City Administration.
On the other hand, greenspaces like 791 Arundel St are open to everyone to come and enjoy. You don’t need special equipment. You don’t have to pay green fees. Where paved multi-use trails exist, like on 791 Arundel St, residents of all ages and abilities are able to use the trails with ease, free of charge. Unlike the City’s golf courses, it’s opened year-round and there are no “operating hours”. There’s also a financial benefit to the City as the cost of maintaining the trails is a fraction of the cost of running a golf course.
Maybe the city-owned lands used by Strathcona golf course would be a much better location for a 400 unit apartment complex. In fact, the City could entice developers to build all sorts of housing on the 100+ acres of city-owned land that runs along Hodder Ave from Strathcona Ave to within a couple hundred meters of Hwy 11/17. The site is fully serviced, there’s access to transit, complete and connected sidewalks are already built, and there are services and amenities at Hodder/Arundel. This would be a perfect, walkable neighbourhood. Traffic wouldn’t be an issue, and it even has bike infrastructure. Okay, it’s just a painted bike lane but at least it’s something.
This is the perfect location for a large-scale residential neighbourhood. Unlike 791 Arundel, this parcel of land would accommodate denser build types allowed in Urban-High rise, Urban Mixed-use, and Neighbourhood Commercial zones. Think multiple apartment buildings 45m in height (~ 14 storeys) with up to 741 units each, and commercial space for shops and businesses.
We know this article will get a lot of attention. Golfers will come out swinging, insisting the city-owned golf courses provide affordable golf opportunities for people of various ages and economic means, that they serve as a community hub for recreation etc. We don’t disagree. However, they only provide golf opportunities and act as a community hub for those who can afford to pay. Unlike other parkland, a city-owned golf course does not provide its services equitably. No pay, no play.
For those of you who are concerned about Thunder Bay’s financial sustainability, increasing the tax base, and the need for more housing, utilizing at least one of our city-owned golf courses for housing would make sense. So consider writing or calling your City Councillor and suggest they surplus Strathcona Golf Course and open the land up to developers. Not only would this provide revenue from the land sale and generate ongoing tax revenue, it would easily support far more than the ~1200 units of high-density housing we need to achieve our Housing Supply Growth Target under the Housing Accelerator Fund. If that’s not enough, repurposing this land for housing meets all the criteria set out in the Official Plan, Smart Growth Plan, Housing Strategy, Net-Zero Strategy, and Urban Design Guidelines.
Now that’s smart growth and great urban planning.
Update: The golfers definitely came out swinging because the response on Facebook was fast and furious. So, we posted a response.