please empty your brain below
|
There is a great statistic I read in the Guardian a few years ago. More land in Surrey is dedicated to golf courses than to housing.
The essence of the article - if I remember correctly - was similar to your point. Golf courses are huge and not particularly great uses of space.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 02.03.17 - 6:11 a.m. | #
|
|
Excellent idea. sort it.
Milo Bell | 02.03.17 - 6:26 a.m. | #
|
|
It's a great idea. I used to live in Surrey and was appalled that my entirely Tory local council was able to give itself planning permission to turn an ancient woodland held in trust into yet another golf course.
Rogertcb | 02.03.17 - 6:41 a.m. | #
|
|
"Each clubhouse would become a cluster of shops" Don't forget the the pub, the new residents would, of course, go to the Nineteenth Hole
Mike | 02.03.17 - 7:49 a.m. | #
|
Was that whole thing qwritten to get to the punchline?
Are any of these golf courses owned by local authorities?
Andrew | 02.03.17 - 7:50 a.m. | #
|
|
Fore!
Frank F | 02.03.17 - 7:51 a.m. | #
|
|
Had the same idea myself and even made suggestions to various parties, but of course no one listens... So, for the record, my other idea, is to make use of the extensive network of reservoirs in the Lea Valley, and have a community of floating homes. Again, emails to various parties but not one reply. The Dutch have made an art of it...
PJS | 02.03.17 - 8:11 a.m. | #
|
|
Can't understand why you haven't yet had a response from disgusted of Epsom, or some such place ......
Brian | 02.03.17 - 8:38 a.m. | #
|
Obviously using this under-used space for housing, or even as public open space, would be good. I'm less certain about the details of DG's proposed estates.
But equally obviously, it's not going to happen, because the people who are in charge of us (and own all the newspapers) all play golf (or are good friends with others who do). And that's not going to change in today's one-party state.
Come to think, it probably wasn't going to change in the time - in living memory - when we had two or three viable parties - as they were all run by golfers and golfers' friends anyway.
Malcolm | 02.03.17 - 9:06 a.m. | #
|
Great.
Where's first? Dulwich and Sydenham Hill (great for local rail station) or Highgate?
Lorenzo | 02.03.17 - 9:34 a.m. | #
|
You leave High Elms, the golf course surrounded by country park where I do conservation work, alone!
How many golf courses are so close to stations that they could sustain *flats* being built on them. Now Hyde Park, that has a demand for flats.
John Bray | 02.03.17 - 9:35 a.m. | #
|
|
Surrey doesn't need flats, it needs care homes - apparently - but same principle applies.
Running_Correspondent | 02.03.17 - 9:47 a.m. | #
|
|
We're one step ahead of you here in the Gin and Jag Royal Borough http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36822853
Mike | 02.03.17 - 10:20 a.m. | #
|
A whole lot of construction vehicles arriving, and it wont stay ready-landscaped for long!
Otherwise - great idea! Unless it's one of those the London Loop marches through!
Cornish Cockney | 02.03.17 - 10:31 a.m. | #
|
Methinks this post might have been inspired by your recent walk along the Ridgeway, and seeing how the ahead-of-the-curve planners of SE London turned this vision into a reality at Thamesmead!?
It could work for racecourses, too. Matter of fact, it's exactly what the owners of Kempton Park are proposing to do...
RogerW | 02.03.17 - 11:13 a.m. | #
|
I do hope that this is a sarcastic wind-up by DG and that he isn't really advocating concreting over every last bit of green lung in London.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that we just have too many people and this gives rise to all sorts of problems: traffic congestion, overcrowded buses and trains, diesel pollution, energy shortages, more CO2, flats flats flats, etc etc.
Obviously we don't want a China-style 'one-child' policy, but if we keep squeezing more and more people into ever smaller rabbit hutch skyscrapers then the quality of life won't exactly be great.
Gerry | 02.03.17 - 11:27 a.m. | #
|
I can't find the rebuttal of the article that many papers had about land for golf courses and housing in Surrey but I'm sure I've read it!
Basically, the calculations looked at the space occupied by houses and compared it to golf courses, ignoring gardens, streets etc that are necessary for housing.
That's not to say that we couldn't devote more space to housing and less to golf.
Steve Rochford | 02.03.17 - 12:25 p.m. | #
|
|
Superb plan.
Sarah | Homepage | 02.03.17 - 12:34 p.m. | #
|
|
An interesting idea. Can anyone tell us which course is nearest to Charing Cross, if that is still taken as the centre of London?
Julian | 02.03.17 - 12:49 p.m. | #
|
|
@ Julian: my guess would be Blackheath, along Court Road, SE9
RogerW | 02.03.17 - 1:21 p.m. | #
|
|
While "we" are at it, why not convert CrossRail to underground flats?
E | 02.03.17 - 1:58 p.m. | #
|
Nearest course to the centre of London?
Probably the 'Central London Golf Course' in Burntwood Lane, Wandsworth.
RayL | 02.03.17 - 2:01 p.m. | #
|
|
What about the Aquarius Golf Club, which has a 9 hole course on top of a covered reservoir in Honor Oak?
M | 02.03.17 - 2:06 p.m. | #
|
Only one commentator has had the courage to point out we have an overpopulation crisis, not a housing crisis. Even that person didn't specify that the overpopulation is caused by immigration and the high fertility rate of immigrants.
Sure, concrete over golf courses, then with geometric population growth, parks, the countryside, all open space. Have a low quality of life for all and rely on imported food. Then what? The UK has finite space whether you like it or not.
Tom | 02.03.17 - 2:21 p.m. | #
|
IMO one of the reasons why this idea doesn’t take off.
The type of people who are members of a golf courses, are mostly the type of people who MAKE the rules.
Michael | 02.03.17 - 3:13 p.m. | #
|
I agree entirely.
When there was a consultation about a borough-level version of the London Plan I did suggest a similar idea to a planning officer. They pointed out that the two (huge) golf courses in our borough are privately owned. I think they meant to imply 'no chance'.
Bob L-S | 02.03.17 - 5:08 p.m. | #
|
|
Ahem. The problem surely isn't that we have no space to build places for people to live but that we keep building the wrong sort (eg current proposals for Hyde Park Barracks).
Andrew S | 02.03.17 - 10:07 p.m. | #
|
@ Andrew Bowden, Steve Rochford
Here is a link to the BBC programme discussing how much land is dedicated to golf course compared to property
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044jh75#play
whiff | 03.03.17 - 3:24 a.m. | #
|
Agree Andrew S, they can't even build the right stuff on the land they do have (e.g. Olympic Park) showing they do have land.
I would have disagreed on using Golf Courses for houses, but I don't if there is more golf than houses in Surrey.
| 04.03.17 - 7:43 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|