Both of those may not be a big concern, depending on the situation.
Land availability in North America is not really a concern; there’s a shit ton of land available. When cities expand and the golf course’s land value goes way up, the course tends to get sold off.
Water use also is a case of “it depends”. If the the course is using aquifer water, yes that’s a big problem. Many, if not most, don’t use aquifer water. In the wetter climates, most are using water pumped from rainwater fed holding ponds, or other lakes, rivers, etc on the property. Even in Arizona, most courses are using treated grey water, keeping them from contributing to any water shortages.
None of that is as concerning to me as the ecological disaster that is a golf course. It is equally detrimental to ecological systems as any other human development.
When cities expand and the golf course’s land value goes way up, the course tends to get sold off.
Do they? All the courses that I remember being on the edge of towns and cities just had the city grow around them as the increase in customers made up for the increased ownership costs.
And all the courses I remember being on the edge of towns and cities got sold as the land value became way higher than than the profit margin ever could be.
The Circuit of the Americas takes 1,500 acres. The Buddh Interational Circuit is 875 acres. The smallest ones is Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps at 100 acres.
An average 18-hole golf course is 630 acres.
So, one takes up more than the other but both are equally bad.
Golf courses are estimated to take up ~0.1% of all US land. Yes, a square mile of F1 track is worse than a square mile of golf course, but we’re talking probably 1000x difference in scale.
Golf uses a fuck ton of water and land. It’s not great either.
its a ton of fertilizer and herbicides as well.
And native plant and animal diversity is zilch, so contributes to habitat loss and exterpation of species, especially insects and bugs.
Both of those may not be a big concern, depending on the situation.
Land availability in North America is not really a concern; there’s a shit ton of land available. When cities expand and the golf course’s land value goes way up, the course tends to get sold off.
Water use also is a case of “it depends”. If the the course is using aquifer water, yes that’s a big problem. Many, if not most, don’t use aquifer water. In the wetter climates, most are using water pumped from rainwater fed holding ponds, or other lakes, rivers, etc on the property. Even in Arizona, most courses are using treated grey water, keeping them from contributing to any water shortages.
None of that is as concerning to me as the ecological disaster that is a golf course. It is equally detrimental to ecological systems as any other human development.
Do they? All the courses that I remember being on the edge of towns and cities just had the city grow around them as the increase in customers made up for the increased ownership costs.
And all the courses I remember being on the edge of towns and cities got sold as the land value became way higher than than the profit margin ever could be.
I do live in the central US where there is always more room, so maybe it doesn’t drive up the land costs enough.
I didn’t say it was great. It’s just an odd one to single out when there are sports that are far worse.
This isn’t a time for whataboutism. He has a Titleist hat on, not an F1 hat.
The Circuit of the Americas takes 1,500 acres. The Buddh Interational Circuit is 875 acres. The smallest ones is Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps at 100 acres.
An average 18-hole golf course is 630 acres.
So, one takes up more than the other but both are equally bad.
Asphalt, petrol, oil, and tires are equally bad to watering grass so old men can drive electric carts around?
Golf courses are estimated to take up ~0.1% of all US land. Yes, a square mile of F1 track is worse than a square mile of golf course, but we’re talking probably 1000x difference in scale.