[coolkayaker1]

Forgive me if this has already been posted; if so, just let this fall down the boards.

Golf industry: Golf's perpetual problem: Courting the young adult
Noticed this article. I then sat back and thought about my three kids, age 20-30, and their spouses and friends, and the young people that I know (30s and 40s). They don't play golf. At all.

Our local country clubs (three within ten miles of my house) are begging for members (Illinois).

How do you all feel this will affect the future of TV, a supremely golf-centric place? Convert the golf courses for other activities? Morph into something that the 30-50 year old future homebuyers will appreciate more than golf? I don't know the answer, just that golf courses take a load of space and resources, costly.

Thoughts? Thanks. Future Villager, Sven

[kwtoman]

My thoughts, if they don't play golf, they will either not buy here, or play pickleball.

[gomoho]

Was wondering the same thing - since these kids coming up seem to be animal lovers perhaps they can turn them into giant dog parks! On a serious side - perhaps disk golf or beautiful walking trails or bike paths.

[Bonny]

A lot of people I know here that golf, never golfed until they came here.
They were too busy working and raising kids. Many didn't have the extra money to join country clubs. Also the golfing season up north was much shorter than in Florida.
I suspect they will do what many of us did. Start golfing when they get here.

[tuccillo]

So, you are essentially asking: "Are there too many golf courses?" I will make a few assumptions and do a few calculations. If we assume that you need 400 golfing homes to keep a golf course "busy" and that typically only 1/3 of the homes in a golfing community actually golf then we can do a few calculations.

400 homes x 3 = 1200 homes per golf course or 67 homes per hole of golf assuming only 1/3 of the homes play golf.

The Villages has approximately 600 holes of golf therefore you would need 41000 homes to keep the golf courses busy. I think we have about 50000 homes so I would suggest that the number of golf courses is on the low side. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by coolkayaker1

Forgive me if this has already been posted; if so, just let this fall down the boards.

Golf industry: Golf's perpetual problem: Courting the young adult
Noticed this article. I then sat back and thought about my three kids, age 20-30, and their spouses and friends, and the young people that I know (30s and 40s). They don't play golf. At all.

Our local country clubs (three within ten miles of my house) are begging for members (Illinois).

How do you all feel this will affect the future of TV, a supremely golf-centric place? Convert the golf courses for other activities? Morph into something that the 30-50 year old future homebuyers will appreciate more than golf? I don't know the answer, just that golf courses take a load of space and resources, costly.

Thoughts? Thanks. Future Villager, Sven

[coolkayaker1]

kwtoman, if they choose not to buy at TV, that's not good, right? Home values and collective property taxes, all that jazz. Will they elect buy TV and fund the infrastructure and upkeep of golf courses when they know they won;t be using them, just to play pickleball?

gomoho, I think converting all that acreage to something more fitting for them--that, in the end, they are willing to pay for in upkeep, property taxes, etc.--may be in the offing. Yes.

Good point, Bonny. We grew up in the Johnny Carson/Bob Hope, everyone golfs era. The non-golfers have, historically, at least been open to the idea. These newbies (under 40s) might shun it for life. Their icons and peers do not golf. I don't know. It's an interesting point: can enough of them be sold on it, or will they just avoid buying in TV bc of it from the get-go and never find out.

I like your theory, tuccillo, but I honestly think it takes many, many more than 400 golfing households to support a golf course year-round. If we collected the property taxes, or fees, from 400 golfing households, could we pay for a year-round course? That's a lot of upkeep, water, grass to mow. Many many full-time employees there. My assumption is that it would be much higher. Then the second assumption is that 1/3 of TV households are golfing homes. But, isn't that the point of the CNBC article--the future may well have 1/10th of homes being golfing households. So, if, say, it takes 1000 golfing households to support one course, and 1/10 houses are golfing, that would add up to a grotesque oversupply of links at TV. Don't know, though. Good way to think of it, but since it's all just guesswork from us both, there's no way to mathematically work it out, I think.

PS Here's a link from the USGA.
http://www.usga.org/course_care/arti...e-Golf-Course/
So, bottom line, about $400-$600k annually to maintain and run a golf course, not including construction. Even at the low end, the 400 homes would have to spend $10000/each annually to run the thing. But 4000 homes would have to spend $1000 each (on the low end of maintenance spectrum) in fees and property taxes. Will they? I just wanted to share this cost article from the USGA, who is suffering for members, btw. Like the CNBC article states, 200,000 Millennials have dropped the game of golf last year alone! In one year! And less than 10% of golfers on the links now are under 30. I see a change a-comin'. lol.

[billethkid]

for us the golf availability in TV was not the deciding factor. We did not move here to play golf.

While it may be a priority or key feature for many, I would guess there are just as many like us who were attracted by all the features/offerings of TV other than golf.

Since the golf courses here do not rely on a certain minimum level of play to remain a going concern.....I doubt there would ever be insufficient number of residents to play.

The draw of TV Lifestyle will always have sufficient numbers of future residents that do play.

[coolkayaker1]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Since the golf courses here do not rely on a certain minimum level of play to remain a going concern.....

I have never heard of a golf course that does not rely on a minimum level of play to be sustained. The ones I know are either sustained by property taxes, expensive club memberships, or greens fees.

How are they funded at TV, please?

[coloradotim]

I agree with Bonny that many senior golfers take up the game later in life. My wife never golfed at all until her mom invited her to try it - now she's hooked! She got me playing again after I hadn't played since I was in my 20's. We golf twice a week in Colorado and we are looking forward to our lifestyle preview stay at the end of August to play a couple of rounds at the Villages.

[cmj1210]

I do not play golf & we just purchased a home. We do plan on taking it up once we finally get down permanently but golf was not our first priority. There are so many other things people can do if the don't golf. It is just a beautiful place.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by billethkid

for us the golf availability in TV was not the deciding factor. We did not move here to play golf.

While it may be a priority or key feature for many, I would guess there are just as many like us who were attracted by all the features/offerings of TV other than golf.

Since the golf courses here do not rely on a certain minimum level of play to remain a going concern.....I doubt there would ever be insufficient number of residents to play.

The draw of TV Lifestyle will always have sufficient numbers of future residents that do play.

AGREE! I used to enjoy playing golf every weekend, but have found other pastimes which I much prefer to playing golf!

[Bavarian]

I think the worry is that between this and fewer people saving for retirement under new retirement schemes, ie, no guaranteed pension, who will buy these homes when we become so much less young that we need to sell and move to an apartment.

[tuccillo]

My numbers of 400 playing homes to support a golf course is based on a country club setting. The Villages is probably different in that the amount of money that each home is willing to dedicate towards golf is probably lower. However, if you have a couple of fairly active players in a house and they are each playing a couple of times a week it then a course can be busy with 400 playing homes. The "1/3 of the homes play golf" number is typical, I believe, for gated golf communities. Again, The Villages is different so it is hard to say. After thinking about it a bit, my figure of 67 homes per hole is probably too low as you suggested. I agree that the demographics are not good. This was a problem in our previous gated golf community. As people aged they dropped the golf membership and the newer/younger people were less likely to play. This inevitably leads to a death spiral. I would think that the current "model" for The Villages is probably good for another 10 years or so. The courses seem to be pretty busy now but I agree that the future is uncertain. I would guess/hope that The Villages monitors the level of play and the number of executive and 18-hole courses reflects reasonable assumptions about the future, otherwise the courses will become a liability.

Originally Posted by coolkayaker1

kwtoman, if they choose not to buy at TV, that's not good, right? Home values and collective property taxes, all that jazz. Will they elect buy TV and fund the infrastructure and upkeep of golf courses when they know they won;t be using them, just to play pickleball?

gomoho, I think converting all that acreage to something more fitting for them--that, in the end, they are willing to pay for in upkeep, property taxes, etc.--may be in the offing. Yes.

Good point, Bonny. We grew up in the Johnny Carson/Bob Hope, everyone golfs era. The non-golfers have, historically, at least been open to the idea. These newbies (under 40s) might shun it for life. Their icons and peers do not golf. I don't know. It's an interesting point: can enough of them be sold on it, or will they just avoid buying in TV bc of it from the get-go and never find out.

I like your theory, tuccillo, but I honestly think it takes many, many more than 400 golfing households to support a golf course year-round. If we collected the property taxes, or fees, from 400 golfing households, could we pay for a year-round course? That's a lot of upkeep, water, grass to mow. Many many full-time employees there. My assumption is that it would be much higher. Then the second assumption is that 1/3 of TV households are golfing homes. But, isn't that the point of the CNBC article--the future may well have 1/10th of homes being golfing households. So, if, say, it takes 1000 golfing households to support one course, and 1/10 houses are golfing, that would add up to a grotesque oversupply of links at TV. Don't know, though. Good way to think of it, but since it's all just guesswork from us both, there's no way to mathematically work it out, I think.

PS Here's a link from the USGA.
USGA: USGA
So, bottom line, about $400-$600k annually to maintain and run a golf course, not including construction. Even at the low end, the 400 homes would have to spend $10000/each annually to run the thing. But 4000 homes would have to spend $1000 each (on the low end of maintenance spectrum) in fees and property taxes. Will they? I just wanted to share this cost article from the USGA, who is suffering for members, btw. Like the CNBC article states, 200,000 Millennials have dropped the game of golf last year alone! In one year! And less than 10% of golfers on the links now are under 30. I see a change a-comin'. lol.

[rubicon]

Much to do about nothing. golf takes a lot of time, takes time to learn. We all reach that point in our lives when we find more time. i can think of far more legiimate reasons as to why people wuld stop buying here

[nicoletta]

it will be a ghostown ....in 50 years due to to unrecognized decline
or
they will build MORE HOMES!

Rubicon is correct .there are many variables with the world economy .. Tv could become the next Detroit!