- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Help save BREC's historic 9-hole golf course in Baton Rouge's City Park!
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:48 pm to Bendelow
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:48 pm to Bendelow
BREC will screw it up. They closed Howell Park and Dumas and left us with 9 hole Clark. That’s a big reason Webb is so crowded. The only hole at city park that was fun was number 9 when you could take it over the old pool and drive the green on a blind shot. I haven’t played there in years. Can you still do that?
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:56 pm to Poo88
No, BREC previously “modified” the course and made #9 a 150 yard par 3 now. They also ruined #5 from a par 4 to a 3 and #6 from a nice par 4 to a shortened par 4. They Ruined it once and they now try to eliminate it. Make Your Voices Heard!
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:45 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
tee shots that slice into the next fairway or 7 iron shots that go 30 yards at a time
Is this every shot or just occasionally? Refer to myself as a bogie golfer, may have to change my termonalgy.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 10:37 am to zippyputt
It is very likely that security concerns around the park will increase.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 2:28 pm to redstick225
I’ve tried to fill the form out multiple times and 3 different devices and continue to get an error
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:29 pm to NickyT
Look at the old New Orleans city park courses that didn’t reopen, it turned into essentially unused green space.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:15 pm to MikeD
I don’t understand why these people get to keep coming after this golf course. They keep spending money of plans etc. because of a small group of people.
This is a city park that has been there for over 100 years and we have a dude with a website who has decided along with a running shoe store lady that they want it gone.
This is a city park that has been there for over 100 years and we have a dude with a website who has decided along with a running shoe store lady that they want it gone.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:46 pm to Camp Randall
There are small groups in EBR that control things. That’s why we have all these bike paths, off the chart libraries, etc.; however, we don’t have enough cops.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 7:49 am to redstick225
Thanks for sharing
Done
Done
Posted on 2/22/26 at 8:34 am to The Johnny Lawrence
#9 tee box was back next to the green of #8 and parallel with the small row of trees still there. You could drive over the top of the trees and small pump house if you wanted to risk OB doing so. All that mounding was added.
#5 tee box was a little further back than it is now and next to the 6th green. You hit across the creek to the fairway which ran parallel with Dalrymple. The target was generally where the green is now for the par 3. The second shot was from there, down that strip of land towards the corner near the railroad crossing.
#6 tee box was down in the corner of that same area and you hit back across the creek tot he location of the same green as now. It was just a longer tee shot/fairway to the same green.
#8 had the fairway shaved down heavily to allow more of a view of the green and the mounding to the left of #8 was added.
The ONLY thing I like was the addition of the small pond at the bottom of the hill on #4.
#5 tee box was a little further back than it is now and next to the 6th green. You hit across the creek to the fairway which ran parallel with Dalrymple. The target was generally where the green is now for the par 3. The second shot was from there, down that strip of land towards the corner near the railroad crossing.
#6 tee box was down in the corner of that same area and you hit back across the creek tot he location of the same green as now. It was just a longer tee shot/fairway to the same green.
#8 had the fairway shaved down heavily to allow more of a view of the green and the mounding to the left of #8 was added.
The ONLY thing I like was the addition of the small pond at the bottom of the hill on #4.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:36 am to zippyputt
The layout I first played in the 70s!
The trees were big, but not as big as they are now.
3, 5, 6 and 8 were tough holes.
4,7 and 9 were fun.
Conditions???? Not good unfortunately.
The trees were big, but not as big as they are now.
3, 5, 6 and 8 were tough holes.
4,7 and 9 were fun.
Conditions???? Not good unfortunately.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 10:59 am to Camp Randall
Yes, and they will get their way unless people start pressuring BREC and BRAF. Pressure BREC not to give up control of City Park and BRAF to keep its hands off City Park. Fill out the survey and say so in the comments.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:15 am to zippyputt
quote:
#5 tee box was a little further back than it is now and next to the 6th green. You hit across the creek to the fairway which ran parallel with Dalrymple. The target was generally where the green is now for the par 3. The second shot was from there, down that strip of land towards the corner near the railroad crossing
Tee shot on #5 was one of the hardest in BR when it was dry. Pull it slightly and you are on Dalrymple, fade it at all and you are in the creek.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:50 am to Bendelow
If brec gives up city park I’m voting down every thing that they put on a ballot until I move or die.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 1:48 pm to Camp Randall
Fill out the survey as many times as you can!
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:56 pm to Bawpaw
Press club of Baton Rouge - Peter’s
In case you weren’t sure what was driving this. Buy shoes from her just 1/4 mile away.
In case you weren’t sure what was driving this. Buy shoes from her just 1/4 mile away.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 9:52 am
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:28 am to Camp Randall
Thank you for the link. I was there for that presentation, where she handed out Varsity Sports T-shirts before the meeting started. Jenni said she "just wants to have a conversation," about City Park and what it could be, but what she really wants is to get rid of the golf course so her runners can have all the space they want.
Please be sure to fill out the BREC survey. It closes today.
Please be sure to fill out the BREC survey. It closes today.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:44 am to zippyputt
quote:
\They also ruined #5 from a par 4 to a 3 and #6 from a nice par 4 to a shortened par 4. They Ruined it once and they now try to eliminate it. Make Your Voices Heard!
#5 used to be one of the toughest holes in Baton Rouge IMO. Drive over the water with a tight short landing area. Then follow up approach shot with trees everywhere you had to go over, water right, OB left, and nowhere to go long.
I hit my drive across Dalrymple MANY times.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 2:47 pm to Camp Randall
To make matters worse Sasaki, the design firm that gave us the failing, behind-schedule Lakes Project, oversees development of the master plan for City-Brooks Park. A recent presentation of theirs makes it very clear that they are predisposed to doing away with the golf course.
Their report is riddled with errors of fact and interpretation, such as saying that the golf course occupies 40 percent of the park when in fact it occupies 40 acres and 26 percent of the 154-acre park.
This is important for two reasons:
First, errors that make their way into a master plan don’t stay small. Once embedded, they shape assumptions, design decisions, and public narratives for decades. A 50 or 100 year planning horizon makes accuracy on the front end essential.
Second, the presentation’s tone and framing consistently treat the City Park Golf Course as if it were an underutilized parcel of real estate rather than a century old recreational venue with continuous public use. Describing it as “passive” or “ornamental” is not just subjective—it’s contradicted by the record. A 40-acre course that hosted 28,000 rounds in 2025 is, by any reasonable measure, an active recreational asset.
That distinction matters because it influences how the public is invited to think about the space: as something to be protected and improved, or as something to be carved up.
Their report is riddled with errors of fact and interpretation, such as saying that the golf course occupies 40 percent of the park when in fact it occupies 40 acres and 26 percent of the 154-acre park.
This is important for two reasons:
First, errors that make their way into a master plan don’t stay small. Once embedded, they shape assumptions, design decisions, and public narratives for decades. A 50 or 100 year planning horizon makes accuracy on the front end essential.
Second, the presentation’s tone and framing consistently treat the City Park Golf Course as if it were an underutilized parcel of real estate rather than a century old recreational venue with continuous public use. Describing it as “passive” or “ornamental” is not just subjective—it’s contradicted by the record. A 40-acre course that hosted 28,000 rounds in 2025 is, by any reasonable measure, an active recreational asset.
That distinction matters because it influences how the public is invited to think about the space: as something to be protected and improved, or as something to be carved up.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News