The value of the land is not solely based on the "raw land." As they say in real estate, it's all about location, location, location! A half-acre beachfront plot in Malibu is worth orders of magnitude more than a half-acre of grassland in Montana. A lot of the value comes from the beachfront itself, yes, but a lot more of the value comes from all the development around it.
This is the whole basis for the business model behind golf course development. Developers acquire a large plot of land in a nice area and build a golf course on part of it. The rest of the land (surrounding the golf course) is divided up into plots and used to build luxury housing. The existence of the golf course (and all of the landscaping in the area in general) dramatically increases the desirability (and hence property value) of the houses.
If you didn't build the golf course at all you could fit more houses on the land overall. The problem with that is that without the golf course the houses are less desirable and worth less -- and also more capital intensive to build than a golf course -- so the overall profit is lower.
There is that, of course. But good courses also permit real estate companies to hold land for future development at a reduced cost, maybe even a profit, no?
This is the whole basis for the business model behind golf course development. Developers acquire a large plot of land in a nice area and build a golf course on part of it. The rest of the land (surrounding the golf course) is divided up into plots and used to build luxury housing. The existence of the golf course (and all of the landscaping in the area in general) dramatically increases the desirability (and hence property value) of the houses.
If you didn't build the golf course at all you could fit more houses on the land overall. The problem with that is that without the golf course the houses are less desirable and worth less -- and also more capital intensive to build than a golf course -- so the overall profit is lower.