Mike --
- - -
You said, "To have the golf 'course' continually broken up with 'non-golfing' related ground (i.e. houses, wetlands, property divisions, large climbs or long descents) does have a negative impact on the course, pure and simple, and despite the fact that each individual hole might have quality within it.
Well, that seems sortg of general, doesn't it? I suppose you are correct if we assume there is no redeeming value to the elements you list. However, I designed a course for a residential development and had your same opinion. Until one day I played there and was just about to comment to the couple I was paired with about the unsightly homes and back-yards...when the lady got a huge smile on her face and said, very proudly, "That's our home over there, we're so happy with it...and what a beautiful view we have." Now, here is the golf architect about to apologize when all of a sudden I get another viewpoint. "Generally" I agree with you...but space can be broken many ways -- it is not always best left unbroken.
- - -
And, you also said, "The term 'routing', as I'm sure you know, talks about how well those individual holes are interconnected, along with with how well the entire property is utilized for golfing purposes. A routing that is continually broken up with lengthy non-golf divisions ultimately brings the quality of the routing into serious and justifiable question."
Routing is not always about how "well" the entire property is used. It is also about how poorly it may be used, including unpredictions that are thrown at the solution. What is good to you may be poor to me. What is unpredictible to you may be usualy to me. But, again, I suppose your general comment can be accepted...but, again, it's just a genarality.
- - -
Consider this: The town of St. Andrews is most assuridly a bother to the golf. But it is a bother that has become an attraction. Much like the rude waitress at a small town diner, as a visitor we love this unique juxtaposed "charm".