News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« on: November 22, 2004, 09:56:38 AM »
It seems that the consensus is that routing is a very important factor in the quality of a course design but doesn't that put a course built within a housing development at an immediate disadvantage.  Does it then mean that a course built within a housing development has to be that much better in other aspects of course design in order to be considered an outstanding design.  Should routing be simply eliminated as a factor in evaluating a design when the course is part of a housing development?  I wasn't able to go to Cuscowilla but I believe it is part of a housing development yet it is recognized as a top quality design.  On the other hand, Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes are top quality designs without any housing, does this mean that Cuscowilla could never be considered as a better design than either of those courses because it is part of a housing development.  I think it is a stretch to somehow evaluate routing when a course is within a housing development other than to say that it works well when considering that it is part of a housing development, but it still to my mind it can never have the quality that a course without houses can.    

Brent Hutto

Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2004, 10:05:58 AM »
It sounds like houses near a golf course are a factor that trumps all other factors in your estimation, Jerry. That's a valid opinion and I guess it's similar to those of us who consider any course that won't allow you to walk as inferior for that reason.

Most people consider factors like having the option of walking or the absence of houses to be no more or less important than other elements of the experience. So if you're asking the general question of whether houses (or any other single factor) fundamentally invalidate all other considerations in judging a course I'd think the answer is no.

As for my own opinion, I'd love to play at a course exactly like Cuscowilla except with no houses in sight. That would be cool and I guess it would tend to slightly raise the quality of the course in my estimation. OTOH, it sure was nice stepping out the door of my cabin and walking the eighteenth hole at night so there's something to be said for a house near a fairway if it's your house ;-)

One final comment. There is a difference in houses in play for normal shots, causing you to alter your strategy by their presence versus houses that you can see but ignore as far as playing the course. The houses at Cuscowilla are predominantly in the second category. Anything that affects the way you play a course is a factor in evaluating the routing. Houses that do not affect your golf game are a factor in evaluating the aesthetics of the experience, an entirely different dimension in my opinion.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2004, 10:35:17 AM »
My primary concern that I was wondering about is the forced routing from green to next tee, which usually means a long walk and far from a natural feel and flow.  I think that the housing can be located so it does not feel intrusive, but routing is a far more difficult problem.

Brent Hutto

Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2004, 10:59:39 AM »
OK, I see what you mean. I thought you meant "routing" in the sense of the broadest scale of the layout of a hole but you're talking about the connection and flow from hole to hole throughout the round. In that case, I wouldn't think you can eliminate it from consideration in evaluating a course.

I don't care whether the holes are discontiguous because of housing or wetlands or just because the architect wanted to pick and choose his sites without being constrained to make them flow. A course that flows naturally from one hole to the next is a good thing. I suppose you could have a course that was so good in all other aspects that it's considered a "great" course even with a broken-up routing but if in some cases that's a tough row to hoe then so be it.

I actually don't mind one or two long hikes between holes if that's necessary to deal with an obstacle like a big hill or a road or something. For instance, it seems not uncommon to have three to five holes on the other side of a highway from the rest of the course so there's a 1/4-mile hike there and back. That's only two interruptions to the flow of the course which is much better than the usual housing development plan where you play one or two holes, then drive a while, then one or two more holes, then drive, lather, rinse, repeat.

JohnV

Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2004, 12:23:24 PM »
Well, there is no doubt that the housing around Rustic Canyon has caused it to be downgraded by some. ;)

It probably depends more on the need for access to the housing than the actualy housing.  If the property is such that roads have to break up the course in order for people to get to their houses you will get some unnatural breaks.  If the developer then wants houses behind the greens and tees so that it goes green, house, road, house, tee, the walks will start to get long.  And even if they aren't long, they will still break up the flow which detracts.

The housing I hate is where each hole is a separte entity entirely surrounded by houses.  If a course doesn't have a least two fairways side-by-side I think it is hurt by the houses.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2004, 02:18:15 PM »
So if we took a great course like Sand Hills and forced the routing because of housing, would it then become a lesser course.  Of course, the housing and its effect on the overall golf experience is another question, but my concern is purely the routing issue.  Would the quality of the holes stand up by themselves or would the routing alone diminish the quality of the course in your eyes enough to make it no longer one of the best in the country?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2004, 11:25:59 PM »
Jerry,

I have found the housing component does not necessarily impact a good routing.  In places like Atlanta, you could build good housing and golf courses all day long.  Many good holes run in valleys anyway, and in housing, there is added incentive to put them there to increase surrounding views.  In other places, like some areas of Texas, the land is flat enough that the some parcels don't have enough natural features to worry about.  Even in areas where there is good land, if the developer provides enough land - over 600 acres, there is usually enough features for good golf and good housing, without too much compromise.

Now, the road network can impact it for reasons noted - road crossings and long walks are introduced to some degree.  However, many courses, like Champions in Houston have no road crossings, or one, and it is put in a tunnel to minimize distractions.  And housing quality and separation can detract, are hard for most golfers to distinguish as a routing, or non routing feature.

But, as to your basic question, while it is harder to do all the things we like to make a great course in housing, the routing itself doesn't necessarily have to suffer in creating good individual golf holes.  It may suffer in the connections and proximity, though.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2004, 09:18:40 AM »
Having worked on several projects, from both the housing and golf sides, careful consideration must be given to how the course is routed and how housing impacts the course.  To keep the course of the highest caliber, the maximum number of road crossings should be two, but one is much better.  Next proper separation between the golf corridor and housing setback from the course should be maintained.

If the golf corridor is 400 feet wide (this allows for a 40-45 yard wide fairway with two cuts of rough, room for mounding and a cart path) and a home is no closer to the golf corridor than 50 feet, you have minimized both the golf impact on housing and vice versa.  Where this gets sticky and tight is when these separations are less and housing gets too close to the edge of the rough.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Routing v. Housing v. Quality
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2004, 11:06:07 AM »
Quality is the only issue.

If you have a quality site, quality routing and a quality housing plan, it will equal a quality finished course, depending — obviously — on some other matters such as detail, strategy, aesthetics, etc.

Muirfield Village is an example of a great routing and very wide corridors and nice homes — all created by Desmond Muirhead for a quality end result.

I am of the opinion, however, that many course raters diminish new courses for being a product of housing developments, regardless many times of whetehr the course may be a very good layout with plenty of fun and interesting holes. On the other side, I find many raters forgive housing when it conflicts with a classic layout that is well liked and embraced by the status quo.

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back