Pat,
Here is something that was in one of Paul Daley's Worldwide Perspective books on the issue you have raised, which is an excellent topic. Your comments are exactly right.
Let us be thankful for those golfers whose deep and abiding love and respect for the game has ensured an off-course vigil that closely guards golf’s traditional values. Threats to the game’s traditions and integrity are insidious and varied: playing equipment; course renovations; the PGA Tour; and course maintenance technology, to name a few.
The visually jarring spectre of residential housing is also placing in jeopardy one well-accepted fact: many golfers gravitated to golf in the first place to escape suburbia. Short walks between the green and the next tee, and seclusion from a manmade environment are some of the enjoyable aspects of golf courses not found within residential golf course communities. In short: golfers do not want to indulge in their favourite pastime with the omnipresence of housing. Golfers are intimidated by the fear that an errant shot may hit a home, which may explain why in some parts of the United States, golf courses that wend through residential sites are experiencing a significant reduction of play, compared to non-residential courses in the same area.
The economic benefits of developing home sites on golf courses will not go away, however. Developers will always be enamoured of the seductive concept of having a golf course amenity to aid in selling home sites at a higher price, and at an accelerated rate. Some developers opt to build as many home sites adjacent to the golf course as possible. At a typical community, the golf course is routed among residential lots that line all, or portions, of the golf holes. Those that occupy the higher ground are especially valued to the project. The golf course may be routed over a variety of terrain, but is often built in areas not suitable for home sites: near stream corridors; wetlands; floodplains; steep slopes and so forth. These areas fall within the jurisdiction of permitting agencies, and require extensive engineering to secure permits. Frequently, additional engineering is required to permit golf courses, which are often the receptacle of storm water drainage from the residential development. The detailed planning and construction issues, protracted permitting process, and high infrastructure costs provide important reasons for not designing an interwoven network of roads, pipes, cart paths, golf holes, and home sites. Taken as a whole, the case is compelling!
The key issue for the developer is the added premiums for locating home sites on the golf course. However, these premiums are diminished because of the infrastructure required to service home sites that are strung throughout the property to be on the golf course. Stringing the home sites throughout the property results in more stream, wetland, and floodplain crossings. Additional land is consumed as a concession for safety-related issues, to ward off instances of golf balls flying out of control onto home sites. The sight of carts crossing roads can be irksome and disruptive to the golfing experience, and a safety issue in its own right. Storm detention, drainage, and utilities crossing roads and golf course become more complex, all adding to any project’s development costs. Through sheer weight of consideration, planning and zoning issues grow in complexity, and delay the eventual permitting of the project. The premiums for putting home sites on golf courses are diminished because of the delays and costs associated with permitting and developing a typical residential golf course community.
Residential home sites can be grouped either into a traditional neighbourhood development that has smaller lots, narrower streets, and sidewalks linking the home sites to parks and natural areas close by, or to commercial areas at the periphery of the property. Portions of the traditional neighbourhood may front the golf course in limited areas without intruding into the core golf course. Instead of the home sites backing up to the course, home sites on deeper lots can adjoin protected areas, such as stream corridors and ponds. The deeper lots allow for a native vegetation buffer within the conservation easements between the home sites and the stream or pond. In a typical golfing-residential development, the golf course and home sites require more land than if the golf course were a core layout. A traditional neighbourhood development adjacent to a core golf course could have more land available for home sites to back up to open space, and more land available for walking and hiking trails. Moreover, it would help preserve the integrity of the game, satisfy the desire of homeowners to live within a community that promotes outdoor activities, protect and enhance the buyer’s investment, and financially benefit the developer. Conflict can be avoided if the golf course is mostly removed from the residential home sites, making the land development review process proceed more smoothly. The residential and golf course infrastructure costs can be significantly reduced when roads do not cut through the site, and all in the name of trying to get most of the home sites adjacent to a golf course and stretch them out over as much as two miles, over a 400-acre property.
For golfers, the benefits of a non-residential course layout are tremendous. In these cases, the routing is enhanced primarily because the most suitable land can be incorporated into the course design without it being earmarked as land for home sites. In my experience, the best hole-configuration plans are formulated when minimal earthmoving is required, does not adversely affect woodland connections, accommodates the land’s natural drainage patterns, and incorporates the land’s natural resources into the strategy, all the while beautifying the holes. A land-based traditional core layout remains the best method of achieving these goals.
By contrast, all too often a typical residential golf course community forces the shuffling of the golf course into difficult terrain like steep wooded slopes, floodplains and wetlands. One of the biggest drawbacks is the massive earth-movement required to overcome the steep or low-lying terrain. Earth moving imparts the greatest negative impact on the natural environment. A course based upon the traditional golf course model offers the best chance of producing a routing that results in a magnificent course that requires the least amount of earth disturbance. If earth movement is confined to features like bunkers and greens, then many environmental benefits are gained. While it is best to keep the golf course mostly in the open parts of the land, holes that must enter wooded areas will require removal of just the trees required for play, and for air circulation, and sun if there is little earth movement. This model provides an opportunity to maintain large wooded areas, core habitats for a greater number of species, and protecting aquifers and interconnected drainage networks. Minimum earth movement maintains the land’s natural drainage patterns, can be an important part of the strategic design, and beautifies the course as well.
Woodland connections are critical to wildlife movement. Disturbing these connections has a major impact on the environment. A typical golf course community will have a major impact on woodlands and stream corridors. If the golf course is forced to cut a swathe through these areas, roads and home sites come along with the course as well making a much bigger impact on the natural systems. A non-residential golf routing plan attempts to preserve the existing woodlands. However, where disturbances must occur, an enlightened plan avoids splitting wooded areas into smaller patches. Furthermore, this approach can incorporate existing patches of woodlands into the golf course property, and over time these smaller patches can be increased and connected by using native trees transplanted from the site.
Reducing earth movement preserves the land’s natural drainage patterns. A land- based core routing plan also preserves the integrity of larger drainage ways through the land, like stream and river corridors. Golf holes are set back from these corridors, and native buffers are maintained between the primary play areas of the course—tees, fairways, rough, and greens—and the stream corridor. Chemicals and fertilisers properly used for the maintenance of the primary play areas can be diverted from entering a stream by grading, and more effectively, by maintaining or enhancing a wide vegetated buffer that consists of native materials in the form of grasses, shrubs and trees. The vegetation provides a buffer against these substances entering the stream by providing friction in the form of plant stems and litter, root absorption, and an organic soil that absorbs these dissolved substances.
A traditional neighbourhood development next to a golf course can provide a superior environment for living, and also for playing golf. By respecting the natural elements—terrain, drainage patterns and woodlands—these elements can become a part of the strategic design and beautify the course. A common thread through all great golf courses is the exceptional quality of the land on which they were laid out. History has shown that this can only be preserved if the course is not punctured by residential development. The natural elements can be preserved within the neighbourhood to the enjoyment of the residents as well. Never again should it be assumed that developers automatically benefit from stringing home sites throughout the golf course. There is a better, more natural alternative.