Fossil Trace does look cool, and your review makes for an excellent read. You just made no comment on walkability... And furthermore, how can you call that a "steal" at $60 when Riverdale Dunes is never more than $34? I don't get it.
$60 is a steal for most parts of CA - is it really for Golden, CO?
I've played both of these courses, but comparing them is difficult. Riverdale, when built, was on the outskirts of the Denver Metro area. There's a lot of houses out there now, but I considered it to be a bit of a hoof to get out there when it first came on the scene. That said, it was always worth the trip. It is a fun, open course that, when played from the proper set of tees, is not overly difficult if you can find the wide fairways and stay out of the (knee-high) long stuff and the water. I shot my personal best score there one summer day, crushing the golf spirit of my best friend who took a year off after his humiliating defeat.
But I digress. Fossil Trace is right in the heart of Golden, built in the middle of an existing community. There is no doubt that the shoe-horning shows a bit, but it is, in my estimation, very walkable. Is every single tee box directly adjacent to the previous green? No, there's a bit of a walk between 9 and 10, and between 10 and 11, and the property is hilly, but the walks are negotiable. I'm not a small person, and I had no difficulty walking the course. I'd be interested in the opinion of others.
But as I said, other than being near Denver, the courses are very different in design and execution. FT has a manufactured look, and doesn't lay on the ground like a "found" course. Many of the bunkers have the banked, "muscular" design that many do not like when they opine on Engh's designs (This is the only Engh I have played). On the ground, with my clubs in my hand, I enjoyed the course very much, but I can't disagree with Mr. Pitner's assertion that it is not "classic" design. It is different. I wouldn't call it "goofy," because that word suggests immaturity. I might suggest "over-wrought," as if ever little hill and edge and bank was tortuously thought-out. I liked the visual appeal of the course, and my friends often suggest having a round there, as there are lots of little things to discover about it, and it is undeniably fun. The rocks don't bother me, as we ARE right up against the beginnings of the Rocky Mountains, and they are perhaps a more appropriate hazard for Colorado than sand OR water. However, for me, it IS a bit pricey, but in line with many other courses in the area like Vista Ridge, Buffalo Run, Deer Creek, etc., though not as expensive as the likes of the Omni Interlocken course (Graham/Panks), which is very expensive ($80-$105), and not worth the money IMHO.
The Dunes is probably my favorite public course in the area, 'though I make no claim to have played them all. There are some manufactured qualities to be found there, to be sure, but it is a more natural looking and playing course than FT, and has the now "classic" railroad-tie look on the water holes
. I love that after 2:00 p.m. on Weekends it costs $25. I particularly like the 13th (tough 4 with a native-grass-covered bank to the left from which recovery is, uh, challenging) and the par 5 16th, with its rumpled fairway. I also like that next to the Dunes course is the Knolls course, of little interest to most gca types (if there is a "type"), but an easier course that beginners can enjoy without all the opportunities for lost balls on the Dunes.
In short (not my best thing) I can't say that FT is a "steal," perhaps, but it is most enjoyable to play. Perhaps I need to play more "classic designs" to be able to properly put it in its place. I'm looking forward to that.