Got back from La Quinta awhile ago, but haven't had time to post about it. Played the Mountain Course and the TPC, which had just re-opened 2 days earlier, and therefore played very soft (and long - the grass on the tees was really high). The mountain course was a little disappointing because of the "condo corridors" on a lot of the holes. The ones away from that were fun to see, and seemed to avoid being overdone. I played just before a college tournament was starting (that afternoon) and the greens were extremely fast and the hole placements on little knobs or ridges, making for some interesting payne stewart at Olympic putts, especially on 2. The fast greens were great as I am a terrible putter and decelerated into 3 birdies. But the houses!
The TPC course and the PGA West complex was on another level altogether (loved the picture windows in the restaurant). Because of the larger greens and being slow it played a lot easier then the Mountain course. Some of the holes looked quite familiar though. For instance, 16 reminded me a lot of 16 at the River Course - a big bunker left off the tee, big trouble left at the green (except the dropoff isn't to a river). I think BWR's 16 is a lot better because of the land it sits on and the use of the tree. And I feel like I've played the 18th over and over (including at BWR). However, for a course made from nothing, I can see why people like it. Do "manufactured" courses like the TPC require more thought and imagination than the ones that make use of good land? I don't know, but after seeing these courses, my preference is clearly for the latter. Give me BWR any day, and 18 on the meadow course over any of Dye's other 18th holes that I've played.
Sorry, but I did not get a chance to see any other courses. I can heartily recommend Azur for dinner though, if you're willing to spend a big chunk (actually, all the food at La Quinta was good).