[Tony_Muldoon]

Golf and houses, golf and houses,
Go together like legs and trousers,
This I tell you brother
You cant have one without the other

Golf and houses, house with garage,(ahem)
Its an equation you cant disparage                       
Ask the local gentry
And they will say its elementary

Try, try, try to separate them
Its an illusion
Try, try, try, and you will only come
To this conclusion

Golf and houses, golf and houses,
Go together like legs and trousers,
Dad was told by mother
You cant have one without the other

(No need to apologise to Sammy Cahn he was quick to adapt his lyrics when the occasion demanded it.)


Reading David’s impressive IMO piece on Merion, one of the things that I picked up on was how the course came about because it was looked at as part of an overall deal to improve land prices.  It seems to be one of the main accepted truism's on GCA that Golf & Housing = Bad. But it wasn’t always so.

We have discussed the role of the railways on here several times (e.g. (links fixed)

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,20030.msg356429.html#msg356429

and

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=30239 )

and obviously the Railways made a whole lot more land available for Housing by reducing the time it took to get to work in the city.  It is also true to say it’s hardly a surprise that people want to live in beautiful surroundings with amenities like golf courses close by.  Sometimes the railways allowed people to access land which would provide better golf (particularly in winter) hence courses like Pine Valley, Portrush, RCD and Sandwich to name a few.  The railways also allowed the creation of hotels as a golf destination e.g. Turnberry, Gleneagles, Pinehurst (?).

We often discuss the individuls who gave a Club it's character or course, more rarely do we discuss the motives of the founders. Hence one gets the impression that the ideal club is founded by a group of like minded individuals who are only interested in golf. However it seems to me that a number of what we call important Clubs were developed as part of the overall picture built on property deals. IN the UK important examples include:

Walton Heath. The area around the Heath was targeted by a group of rich men who bought land in the area and then influenced a new railway line and an act of parliament to get permission to build the course.  Similar to the Merion case they figured that a great golf course would enhance the land values thereabouts.

Sunningdale. According to the history when the land was leased houses were part of the plan.

Huntercombe.  This was intended to be a housing development but failed partly because it was too far from the nearest railways station.

(Of the 4 most important early Heathland courses only Woking did not include housing as an element and its existence was only possible because of the Railway)

St Georges Hill (1913) is generally believed to be the first successful Golf/Residential community but I think if you look at the wider perspective others preceded it.

IN the Hawtree book on Colt, the author says that Colt was adept at suggesting to Cubs if they sold off a small parcel of land by the road for housing, then they would be able to afford the holes he’d like to build for them.  Many clubs improved and developed their couses in this way. e.g. Alwoodley.  Many courses have been lost to housing with a replacement built further out of town often on inferior land but with a much nicer clubhouse.

I would like to know of other examples where the course owed its existence to housing.  I’m particularly interested in the early days but I’d also like to know when the development of golf residential communities turned into a flood.  My kknowledge of US courses is particularly weak.

Golf and houses seem to be synonymous at least since the late Victorian explosion in new inland golf courses.

[Sean_A]

Tony

Burnham owes its current configuration to a combination of housing and the creation of new land.  From the 12th Burnham used to head "into town" as it were.  The club sold a bit of land and rerouted the course to cut to the seaward side of the church.  This may not be exactly what you were looking for, but it should be noted that Colt planned for the creation of new land out at #4 and the club eventually followed up on the plan.  There was something like 55 years between envisioning the plan and it being carried out to its logical conclusion with the encroachment of housing around the course.  I reckon Burnham thought if you can't beat em, join em.

BTW  Land continues to be created and now, if the club was really looking to build a world class course, they could use a massive amount of dunes which are left untouched or used for the wee Channel Course.  I bet while playing many people would wonder why so much of the dune area is left untouched - duneland that most clubs would give their past several club champions and captains for!   

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony

In his book, Tom Simpson includes a plan for Chantilly where "nearly all the plots touch a fairway."

What do you think of his writing:

"In such cases the architect's main preoccupation is with the problem of presenting the proposition as it will appeal to the speculator in real estate.   With the actual design of the golf course there is not likely to be any great difficulty.  The architect will probably be given a free hand to do as he chooses so long as the course promises to be one of distinction and likely to achieve a reputation."

Mark

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tony

Golf and Houses = Bad

As a general rule I believe that is correct.

Not played in North America, but have been told that carts are necessary by many on this site because of the long distance between Greens & Tees (Sam recently mentioned the 16 green to 17 tee at Greatwood being 1.7 miles). Apparently this is longer than most but fairly common as there is a need to uses carts. I presume this is solely down to the developer and the land he sets aside for the golf course. I expect is may be down to maximising ones investment, and to hell with the golf.  This type of development IMHO compromises the designer, the course and untimely the golfer. It may be accepted and used as there may not be another course within a reasonable distance.

One of the pleasures of playing golf is the enjoyment of the open spaces either links (my favourite, but not all are as close enough to a links course) or inland. I am not a supporter of trees on a course but have no problem if they surround the course. Better still if they hide houses and buildings. The traditionalist or romantic in me wants to feel part with nature when playing,
to enjoy the peace and quiet, the open space – on a links course the sky always look’s incredibly large. By walking I am able to absorbe nature and the life around me.

As for the UK there are housing developments built on old golf courses, one we mentioned recently is Hanger Hill to the West of London, this was built upon in the early 1930’s.

The railways did indeed help bring golf to the masses or to be correct the railways brought the masses to the golf courses. As did the Steamers, i.e. Machrie and Uisguintie Golf Clubs on Islay. In the Victorian age many new developments not just the Hotels/courses but golfing resorts (one or two on the Isle of Man i.e. Castletown), The Scottish Hydro’s, Spa towns – Strathpeffer Spa (looks like an English Spa town but in Scotland, 30 miles from Tain). These were projects built by or in association with the coming of the railways – Old Tom was given many commissions by the Railway Companies including in 1894 the Cruden Bay project (mentioned in Rev W W Tulloch’s book ‘Life of Tom Morris’ and newspaper cuttings of the day).

One thing, in these Islands we need to remember is that many of the course that came about pre 1950’s started life on the outskirts of towns and villages. Today regrettable may are surrounded by modern buildings as our urban mess spreads outwards. What once were great open spaces are now covered with houses and shopping centres.

So I believe Golf and Houses = Bad, is still very much correct. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

How about Pebble Beach as an early example of golf linked to real estate development?

"Pebble Beach Company was founded by Samuel Finley Brown Morse, who was a distant cousin of telegraph-inventor Samuel Finley Breese Morse. In the early 1900s, Morse was a manager for the Pacific Improvement Company; the company had extensive real estate holdings on the Monterey Peninsula.

In 1919, Morse formed the Del Monte Properties Company and acquired those holdings, which included Del Monte Forest and the popular Hotel Del Monte (now the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey). February 22, 1919, saw the grand opening of Pebble Beach Golf Links and The Lodge at Pebble Beach , which had replaced a log-cabin lodge originally located on 17-Mile Drive."

Morse died on May 10, 1969, ten years after ensuring that easements would preserve hundreds of acres of forest and coastline along the 17-Mile Drive for generations to come, and 50 years after establishing a veritable monument to the power of nature and beauty."

The above was from the Pebble Beach website.

In modern times, I believe the development of the original Sun City retirement community in 1960 in Arizona by the late developer Del Webb( a former owner of the NY Yankees) was a leading impetus in modern golf linked to real estate development. Basically, value in the real estate is enhanced by charging a premium for lots on the course or a lake.

The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of post 1960 golf courses in the US would not have been built without adjacent real estate development. This is not necessarily a bad thing.A free standing golf course is very difficult to build today given the realities of land costs and development economics on the return on investment.

[Tom_Doak]

If a golf course is really well integrated with a housing development, the latter will not intrude on the former.  Tony gives some great examples and it is worth noting some of the things that make them work well:

1)  The courses he named are not laid out to maximize the value of the lots immediately adjacent to the course; instead they are allowed their own space in the hope that the prestige and value of the entire neighborhood (and not just the golf-frontage lots) will be greater.

2)  Not all are "core" golf courses, but nearly all have places where multiple holes congregate free of housing.

3)  For road crossings, instead of forcing very long green-to-tee transitions, many of these courses play across a road on the tee shot a couple of times in the round, so that the continuity of the round is not broken.  This is one thing I've tried to do in planning some of our courses, and the land planners always resist it on the grounds of safety.  But just think of all the great courses that get away with it and it's not a problem -- Pebble Beach, St. George's Hill, and Shinnecock Hills for starters.

Tony:  Other examples of development-related courses:  Riviera, Bel Air, and Yeamans Hall are some of the best.  And don't forget that Augusta National was planned with lots around the perimeter of the property -- they just couldn't sell any in the Depression, and by the time the club got going again they decided they didn't need the money from the lots.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Mark

I like Simpson’s writings.  I’ve quoted some forgotten stuff on a recent Sunnigdale thread and I’ve been trying to read his joint book with Weathered but life keeps getting in my way.  I’ve played Chiberta and the housing there detracts from the course.  I have no idea what the original plan was but I’d speculate that some of the houses were added 40 years after the course was finished.

Melvyn.

My point is that some of our most important courses wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t been conceived of as a masterplan including profit from housing. The courses mentioned have been widely influential and offered inspiration to architects ever since.  So in these cases it’s easy to argue that Housing = Good.

Steve and Tom

Thank you for more excellent examples that support my notion.  Also interesting point re roads. 


I’d still like to hear of more courses where the profit from housing was an important factor in their creation. Strange that it seems to have taken until the ‘60’s for this to really catch on.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Let me go a little further with this, it's something I've been mulling around for some time although I accept I will probably never be able to prove it.

We often debate the importance of those early Heathland tracts and normally we say they were a break with the past because they were designed by a new breed of Architects.  Well at least in the case of Park that just isn’t true.  Sunningdale and Huntercombe were universally recognised and seen as breakthroughs from the word go, but they were far from being his first work. 

Next we say that it was the land was perfectly suited for Golf in contrast to the inner London clay.  Well yes and no.  The topography was ideal but many on here don’t understand Heaths.  The main point is they were not farmed because the land was very poor.  Heathland courses do not play as well in winter as links ones do and the idea that they are all a light sandy soil idea for turf is false. Darwin described Woking in the early days as a swamp.  Most have had considerable drainage added.

My (almost entirely unsupported) thesis is that all the clubs mentioned so far in this thread are a break with the past because they had to be.  If people were to sell houses then the course had to be good to attract people.  IN order to achieve this, businessmen gave their architects more time to ensure the success of the golf course.  This is what made the difference to Park’s work (I believe this much is documented) and his later courses did not acchieve the same success. At Walton Heath, Fowler was saved from bankruptcy by his brother in law and given a full time position creating a Golf Course and Club fit to attract the very best.  To bring it back to Merion, what we have learned in the past week is people went to extraordinary lengths to create a great golf course.  Without the houses and profit motive, these breakthroughs would not have been made.

[Sean_A]

Tony

I can get on board with the drainage issue in the heathlands.  I believe the quality of drainage doesn't come anywhere close to the hype.  However, compared to what other inland courses were like the heathlands may have been a significant improvement.  Additionally, we are looking back with modern ideas and modern technology - its tough to compare against the concepts of 100 years ago. 

I also may agree with you concerning Park.  I am not convinced Huntercombe and Sunningdale were radical breaks from his previous work.  I consider them bridging works.  Anybody who has a look at Huntercombe can't possibly call this a "modern" design.  Sure, strategy concepts are more developed and every bit as much in play as Colt ever achieved (if not in a far more subtle way - even from Colt), but the look is incredibly different.  I just wish there were some old Park courses about to have to have a good look because from what I can tell Sunningdale is very different from Park's original design.  When you look at a place like Stoneham built about 10 years after Huntercombe, it is clear that Park is on a different level for design.  It is much more like Colt's work than his own previous work.  Clearly. something happened to seriously influence Park. 

In the broader perspective, you are right Tony.  The entire development of London suburbs is about housing and the courses wouldn't have been built if people weren't moving out of the city. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

I think you are correct.  Those early heathland courses were the start of modern golf architecture, not because they were radically different in style, but because the jobs were radically different in scope -- they really had to be constructed.  And the more time a project takes, the more time there is for detail work.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Excellent insights, Tony and Tom.

Tony as yours is broader it supports the evidence better but Tom's offers greater explanatory power.

Could you each explain though a little better how Walton Heath fits into these insights? From Tony's description and my reading of their history Fowler's involved role seems down more to the club than to the course or any architectural aspect.

You know, more like a lifeline for him rather than a course-induced challenge.

Or maybe the financial difficulties were due to unexpectedly large investments in the course(s), which would support both insights, yes? But somehow I don't see the story quite that way.

Thanks again and well done.

Mark

[JC Jones]

If a golf course is really well integrated with a housing development, the latter will not intrude on the former.  Tony gives some great examples and it is worth noting some of the things that make them work well:

1)  The courses he named are not laid out to maximize the value of the lots immediately adjacent to the course; instead they are allowed their own space in the hope that the prestige and value of the entire neighborhood (and not just the golf-frontage lots) will be greater.

2)  Not all are "core" golf courses, but nearly all have places where multiple holes congregate free of housing.

3)  For road crossings, instead of forcing very long green-to-tee transitions, many of these courses play across a road on the tee shot a couple of times in the round, so that the continuity of the round is not broken.  This is one thing I've tried to do in planning some of our courses, and the land planners always resist it on the grounds of safety.  But just think of all the great courses that get away with it and it's not a problem -- Pebble Beach, St. George's Hill, and Shinnecock Hills for starters.

Tony:  Other examples of development-related courses:  Riviera, Bel Air, and Yeamans Hall are some of the best.  And don't forget that Augusta National was planned with lots around the perimeter of the property -- they just couldn't sell any in the Depression, and by the time the club got going again they decided they didn't need the money from the lots.

Tom

I think there is a course a few miles west of Traverse City that has houses as well as a tee shot across a road.....

Before we totally slip into a heathlands history lesson, I wanted to point out that I too often lament houses on golf courses but I so often forget places such as a local country club here as well as the Downs. 

I think what bothers me is what I like to call "Florida Golf."  It can be found elsewhere in the SE and now the west.  Where basically, every fairway is lined with houses on each side and it is apparent that the course, and its routing, played second fiddle to the real estate development.

I suppose I have no problem with houses on courses so long as the course is/was designed w/o effect from the real estate development.  Whether that means the course is there before the houses or the archie is given free choice of the land first, I'm not sure.  But I think the problem with houses and golf is largely related to "Florida Golf."

[Kirk Gill]

So I believe Golf and Houses = Bad, is still very much correct. 

I would likely agree with this sentiment more strongly if I had access to links courses in my neighborhood, but living in Colorado means that the seaside is far away, and I still do want to play golf. If land and construction costs preclude the creation of golf courses except as part of a real-estate development, then the question becomes "what's the best way of combining the two?"

There's the core golf concept, where the course is on it's own bit of land, and the real estate surrounds it or is adjacent to it. Sometimes the housing is very visible from the course, other times kept discreetly separate. In terms of keeping the quality of the golf experience high, this would be best, but it does minimize "golf course frontage" and the associated high lot premiums. Depending on the size of the "core" where the golf will exist, this concept may limit the architect to using only a few existing land forms, and making the most of them, which some architects have done to great effect. In this day and age, it seems like this is only being done on private golf club developments. Am I wrong?

Then there's the "leave the shite for the course" concept, where the real estate planners lay out where they want all of their housing to be, and the course gets stuck with the rest, usually the low-lying land in-between rows of houses. The golf experience is questionable, the pressure on the architect to deliver good holes on questionable land is high, and the golf course frontage is maximized. My least favorite golf experience is had playing through canyons with walls of houses on either side of the fairway. Are there any really good courses that have been created out of this scenario? What architects are the best at this sort of thing? Of making the most out of the least attractive land?

And there's another possible scenario - the architect is presented with a large piece of land on which will stand the housing and the course. The architect finds all of the best bits of land for holes first, and spreads the course around the land in a way that best uses all of those best bits. The spread-out nature of the course still allows for maximum golf course frontage, but the course itself uses the best land for golf.

The last two scenarios, particularly out here in the mountainous west, seem to often result in cartball courses, as distances can often be long between green and tee. I understand that for Mr. Morrow neither scenario would be acceptable, however for the public-course golfer, both of those scenarios are pretty common.

Are there other real estate/golf combos that I'm missing?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  The difference is that now there are major LAND PLANNING firms who take the lead role and wrestle the golf course architect for every square inch of property.

I wonder who did the land plans for those early projects?  Was there someone else doing the planning at Huntercombe and St. George's Hill, or did the golf course architect cast the die for the houses in how he routed the golf course?

On some of my recent projects there seems to be a game of bait and switch going on -- they give me my choice of the land, but then there are problems with title to some property and it's the golf course which has to make concessions, because they've already added up the numbers on the housing.  I can't tell if it's just a coincidence or whether it is a strategy on the part of client & land planner to offer me ground they don't have!

[JC Jones]

JC:  The difference is that now there are major LAND PLANNING firms who take the lead role and wrestle the golf course architect for every square inch of property.

I wonder who did the land plans for those early projects?  Was there someone else doing the planning at Huntercombe and St. George's Hill, or did the golf course architect cast the die for the houses in how he routed the golf course?

On some of my recent projects there seems to be a game of bait and switch going on -- they give me my choice of the land, but then there are problems with title to some property and it's the golf course which has to make concessions, because they've already added up the numbers on the housing.  I can't tell if it's just a coincidence or whether it is a strategy on the part of client & land planner to offer me ground they don't have!

My guess is it is the latter, unfortunately.  What I dont think developers are realizing is that as money gets tighter, those who are willing to pay top $$ to live on a Doak course or a C&C course are also the ones who will be disappointed (and take their $$ elsewhere) if the course is comprimised by the housing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but like always, I dont think so!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tony

I understand your point but believe that you are referring to a limited number of courses. I would not have thought that there are many pre 1950-60’s courses in England which materialised as part of this type of Housing Projects – but which appears to be fairly normal in the USA.

Plots of land may have been sold to assist finances. I may well be wrong but I believe we are talking about a very limited number.

Kirk

I feel that the modern golfers are being forced to compromise. We are expected to accept what is on offer without question. Golf Architects/Course Designers are placed between a rock and a hard place when it comes to selection of sites and clients requirements. The only option for most golfers is to find another course, which I appreciate is not always possible, so many courses are accepted as there is no other choice – not what I call an good way to endorse a golf course. 

The problem is that the majority of Golfers are just not interested, apathy is very high. They understandably just want to play golf, so will accept everything that is thrown at them including 5-6 hour rounds.

Developers, Manufacturers and our Governing Bodies sometimes just forget that we are not there to just pay for all these novelties but to actually play golf; - good and enjoyable golf as well.

So going back to Tony’s post, I do not think Golf & Houses = Good - I feel it’s Bad for both Golfers and Home owners alike.   

[Tony_Muldoon]

Mark

I agree completely with your interpretation of Fowlers position. I borrowed the book but must get my own copy as it’s the best club history I’ve yet seen. As I recall, to the best of anyone’s knowledge he had never shown any particular interest in Golf Architecture, living a life of Huntley () as a keen player and general sportsman.  He ran into severe financial difficulties and was rescued by his brother in Law, Bonsar, who gave him a house, and limited him to just a few servants, and a job – designing and running the proposed course at Walton Heath.  So he got on his horse and familiarised himself with the heath and ended up creating “the first great inland course”(?).

The reason why I insist this theory is speculation on my part is we don’t know that he was told to create the best course possible – it seems likely that he was but I can’t recall there’s proof - and that these astute financiers were taking a risk by giving the project to him. The fact that he had no  other financial interest at that point gave him lots of time.



In this revised version of history it was as a result of the care lavished on these courses, Sunningdale and Walton Heath which had quickly developed high reputations, that raised the expectation of what could be achieved if time was allowed to develop new courses. This created the opportunity for Colt to move in (5 or so years later) and create the first Golf Course architect career, thus ending the dominace of the champion player “who laid out 18 stakes in a day”.

Tom

The Huntercombe history suggests that Park was the driving force having bought 900 acres from Chiltern Estates, whoose Chairman was T A Roberts the builder who had employed Park at Sunningdale.  Plots were to be sold off but in the early days only one sale was achieved of about 2 acres.

St Georges Hill was the brainchild of a Mr Tarrant who was known locally as a building contractor and developer. He planed an estate with golf and tennis clubs. Darwin recalls being shown the proposed course when it was still heavy woodland and the houses followed the golf course. They initially started in one area only and the indentures stated “No building shall at any time be erected in any part of the hereditaments except private dwelling house built in a substantial workmanlike manner of the best materials and at a cost of not less than a thousand pounds and shall be a detached house standing in a separate plot of not less than one acre, together with stables, coach houses and motor houses.”  Tarrant went bust developing Wentworth in 1926.

Again I’m guessing but I think the rot probably set in when developers planning large scale projects realised they could get a premium for plots adjacent to golf holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()