It's a housing course if the developer paid for it and dictated that it somehow was laid out to maximize housing sales. If a core (or mostly core) course paid for by a city, private club, resort, etc., it is most likely not a housing course, although there are some crossovers, as noted, like PB (think it was paid for by developer) parts of Pinehurst, etc.
As to what makes a good one, most of the answers have been touched on -
- corridor width (hopefully a minimum of single hole corridors, and those 350 foot minimum for one hole, 190-200 feet right/150-160 feet left, 600 feet for two holes, etc.
- Minimum road crossings (maybe every third hole minimum hopefully less),
- Direct road crossings (i.e., can see next tee from green, not go through a narrow strip between two lots.
- Attractive large, housing, somewhat landscaped (i.e., partially screened, shaded, etc. in back)
- As mentioned, if the developer will leave a bit of land so the houses don't perfectly parallel every hole, but sit at some varying angles (and well sited on their lots, not with every lot bulldozed flat) Most don't.
After the basics, you still need to have a course with some design interest to make it a great course. This doesn't always happen, as in when a municipality and developer team up and its known in advance it will be a moderate fee public course, etc. Even that doesn't have to be the case, with (I hope) my Sand Creek Station being a decent example of a good public course within housing.