Ward,
Similar story, playing Dye's Stonebridge Ranch near Dallas, my client was having a horrible day, hitting water several times. The 18th was a traditional Dye Cape Hole Finisher, water on left, and he said he would bet me that he didn't find water on the tee shot. Aimed way right, hit it OB and into a neighboring pool. Since the wording was "find water" I maintained he lost the bet.....and he ended up buying lunch after a few laughs.
Back on topic, using some of the worlds best courses as examples of how to do "housing" is a bit off the mark. What's forgotten after WWII was that developers were trying to bring the country club to the masses (or at least growing middle class) and had to somehow off load the enormous (although we would laugh at what courses cost to build then now) up front costs. Housing did that, and also solved golf's biggest distance problem - distance from front door to first tee. It was in many ways a laudable effort with acceptable compromises.
So, yes, these courses weren't quite as good as courses purpose built for a pure members clubs, but in those days, probably everything done (in many design fields) was a pretty poor rip off of any classic designs for similar reasons.
As to the gentle debate between Forrest and Tom D, I would say that developers and land planners gradually got more efficient at land planning to create premium golf (and water, green space, etc.) lots. Also, the land plan reflects the times. Many early 1900's land plans had a road bordering the golf course, with lots outside, fronts facing the golf course. That reflected the old "front porch" style of living where that's where you interacted with neighbors. Later, people retreated to more privacy of their back yards, and land planning reflected this, putting golf out back.
It would be an interesting grad student study to track all the housing/golf developments to see when and where certain trends started. Again, I would bet that the second notion of golf course/housing used the "squished frog" layout style (or core course with fingers) and no road crossings. Later, double fw configurations with road crossings, then single fw configurations with many road crossings, and probably the "ultimate" configuration was not only road crossings every or every other hole, but also long walks between housing also allowed, as opposed to a direct line of sight crossing. Of course, I am generalizing.
But, I do recall when working for Killian and Nugent routing some of those and they had strict rules of no more than two road crossings per nine, and direct line of site crossings so at least the course felt connected (this being 1977-83) And, when I played my first RTJ course (Hilldale in Hoffman Estates, IL) I was non-plussed that an accomplished architect like that broke all the KN rules for housing courses. Of course, he had done so many for developers (and maybe even that developer) that he had been beaten down enough just to accept their wishes.
Would also note that developers seem to have varied in their demands on architects, with many accepting of some limitations even though it reduced golf lots, and others forcing you to separate golf holes and squeeze corridors at every turn. On one of my last housing designs (2006, and poorly time and now out of biz) I presented the developer with core, double loop and single loop options, and he (and his land planner) adamantly refused a single loop configuration, because by that time, people were realized the effect of the worst of the housing courses tendencies and they felt giving up a few lots was quite reasonable in the name of community quality. (For instance, the line of sight golf crossings are also an opportunity for everyone driving through the community to view the course and know its a golf community, thus raising even off golf lots value.
Again, I think it would make an excellent study to track the different thought patterns on golf course development projects.
And, back to the original question by Forrest, IMHO, if the space between fw and houses is adequate, there is some landscaping, and architectural quality of the houses is good, I don't think playing in such a course is unpleasant at all. Who doesn't like to gawk at houses larger and fancier than theirs?