I put in a proposal for that one and walked the site. It was a gravel pit at the time of the interviews, maybe just spent. They may have had some park master plan by who knows who, but it also showed 27 holes plus some public land uses, like trails and parks. The entire site clearly didn't fit 27 holes, much less 18, plus other uses.
While the total site was well over 250 acres or so, a huge part of it was the steep banks around the edges, and nothing more than maybe a back tee could be put there. They also wanted to retain the big concrete plant (?) for character.
I played it later on, as well. This is just my opinion, but when they felt that being able to play a US Open course would draw golfers, I don't think that came true. Or at least, you go once, the course beats you up, and you don't go back. I don't know what the biz study said about a one and done model, but I bet it lacks local public play, even at discounted rates. I know it rains a lot there, and I played in pouring rain, so I even wonder if it counted on those rain days the area is famous for in their biz plan.
Believe it or not, many golf biz consultants do NOT consider local weather when trying to estimate round. If it's a six month season, they figure 6 days a week x 24 weeks x 200? or whatever.
Nor for that matter, do all of them make a correlation between course design and the number of rounds played as if any course design could generate premium greens fees and loads of distant rounds.
I know this is OT, but golf business studies aren't to the sophistication level of hotel or other industries. Not yet, but they are getting better.