Separating the golf course from the housing development

[Mike_Cirba]

Some months back, Mark Fine asked a question re: how important the overall scenery contributed to the ranking of a golf course.

With so many courses being built today as part of housing complexes, I'd like to ask the following question;

How much does parallel housing detract, and how should someone factor that into your overall assessment and ranking of a course?

This question is for everyone, but I'm particularly interested to hear from other "course raters".  After all, the surrounds are clearly out of the control of the architect, and not part of the golf course features.  Should a course rating subsequently suffer due to housing requirements, and how fair is that?

I recently played a very fine course that is part of a development with very large, upscale, attractive housing, a walkable routing, nothing forced or unnatural within the golf holes themselves, generally wide playing corridors (with a few OB exceptions), yet the course does not seem to get much notice regionally, much less nationally, and my guess is that it comes down to housing.

My host suggested that there should be a separate rating system for courses within housing developments, and in thinking about it, is it fair to compare the architectural work of a course that borders "Maple Ave." with one that borders the Pacific Ocean?

I'm not saying that ratings should be "fair", but I'd like to hear golf-related specifics as to why such courses seem to inevitably suffer when golf course architecture is assessed.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I don't think I can be "fair" on this subject.  Courses without real estate development simply are far more appealing.  Whether that's being "objective" about the architectural merit of each golf hole doesn't matter to me.  That's just how I feel.

Muirfield Village does not appeal to me, in part, because it just seems like a rich man's housing development, not a golf course.  By contrast, Crystal Downs probably was a rich man's housing development, but it was done with far more class.  The housing is much less intrusive.

Wild Dunes is a course that was far more pleasureable to play before it became totally overrun with condos.  Long Cove was a real estate development, but, again, it is a case of where things were done with more class, i.e., the housing is not right on top of you.

We could go on.  But, I'll sum things up by saying that part of golf architecture is how the venue makes you feel.  It's pretty hard for me to imagine a course where housing made a positive contribution in this department.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim,

That is a really excellent point that I hadn't really considered in those terms previously.

"How a golf course makes you "feel..."".

We often tend to get into very specific discussions on here that have much more to do with reasoning, logic (even the term "strategy" assumes aforethought), and the rational purpose of design features, but I believe you are correct in identifying that there is something very emotional and primal in why we like what we do.

I asked this question because the course I mentioned has some really good golf holes, thoughtful design, naturalness, incredible conditioning, strategic merit, and significant challenge.  I found myself envisioning what the exact same set of golf holes might look like surrounded by raw, rough, natural countryside with high native grasses waving in the wind and I must say that I had a completely different appreciation for how much higher this course would likely be regarded based purely on the golf and architectural work done at the site.

[Craig_Rokke]

I think a round of golf with your friends
loses some intimacy and that feel of being at one with nature when there is housing.

It'd be nice to be able to block out the housing as you take in a course. It detracts especially if it appears that the course layout was compromised in order to shoe-horn in the housing. I believe it should be considered when rating a course. After all,
you're not just rating the architecture, or the conditioning. You're rating the whole
experience.

I posted on Back Creek in Delaware a while back. Throughout a lot of the round, I felt
like I was trespassing in someone's backyard.
It's still a fine course, but one that would be better without the housing.

I only played Wild Dunes after the houses were built, but I'd agree that they certainly didn't help any. And the Lakes course--the houses screw things up royally.

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

In my view, its not so much the houses, per se.  Its the OB that often results if houses are too close to the course and the awkward routings that oten are the result of giving priority to home sites.  If the houses are set back far enough that OB is unnecessary and the routing is not negatively impacted, I would not give much weight to the houses. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

It is encouraging to see that some new real estate developments are sacrificing home sites to give the architect the freedom to design  "core" courses where no streets or homes are in the interior.  I hope we will recognize and encourage those developers.

With regard to "fairness", my view is that we are evaluating the course, not the architect. If an excellent design is ruined by encroaching houses, the course rating should reflect that and the reduced rating is not a reflection on the architect. As Tim points out, Wild Dunes is a good example of a pretty good design that no longer is a candidate for top 100 status due to the awful proliferation of houses on the course. Another example is Riverfront, as excellent Doak design that is beginning to suffer because of housing.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig,

Actually, Back Creek is a course that came to mind (having been rated for two years in "Golfweek"'s Top 100 modern where housing is still pervasive.  

Unfortunately, sister-course Frog Hollow, which is a really worthwhile design even better than Back Creek has housing plans (and many built) that are even more obtrusive.

Jim,

Yes, the preponderance of OB that many housing tract courses seem to offer is certainly a drawback.  On the course I mentioned, there are a couple of places where OB is way too close to the line of play due to housing, but those stand out as exceptions.  

I also wondered if I was being fair for another reason.  One of the Top 10 courses in the country features OB on quite a number of holes, simply because it exists on a property that is bordered by public roads and residential housing.  However, it's "saved" by the fact that it's a contiguous, self-contained course where housing and other off-property suburbia is only on the outside borders of the property.

Thankfully, I AM starting to see more residential courses built where the golf course is a "core" course, and the homesite building is kept to the perimeters.

[harleykruse]

I played Royal Melbourne-East a few weeks back. The course is considered one of the best in Oz and deservedly so. Morcom and Russell did an excellent job on land no where near as dramatic as the West Course.

Interestingly the course stretches out into land referred to as the outer 2 'paddocks'(Australian word for fields) One must negotiate 2 road crossings to get to the outer 2 groupings  of holes which are basically surrounded by housing. In fact 10 of these outer 12 holes have either real estate or road boundary on one side.

By todays terms to repeat such a development elsewhere and it would be defined as a golf/real estate course.

It goes to show that a course doesn't necessarily have to be a core course to be great.

By the way I believe it is still the case, that if you own a house on the boundary of RM you have certain playing rights to the courses. A kind gesture from the club to thank their neighbours keeping for an eye on things

[harley_kruse]

adding to the above it is the ease of the dimensions and vegetation throughout the East Course that minimise the impact of the housing. It clearly shows how vegetation is very important to any golf & real estate course

[Scott_Burroughs]

Jim Lewis, good to hear from you!  Haven't seen you post in a while.  How's that third nine at Forest Creek coming along?

Mike,
About that top 10 with the O.B. housing around the course, you wouldn't be talking about Merion, would you?  Because that could also refer to Winged Foot, Pinehurst #2 (several holes), Pebble Beach (several holes), and Oakmont, I think.  Many more on down the list would also qualify.

Courses with peripheral housing around the course like above don't bother me nearly as much as ones where almost every hole is a corridor surrounded by housing.

[jim_lewis]

Hello Scott:

Nine holes of the second 18 at Forest Creek are just about finished. In fact, seven of the holes have been opened for play temporarily.  All nine will be open in the spring.  Because there has been some delay in getting the necessary permits, it may be a while before construction on the remaining nine holes begins.  Actually the nine holes that are about ready will be numbers 1,2,3,4,5,12,13,14,and 18 when all 18 are finished.  The new course has a completely different look from the original and will have more elevation changes than any course I can think of in the Pinehurst area.  The bunkering has a very wild and natural look. I hesitate to use the expression, but it will have something of a "Pine Valley" look and will more visually intimidating than actually in play. The bunkers/waste areas are more like Galloway National and World Woods-Pine Barrens than any other Fazio courses I have seen.

Regarding houses and OB at Pinehurst #2. There is OB on the left of #'s 1,2,and 3 and on the right side of #5. I have seen a few tee shots hit OB on #3, but I don't recall ever seeing a ball hit OB on any of the other holes (although I am sure it happens occasionally).  The only houses that are even remotely in play are on the left of #3 and right of #5. I don't know if Andrew is monitoring this thread, but if so, maybe he will comment on how many balls he saw hit OB during the time he caddied at #2.

[Scott_Burroughs]

So there's no stakes way right on 4, or way left on 6-10?

[Bruce Goughnour]

A good case study might just be a DG favorite course - Cuscowilla.  As time goes on there will be more housing and more cottages surrounding the periphery of the layout.

Already there are 4 to 6 new cottages being built right at the dogleg on #18.  Do they come into play?  Unquestionably.  We watched amusingly as a framer tossed out a ball to one of the gentlemen in the group in front of us at our last tournament.  Right into the family room did that ball land!

Will it detract from the ambiance?  I tend to believe it will.  It might be a good course to keep an eye on to see what the feelings are a few years from now.  Personally, I don't mind a few houses because the course is just so strong.

[jim_lewis]

Scott:

Not that I've ever noticed. The few houses on the holes you mentioned are so far away from the course that I never even notice them. Technically there are on Pinehurst #7 and are accessible by car only from the streets that run though that community.

[harley_kruse]

Mike

I think this is a very interesting post and yesterday I didn't pick up on one of your issues.

I dont think there should be a separate rating system at all for courses bordering houses versus ones bordering the Pacific Ocean.   Unfortunately its not  black and white like that.

There are many courses with some sort of built development on there border. It may only be a few holes or on many as in the case of my example yesterday of Royal Melbourne East. Scott Burroughs mentions others with different degrees of housing.

With all these courses it is no doubt the style of surrounding architecture, the vegetation and the dimmensions where this vegetation can work. It does get very hard indeed when single filed holes with a lack of dimension dont give enough room for effective vegetation. These are certainly the problematic courses.

An lets not forget the 18th on TOC where architectural built form is the setting of the hole. Does that make it the worst hole on the course?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have just been reading the thread concerning routing and now this with regard to housing.  In modern architecture I am afraid that these topics are hopelessly intertwined.

Courses with housing require generous setbacks.  Whether you are wondering if this guy will ever paint that ugly thing or if you can afford to braek that plate glass worth several thousand dollars, housing is a distraction.  In most modern cases it is also a neseccity as real estate provides for the economic viability of the project.  

All of that aside, I play at a nice real estate course.  It is possible to remove the housing from your mind to a degree, rendering it unobtrusive.  What does not seem to be possible is in the area of a quality routing.  These real estate developments for the most part lack any distinquishable flow.  It becomes a seemingly endless string of one act plays.

The beauty of a Ross, Tillinghast or Mc Kenzie is that they seem to build to and end.  They have continuous drama.  

The modern designers by contrast work with poor sites and must make compromises as they go.  Whether it is a Victoria National ( I realize it lacks housing) where a dramatic routing disguises a pretty poor golf course or a PGA West where developers have maximized housing at the expense of interesting golf, these sites lead to lesser courses.  I happen to think that many of these designers/architects should be applauded for creating what they do in the face of the demands placed upon them by their employer/developers and the land they are given.  

I would, however, ask the developers to settle for a few less lots and move the damned houses out of the inside of a driveable dog-leg.

[Lou_Duran]

A number of previous posts have touched on the large impact that beautiful surroundings can have on our perception of a course.  It has been suggested by some that if Pebble Beach was not blessed with such an idylic setting it would be considered to be merely a good course.  Housing and development in general most often detract from a natural setting.  I can think of a way in which housing does improve golf and gca, and that is that without the revenues generated from lot sales, many courses would either not be built or their budgets would be severely constrained.  Can a skilled architect design such an interesting course that we simply overlook surrounding development?  Or as more and more courses have a real estate component, perhaps we will get used to it and focus solely on what the architect has designed.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

There is a development here in Cleveland which sheds light on the business of real estate development and golf course design.  The project is called Red Tail.  Robert Von Hogge was the architect.

This project was plagued with financial problems from the very beginning.  There is no way a golf course would ever have been built without the real estate sales.

Initially, only nine holes were built (due to financial constraints).  I would have to say that this part of the project is pretty bad with houses lining fairways in a very unattractive manner.  Real amateur stuff.

When money finally became available to proceed with the additonal nine holes, one very good decision was made: for the most part housing will be around the parameter leaving a core area for golf.

While I'm not a fan of housing on golf courses, in reality, it has been done for a long time and sometimes done with class.  The Country Club in Pepper Pike is a good example from the 1920's.

It does seem that placing the housing well back from fairways is desirable if the project goals include long term respect for the golf course.  hiding the housing with trees, vegation, etc., is also a real good idea.

[RobertWalker]

If this site could influence one aspect of golf design, it would be the elimination of housing on golf courses. I want to see more developments like Windsor where the housing is on a grid away from the course. There are no sideyards, yet everyone has privacy and proximity to the course.
In the "old days" a course was built on a parcel of land. Today it must be two nines that weave through a tract in order to provide 1-2 acre house sites.
Getting developers to see the light on this issue would be far better than competition balls.

[RJ_Daley]

As one who has dreamed and schemed many times over how to finance and develop a golf course, it is nearly impossible to come up with a plan that makes any economic sense without developing a home site plan with the golf course.  For the typical developer, there has to be realistic recovery of the investment, not to mention the prospects for acceptable profit.  The only other ways to develop a successful golf course is through a fully subscribed private membership offering or have a personal fortune to lay down upfront.  

The most modest development I know of is Wild Horse, in Gothenbur NE.  It reportedly only cost about 1.7 million to build including maintenance sheds and modest CH. Yet, due to the modest community and lack of a high roller to foster the project, even they had to go with a plan of 54 home lot sales around the periphery of the course. I bought one of them.  Now, there are about a dozen homes already built, and as they fill in the remainder, it will detract greatly from the charm of the wide open prairie views, particularly to the west and south.  The homes will not detract from the play on the course since all the lots are outside the boundries of the course.  But, on #2 and 15, where the homes are on the slice side, they are potentially a problem for the errant OB,  but  they do have fairly deep setbacks.

Just my humble opinion, I could be wrong, but I WISH I were Mike Keiser  

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
No right or wrong answer here but if we all agree there is an "ocean effect" there must be a "housing effect" as well.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, a great golf course is more than just great "architecture".  The key, however, to doing a sound rating has everything to do with putting things in proper balance.  You can't let one factor far outweigh everything else (good or bad) going on with a design.  
Mark