Golf development frustration....

[Kelly Blake Moran]

There are exceptions although I have yet to see one, but land planners and engineers have not been good at developing good routing plans.  I would not in any way want to encourage  anyone today to use a land planner or engineer to rout a golf course.  I have seen way to many disasters produced by these professionals who are wholly unqualified to rout a golf course.

[Keith Williams]

Here's a good question:

Who is better at what - a landscape architect/land planner at routing a golf course in a development or a golf course architect at laying out a development around a golf course routing.

My guess is the answer depends on what side you are sitting on.

Keith.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

There is no doubt in my mind that I could do a far better job at laying out a community than they can routing a golf course.  But that misses a bigger point.  Since 1995, I  have refused requests by clients and prospects to lay out the residential home sites within a golf course community, even though I did lay out several while working for von Hagge prior to 1995.  Through those experiences, and later through excellent experiences working side by side with land planners on the total master plan for a community, I realized how good they were at what they did, therefore my policy has been to stay strictly with what I know, and cause the client to hire a land planner for the residential component.  Some of my best experiences have been design charettes with land planners, and ultimately that has resulted in the best plan for the client.  

[Mike_Young]

KBM,
Same policy here and charette when you can get them.  

[Mike_Young]

Keith,
We actually did a complete set of plans for a developer of "Deep Creek" and then he sold it and another developer brought in Steve Smyers.  We even found a body of a woman that had been missing for two years.  Her husband is now in jail.
I will IM you the name of the course.
Mike

[SB]

Keith,

My mistake.  What I meant to say was that the routing the land planner gives to the architect isn't always ideal.  In some cases, it's a clueless planner, in some cases, it's a bad developer.

[Keith Williams]

Kelly,

I am glad that you are confident in your land planning/engineering skills    Seriously,I like the cooperative team approach, and luckily it appears that you have worked with clients who actually care about the quality of the golf course, but I think that mindset is getting more rare every day for housing development courses.

These days it seems that in a planned community (especially for primary home markets) the golf course is just another (albeit very expensive) ammenity lumped with the likes of pools, playgrounds, community clubhouses and tennis courts.  For many developers the course is getting to be like the community clubhouse, they want something that will increase lot values and can be mentioned in a marketing brochure, but are not nearly prepared to commission Robert Stern to be the clubhouse architect.  In the golf course vein, the course doesn't have to be great, and certainly shouldn't hamper the lot layout, just as long as there are premium lots with golf course views.  (A big time name, though, as Tom Doak has mentioned, is like gold)

You know how the typical home shopping conversation goes:

     "honey, look at this lot, it has a golf course view!"

     "Really?  How good is the golf course?" (if we're lucky enough to even get this question.)

     "I don't know, it doesn't matter, but what a great view, though!"

or even better,

     "I don't know, but it was designed by (fill in signature name designer) so it must be great.  And look at that view!"

Anyway, it always seems to come back to a couple of things when discussing residential project courses... what the owner/developer wants and land quality.

Keith.

[Mike_Young]

Kelly,

I am glad that you are confident in your land planning/engineering skills    Seriously,I like the cooperative team approach, and luckily it appears that you have worked with clients who actually care about the quality of the golf course, but I think that mindset is getting more rare every day for housing development courses.

These days it seems that in a planned community (especially for primary home markets) the golf course is just another (albeit very expensive) ammenity lumped with the likes of pools, playgrounds, community clubhouses and tennis courts.  For many developers the course is getting to be like the community clubhouse, they want something that will increase lot values and can be mentioned in a marketing brochure, but are not nearly prepared to commission Robert Stern to be the clubhouse architect.  In the golf course vein, the course doesn't have to be great, and certainly shouldn't hamper the lot layout, just as long as there are premium lots with golf course views.  (A big time name, though, as Tom Doak has mentioned, is like gold)

You know how the typical home shopping conversation goes:

     "honey, look at this lot, it has a golf course view!"

     "Really?  How good is the golf course?" (if we're lucky enough to even get this question.)

     "I don't know, it doesn't matter, but what a great view, though!"

or even better,

     "I don't know, but it was designed by (fill in signature name designer) so it must be great.  And look at that view!"

Anyway, it always seems to come back to a couple of things when discussing residential project courses... what the owner developer wants and land quality.

Keith.

Keith,
It is starting to change some.
Mike

[Keith Williams]

Scott,

No problem, I wasn't really trying to dispute you.  I have just had some really eye opening first hand experiences watching tremendously talented landscape architects and planners have their creativity completely stifled at the hands of a cheap (as if developing huge residential properties could be considered cheap), micro-managing developer; and that is in all facets of development, not just land use and layout.

One of my planner friends said early in his career in every "first run design" of anything whether it be a full scale master plan or something as small as an entry monument he would create the most innovative, imaginative and highest quality product that the project scope would allow all the while knowing that all of it would get rejected for a safer, cheaper alternative.  He said he did it hoping that maybe just one facet of the design might catch the developer's eye be kept for the final product.  Eventually he got tired of the constant rejection and just started giving the developer what he knew would be accepted from the start.

I guess it can be hard to question a developer who made a fortune working like that, though.

Keith.

[Mike Hendren]

A few observations:

A surprising number of people who purchase golf course lots/homes don't play golf and don't intend to.

At certain price ranges, squeezing in an extra lot (maybe two) will pay for the fee of the golf course architect.  

Very few people that live in big houses walk and carry.

Golf courses are rarely the highest and best use for unimproved land.  

Without a residential component, where would golf course starts be today?  

Mike

[Keith Williams]

Mike,

Thanks for the IM.

I would love to hear some feel-good stories about the situation changing  

It just seems like for the average consumer the ideal planned community is exactly what your original post discussed:  McMansions lining disjointed golf courses where the "stately clubhouse" and course conditioning are the primary golf desires.  Any attempt by the developer to go above and beyond doesn't necessarily equal increased profits, which leaves little motivation to try.

My two most recent experiences in being involved in golf course communities will, when completed, result in vastly different products but they have striking similarities.  One was an exclusive very high end (couple million dollar plus McMansions) development with a tour pro "signature design" and the other was a huge master planned community with a wide range of price points from starter homes/townhomes up to over 1/2 million dollar products with a golf course designed by a very "un-signature" designer that would be a part of the community but sold off to a private entity and run as an "affordable" daily fee.

Still, in each project, the developer and his land planners had carte blanche control over the routing and master plan and regularly made large changes to the golf course without cooperative consultation with the architects for either course.  Of course, each course was laid out over less than desirable land and their designs were heavily affected by drainage/detention from the adjoining residential devlopments.

Additionally, Deep Creek is one of the projects I have mentioned (not the signature designer one).  I am no longer involved with that project, but am interested (scared) to see how it turns out.

Keith.

[Keith Williams]

Mike H.

Exactly, and I think what you said helps to identify why things are the way they are... the average homebuyer may or may not play golf, but if they do, then they know no other kind of golf than house corridor cartball - and that is all they desire.

My former home course in ATL is a cart-ride housing development course.  It is walkable, but it is certainly not walker friendly.  The membership, like any other, complains all the time about the course.  It is too short.  The greens aren't fast enough.  The fairways aren't mowed tight enough.  But nobody has ever complained that the routing feels disjointed and the course sits on less compelling land than the homes.  It is like the treehouse's many discussions regarding "Joe Sixpack" and golf design strategy.  They don't demand better golf because they know no different and desire no more.

As to where golf course construction would be today without the residential component - I think we all can speculate.  I do however think that we should differentiate between golf course developments marketed as primary residences versus retirement/second homes/vacation homes because I do see a greater opportunity for discerning buyers to demand a better golf product when purchasing a retirement/second homes/vacation home because consumers buy those based far more on the quality of surrounds/activities/recreation.

Keith.