Bad architecture? House too close to course?

[noonan]

http://wtop.com/209/3486911/Man-pleads-guilty-to-shooting-golfer-who-hit-home

[Paul Gray]

   Bad Second Amendment.

[Chris DeToro]

He should've shot the architect instead   

[Jim Adkisson]

Never buy a house on the right side of the fairway 180 yards from white tees

[Mike_Young]

Why would you think this situation is the GCA fault?

[Chris DeToro]

Generally speaking, I'm not much of a fan for housing development golf courses.  I played one in Arkansas that hosts an LPGA event that used the houses to create doglegs and, to me, artificial hazards--the hole in question is the 2nd at Pinnacle CC.  It's not a super long par 5, but hitting that second shot with a hybrid or comfortable 3 wood while aiming at Mr Smith drinking his Saturday coffee in his kitchen provides an added element of pressure

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
Again...why would someone blame the GCA?

[Tyler Kearns]

Without knowing the specifics of the golf hole in question, one has to realize that no house in a golf/residential development is 100% safe from errant balls.  Sure, there are rules of thumb to minimize possible conflicts, but that usually comes at the expense of the number of lots and overall golf course frontage which is at odds with the profit incentive of the developer.  Further, the golf course architect may or may not be consulted when the housing lots are planned, and can often inherit a less than ideal situation.

TK

[Chris DeToro]

I think it just depends on what came first--the golf course or the houses.  I'd rather see the architect build the course first and then the real estate developers work around that, which may or may not always be the case as Tyler alluded to below.

I think for me, if you're going to buy a house in that close proximity to a golf course, you have to realize this is going to happen and accept it.  Otherwise, it's going to be a tough situation for all

[Richard Choi]

Chris,
Again...why would someone blame the GCA?

Because GCA should not build a dogleg around a lot/house where many drives will land?

[Tyler Kearns]

Richard,

Not exactly, although the sharper the dogleg, the greater potential for risk.  Building a pond on the inside of a dogleg that can't be carried helps to mitigate the risk as golfers are prone to play away from it, plus it helps by adding a premium on the housing lots adjacent to the water.

TK

[Jon Wiggett]

Generally speaking, I'm not much of a fan for housing development golf courses.  I played one in Arkansas that hosts an LPGA event that used the houses to create doglegs and, to me, artificial hazards--the hole in question is the 2nd at Pinnacle CC.  It's not a super long par 5, but hitting that second shot with a hybrid or comfortable 3 wood while aiming at Mr Smith drinking his Saturday coffee in his kitchen provides an added element of pressure

Chris,

there used to be a drivable par 4 last hole at a Swiss course that played over a multi-storey car park. You never parked your car on the top deck or the tee side of the car park if you could help it. It has to be said that the hole was there before the car park. Moortown in Leeds had to do major changes due to issues with houses built long after the course was there and of cause the most famous building in a dogleg is the Old Course Hotel.

Jon

[Chris DeToro]

I'll definitely take a double standard on the Old Course, but that barn has been there 100+ years now and it's become part of the course.  I think for me, the Old Course is basically a public park and is treated as such with the locals utilizing the grounds as much as the golfers.  I remember passing this older woman every morning walking her westie on the grounds of the New course when I was studying abroad there.  But in a housing development, I think this perspective is lost--the people living in the homes demand their privacy and the golfers treat the grounds as part of the course.  Neither is necessarily right or wrong, but therein lies the opportunity for conflict

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
Again...why would someone blame the GCA?

Because GCA should not build a dogleg around a lot/house where many drives will land?

Rich,
I would wager the golf architect did not do the routing or he built the dogleg before there was a house there...This is seen so often in the 80's and 90's housing developments and it may have been ok until the ball and equipment took a course designed with 260 yard turn points when today they are often 285 -300.  Corridors used to be 300 feet wide in the landing also where now they are 350 ft - 400 ft wide....

[Mike_Young]

.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Why would you think this situation is the GCA fault?

The golf course was built in 1969 by RTJ Sr.

a simple real estate search shows the homes bordering the 16th fairway were built in the early '90s.

RTJSr. should have known!  Oh, wait a minute, he was only a pre-eminent designer, not a prescient one.    

[Richard Choi]

I have seen plenty of examples where courses were built within the last decade or so as part of the real estate development where they placed housing inside the dogleg. The architect cannot just plead ignorance when there are lots marked out in the plans.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have seen plenty of examples where courses were built within the last decade or so as part of the real estate development where they placed housing inside the dogleg. The architect cannot just plead ignorance when there are lots marked out in the plans.

I'm sure there are such examples, but in this case it seems that the housing post dates the course by some 20+ years, and I haven't seen any evidence that the course was part of a planned development and that the area in question was platted in 1969.

Benefit of the doubt goes to RTJSr.    

[Bryan Lewis]

http://wtop.com/209/3486911/Man-pleads-guilty-to-shooting-golfer-who-hit-home

The article doesn't say, but he could have been shot for dropping in a wrong place.  We all know he was required to play under stroke and distance.  

Bryan

[Mike_Young]

I have seen plenty of examples where courses were built within the last decade or so as part of the real estate development where they placed housing inside the dogleg. The architect cannot just plead ignorance when there are lots marked out in the plans.

Rich,
I read the topic as two questions.  1.  Bad architecture?  and 2.  House too close to course?

No more info was given.  It has always been my understanding that if the course was in existence and the house was built at a later date then it was constructed knowing the golf was there.  BUT often one will see stipulations as to how far from the back lot lne a house can be built in these locations and additional restrictions for individual lots such as no pool etc in the area.  Sure it could have been bad architecture but it's not right for guys to blame it on the GCA with no more info than is available here.  I know that in planning sessions these things are discussed and tweaked and begged to be removed by most GCA's.  Usually some assurances are given but then a few years later it is all forgotten or the covenants have ceased etc.  JMO