Mike,
My index is a 4.6, but I am playing to about a 12. Five rounds in the last six months probably has something to do with that
.
The fairway width at Redstone is very generous particularly when you consider there is virtually no rough. Consequently, approach shots are not dictated by the lie of the ball, but rather by the features of the course. While I would agree that the course favors someone who plays a draw, there are a number of holes where a fade is the preferred shot. Greens with somewhat open approaches include #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #17 and #18. Usually, these approaches are flanked on one or both sides by hazards, but in the right conditions a run-up shot is a possibility. Further, the greens are large and not radically contoured allowing for a multitude of options for hole locations. Multiple teeing grounds also provide variety.
I am not saying that Redstone is the ideal course, or even one of the top two or three in Houston. However, it is not as poor as many on this site would lead you to believe. Sometimes the anti-Rees biase around here gets a little carried away. The fact is that he has forgotten more about golf course architecture than many on here will ever know. Whether you like his designs or not he is certainly competent and qualified.
As you know, there are not alot of visually striking courses in Houston due to the lack of terrain, but a couple that I think are good include:
Walden on Lake Conroe (certainly its "triangle" holes)
Grand Pines (Jeff Blume biase)
Elkins Lake (again Jeff Blume biase)
Miramont (unbeatable conditioning)
Carlton Woods (only seen Nicklaus)
I have not seen your project, but from what people on here have said, it may belong on the list as well.