I can't comment on Stonetree but I played the Bridges in the Bay Area and never want to see another Johnny Miller course, even though I enjoy his commentary.  It was too hard to be enjoyable.  Plus I am on their mailing list, so I keep getting reminders of that dismal day.

Mark:

Ed Getka has it just about right.  I'm one who tends to find something good in just about every course, and well... the main good I found at Stonetree is that the beer was cold in the clubhouse.

It's a horribly over-penal, over-severe, overpriced mismash of holes on what used to be a nice site for the Renaissance Faire.  Oh, the drive is OK going from SF -not particularly scenic once you get north of the GG Bridge, but not bad - but that surely doesn't make it worth the trip.

If you want to play north like that, there are much better choices - each of Adobe Creek, Indian Valley and San Geronimo are better nearby public course choices, and if you can swing access, Mayacama is world-class.

Ed's right also re Metropolitan, too... just don't expect any scenery other than fine Oakland airport views.  

Mike B:  

My question to you is this: did we become these course hardasses because of this web site?  Or is it exposure to more great courses?  Combination of both?

Because I have to believe there was a point in time not all that long ago where I would have loved Stonetree... I would have hated the price, but not minded the course.

So Mark, do bear this in mind.  From a mindset typical of this website, the course is pretty reviled.  I've never read a good thing about it in here.  And I did pretty much hate it myself.

BUT... I have a friend who lives in Mill Valley who absolutely loves it - he finds it neat, pretty, well-conditioned, great service, etc.  Cost isn't an issue for him.  Nor is golf course architecture as we define it.

TH

Disclaimer first...I used to work (at Presidio) for two of the pro's at Stonetree, and they've let me play the course a couple of times. So I'll try be fair, but I can't claim that I'm totally unbiased here.

Stonetree has a number of things going for it:
-Green contours: a lot more movement and interest than I've seen at most public courses.
-Conditioning (at least most people would say so): I've played early both times but I understand it can get quite firm in the afternoon, and the turf conditions are great.
-Aesthetics: Especially in the hills on the back nine, it's just plain pretty. If you disagree, make your case, but if you don't find Stonetree beautiful then I think you might be a grump. Am I just saying that because the grass is so green? No, although that helps.
Variety: In the par 4's (310-470) and par 5's (510-580) especially. The par 3's a bit less so (last time I hit 6 iron, 6, 4, and 6)

Stonetree also has some things going against it, especially in the eyes of this group:
Difficulty/Severity: I wouldn't really enjoy being an 18 marker there. LOTS of lost balls and a few drives to narrow fairways (9, 13, 14, 16) that I would be quite nervous about pulling off. It's not the most user-friendly course for the average player.
Terrain (flat): Holes 1-6, 17-18, and 10-12 used to be...well, whatever it was, it was flat. Everything on those holes in manufactured, although I think reasonably well. But don't look for "natural" contours or anything that reminds you of Sand Hills. But when you look across the fence at the dead-flat land next door, you should appreciate that they did some pretty remarkable work, I think.
Terrain (hills): Holes 7-9 and 13-16 are over some pretty severe terrain and feature narrow fairways, big elevation changes, and trees/high rough not far from the line of play, as well as wetlands on 16 and 17. Lots of trouble and lost balls here.

I have to go...I have 6 days to find a place to live on June 1...but I'll write more later on today depending on how the responses look.

~Matt

Tom,
   I like that GCA-centric remark, it just proves there's hope for the rest of the golfing world.

Matt,
   I can't argue the Stonetree points since I haven't been there, but what did you think about Wente?

You guys would seriously rather play San Geronimo or Lake Chabot than Stonetree? What about regardless of price? I find that hard to imagine.

I love Wente. I played there Tuesday. If I had to choose one, it would be Wente. It's more thrilling, I suppose. The land has a lot to do with that. But man, talk about a hard course, especially for the typical weekend player.

Tom, can you explain the negatives you see at Stonetree besides the ones I mentioned? I guess I just don't see very many others, especially with consideration given to the property they had to work with.

(I guess one other one is the lack of a driving range - it's surprising given the thousands of acres of flat land surrounding the front nine - but I'm sure there's a reason for it.)

Matt:  unfortunately we don't get to do this regardless of price.  But to play along with that, I'd say I'd prefer San Geronimo to Stonetree, and Lake Chabot also - but the latter would be just because of sentimental reasons - I've won a few tournaments there, used to play there all the time.  Take that away and well... Stonetree likely is better.  But not by much.

In terms of the negatives, you nailed them.  I have nothing to add except for it's also way too cartball for my tastes.

And to me these outweigh the positives.  Throw in the price, and this is why I'm not rushing up to play there again... as well as why I wouldn't recommend it to Mark.

TH

That's sad to hear re Lake Chabot - I haven't been there in two years so I'm not up on what's what.  Conditions were always pretty darn good when I played it... understanding that it is after all a muni.

I will say I wouldn't send anyone to see Lake Chabot primarily - that is, not with all the other great courses we have around here.  But if one is in Oakland anyway, and wants to see some really quirky up and down hilly stuff, well... it is good fun and I have to assume the price remains right.

But Tim's kinda put us off the track here a little anyway, hasn't he?  Nothing wrong with that... but if someone is considering playing in Novato, well recommending a course in Oakland doesn't match the geography.  

Anyway, here's another one likely to rile Matt (and Matt, I do consider this all in good fun):  I'd play Indian Valley five times before I'd play Stonetree -and that is regardless of price.  I find Indian Valley to be very, very fun - given the severity and penal nature, Stonetree seemed to me more like work.

TH

Mike - well said.  And 14 is among the head-scratcher holes there for me as well... which sometimes is a good thing, but in this case isn't.  It's just too much.

Mike & Tom,
    How uphill is that shot to #14? Is it anything like that hole at Cinnabar that goes straight uphill with the flagstick that is like 12 feet tall so you can see it?

I always take note when Iron Byron Huckaby calls a course tight. I'm sure it would feel like trying to thread the eye of a needle to wayward me.

Last time I played #14, I hit a drive in the fairway, a 2-iron on the green, and two-putted for birdie. Seems fine to me.  

OK, more seriously though, I can see the problem with a hole like that. For a lot of players, the tee shot is very difficult to keep in play, followed by a narrow 250 yard uphill slog. For many people, not fun. The next 2 holes make good use of the hills I think, although they're not much wider.

Tom and everyone else, to what extent do you see each of these factors as problems with the course?: the routing; the features (bunkers, fairway cuts, etc.); and the land (in a way that simply couldn't be overcome).

By the way Tom, hit me up anytime you want to go check out Indian Valley. I've never been there. We'll stop at In-N-Out on the way back.