This is the great thing about GolfClubAtlas.com, and I've said it ever since I discovered this site in 2000, that it allows us architect-types to really get into the heads of those who play (and review) our courses. Like a chef who is looking to sharpen his menu, I think much can be gleaned from understanding what others see and incorporating those ideas into future works, or dishes, both being at the mercy of the reviewer. However, there are a few tidbits here that beg for clarification and I am more than happy to fulfill that role. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would be curious about some of these things myself.
I don't know where the John Harbottle connection came from, maybe because he has indeed done multiple co-designs with Johnny Miller, but not here. And as much as I respect the esteemed Dr. Klein and his well-deserved role in the game as a historian, writer and gadfly, his opinion of the heaving ground undulations is, in my view, not exactly accurate. Yes, there is movement but much of that derives from this being a substandard site (not a cop-out but a fact) which meant that on at least a couple of the holes it was necessary to manufacture some plateaus to at least help the ball come to rest at some point. Also, when one is actually standing in the midst of this heaving Parton-esque landscape, I don't feel that these forms feel overdone in general, but I will admit that there are a few places where things could have been softer.
As for the par 5 8th hole, it is a rotten and completely despicable excuse of a golf hole, one needing the swift attention of a cruise missile or, at the very least, a cadre of D-8 dozers. If it feels shoehorned that is because it absolutely was. The suggestion this could have been alleviated by pushing the tee back 75 yards seems plausible, except for the fact that if that were done, the 9th green located just to the right of the current tee would be in great danger. Simply put, this should have been a par 4 hole but this owner, not being golf savvy, could not have a par 71, simply wouldn't consider it. Also, to lose yardage was not an option to this individual either so we did what we could. And what you see to the left of the green is not a cart path curb but the top of a stone embankment that was artificially built up to support the green. The cart path is about 12' below that "curb". Due to oak tree and wetland regulations, the green couldn't be moved to the left either, thus the disaster that is this hole.
As for the discussion of the lakes and their "Robinsonesque" appearance, the reality is that any golf course in semi-desert San Diego County must be irrigated and this was the logical place to put the irrigation lake. It's just that simple.
If it were to be done over again, yes, in hindsight I would push to do many things differently design-wise. We certainly had many minds to tap into when one considers that the following comprised the design team and some or all were at multiple site visits: Robert Muir Graves/Damian Pascuzzo/yours truly; Johnny Miller/Fred Bliss; The Owner/his golf development specialist, and then at the end, the brain trust from Troon. So, with 6 or so involved in decision-making things can lose focus. This is not a recipe for outstanding results I would be the very first to admit.
Also, with this being such a high-budget project there certainly could be the budget available to maintain the beautiful and rugged bunkers so in vogue now. I would love to see what one of our photo-shop experts out there can do with one of these images by superimposing a Doak/Hanse/Coore bunkering scheme over the cape and bay style bunkers that were built.
Perhaps someday the course can be rethought by mellowing out a few of the sharper contours, creating a more naturalistic bunkering scheme and really rethinking the 8th hole. But, to me, the important thing is to know that folks out there are thinking about and talking about Maderas which means that it is worthy, on some level, of these discussions.