Recent Info / re: Pelican Hill

[Matt_Ward]

Be curious to hear about comments from anyone who has played the 36-hole TF layout in Newport Coast, CA, recently.

The 1/17 article in Golfweek spoke about the mega investment into the facility and I wanted to know if the golf side has changed dramatically since my last visit there a few years back.

Thanks ...

p.s. I always liked the views and a few holes of note -- the closing ones on both courses are quite fun. But, I always believed it was more about the view being the clear first among equals item.

[Mike Benham]

Matt -

I can't answer your question but you did almost teach me something as I did not know that Newport Coast was a town/city in California ...

Nice demographics:

Population in July 2007: 2,801.
Males:     1,384     (49.4%)
Females: 1,417     (50.6%)
Cougars:             (Paging Lou Duran and Jon Spaulding)

Median resident age:  40.1 years

Median Household Income:  $ 205,083 vs. California median of $ 59,948

Median house value: $2,559,678 vs. California median of $ 532,300

[Damon Groves]

I have played both Pelican Courses before and after the "update". No real change in the courses other than some bunkers being removed and some added. You would have to be very familiar with the courses to notice the differences. The bunkers that were moved are now more strategically placed so at least Fazio seems to have admitted his courses had little strategic element to them. For example, the first hole on the North course is a par 5 that opens up to the left and is the safe play off the tee. However, the original bunker was far far left where it was not in play and made no sense being where the safe play option was. You were better off playing to the right which cut off distance on the whole but had no risk. Fazio has moved the bunker on the left to the right side of the fairway where it is now in play for those trying to cut off some yardage. That being said there are still plenty of areas where the bunkering and strategy makes no sense. Some holes have a safe play option but then you have an easier approach from the safe play option as opposed to trying to gain an advantage with the tougher tee shot. The strategic element just does not measure up.

Of the two courses I have always felt the North was more interesting with better views and much more fun to play. However, in the end both courses are typical Fazio and are of the framing school with little real strategy other than on a few holes.

Neither are worth the money but both are far better than Trump National in Rancho Palos Verdes. If you just have too play them, like I did,  your money is best spent at Pelican North.   

 

[Matt_Ward]

Clearly, Pelican Hill is trying to attract a very tiny segment of the golf market. When I saw the rates for rooms in the $700+ category I knew it would not attracting the folks who favor Best Western.

I always thought the two courses were great examples of postcard beauty but little in terms of design depth.

I was hoping that possibly Tom Fazio and his team would have changed that dimension. I still like the finishing holes on each course but I agree with Damon that the North overall is the better of the two.

I have to wonder if many residents of SoCal simply avoid playing there because of the rates and the reputation the place has had in the past?

[Dennis_Harwood]

Really no change at all--tweeked a couple of bunkers, but same layout (upon re-openning course did not feel it needed to be rerated by raters for course rating/slope)

Newport Coast is neither a town or a city--its simply an "area" within the City of Newport Beach.

[Lou_Duran]

When I was a rater a few years back PH offered me a preferred rate of around $175.  It was too far from my home base near Rustic Canyon so I passed.  I now live maybe 15 minutes away from PH and was recently given free coupons that would have gotten the rate down to about $200, but I have yet to take V-P Biden's admonition to be patriotic.  Santa Anita at $23 to walk is more style these days.  All the reports I've heard are consistent that they are good courses with beautiful vistas but grossly overpriced- a great place to take a valued client, specially if you have an employer who picks up the tab. 

As to the cougars of the OC, young Mr. Spaulding is the resident expert.  I understand that El Niguel CC has open season year-round.  For my safety while playing the course I did inquire about the possibility of coming across a reverse cougar, but probably for liability reasons, the pro shop would not advise.

[Ross Waldorf]

I love that the reduced rate was $200. I remember when paying $65 to play seemed totally nuts. I took my dad to play PH south back in the 90s -- I think it was about $135 or something back then -- and we had a great time. That was before I'd kind of changed my approach to architecture. Now I think back to that course (and actually I played it twice) and I can't really remember what half the holes were like. Other than the fact that you always seemed to be playing down the middle of a bowl.

Anyway -- that doesn't address Matt's question, and I can't offer anything there. But it's funny how that course (never played the north) does seem to be pretty much about views and a lavish vibe. I wonder if the general guest of the resort will walk away appreciating that, or if they'll kind of feel like something was missing. It's an interesting question to me. Fazio does seem to be really good at making things look gorgeous, though. And I mean that as a compliment. It's not my style but it's really fricken pretty, that for sure. I'm guessing that most golfers probably really love it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's a thread from last February.  Part way down the first page is a description of the course renovations.  No doubt the club/resort facilities are way over the top for most of us, but I liked the North course.  It's $135 at twilight - not outrageous in that neighborhood.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33424.0.html

[Matt_Ward]

What's so interesting and funny at the same time is how prices are deemed "reasonable" when you throw the Orange County equation into the mix.

No doubt some folks who live in and around the area may see $135 as a "good rate" but then when you factor what the course provides -- at least from the time I was there last -- I am struck by the fact that all the $$ that's been invested is more about schmooozing the customers with hugs and kisses through top scale service and the like.

It's amazing what a good view can rake in from people.

[Bryan Izatt]

Matt,

I'm not from the area.  There's a difference between "reasonable" and "not outrageous".  The courses in my limited experience south of LA to San Diego are relatively expensive (certainly compared to publics like Rustic north of LA).  But $135 would be within the norm for a high end CCFAD's in my hometown, as I'm sure it is in the NY area, or in much of south Florida or Phoenix in season.  So, I'm not sure it's an OC effect.  Are any courses priced based on course architecture?

[Matt_Ward]

Bryan:

$135 is a bit much given the fact that there's nothing "new" on the design front. If one were to play Barona Creek and Pelican Hill the former might not fare well for the non-design focused golfer who wants plenty of pats on the butt when being serviced and the like plus throw in the views.

The design dimension at Pelican Hill could certainly have been adjusted to provide a bit more on architectural side -- no doubt when you have a Pacific Ocean panorama it's E-Z for people to be taken in by the surface elements and not fret over anything more deeper than that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Matt,

Barona runs $120 -$160 so it's not exactly economical either.  And, to be clear, since you don't seem to get it, I hate the "service" at clubs like Pelican Hill; it is to be endured rather than wanted or enjoyed.  As to whether the "design dimension" at PH could have been adjusted to provide more on the architectural side, perhaps you should go back and do an on-the-ground assessment.  If, after that, you still feel that Barona provides more from an architectural view than PH, or that PH is just lacking, that's cool.  I wouldn't argue that with you.

[Matt_Ward]

Bryan:

To be clear OK -- I did get what you mentioned. Thanks though for the needless reminder.

I won't be making another trip to Pelican Hill -- that was the point of this thread given the exposure provided by the recent Golfweek article. The focus of that story was on the re-positioning of the facility from a general service component than a golf-centered enclave of special note.

I played the course and from what others have said it appears that only cosmetic "lipstick" has been applied.

In regards to Barona -- thanks for the price update. No doubt the original bargain fees have long since disappeared from that fine layout.

My point was it's shame that given all the time and $$ spent in creating a golf option on Newport Coast -- that the end result is a eye-candy design that could / should have been so much better. A pity.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt.....I don't get it

A course thats very pricey and overvalued.  Check
A course that lacks substance and depth.  Check
A course which is just mostly eye candy and beauty only skin deep.  Check
A course where one should be seen over actually playing.  Check
A course with views to solicit lots of visual ooohhs and ahhhs.  Check.
A course that fits in the dumb blonde category?  Check

Sounds like it fits in perfectly with its locale and citizenry....where's the problem?  

Apologies in advance to any residents of the general vicinity!

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

It's sad because the SoCal area did benefit from the involvement of past design pros like George Thomas and the like many years ago. It's a shame for all the effort that Irvine Trust put into the battle against the California Coastal Commission to get Pelican Hill up and running that the end result would be what's there.

It's not a dog track -- it's just that with such a spectacular vista it could have been even more special and noteworthy.

Good land and many $$ have been wasted for a so-so outcome.

That's a pity.

[Pat Burke]

I've played PH twice since reopening, and paid full price both times (long story)
Having experienced full pop for a rare time, I can only say that for their price, I expect MUCH better conditions, no matter the course quality.
There is also a level of arrogance about the staff, that playing as a "public" golfer made me pretty miserable.
PH is a resort experience and not really a golf experience

[Ross Waldorf]

That must make you crazy, Pat. You'd think that for that kind of money you could at least figure to have a pleasant time. And of course, I'd expect really top notch conditioning. I totally agree with Matt that the place is certainly no dog track -- it's a perfectly pleasant golf course. Obviously not the kind of architecture that most on this site would really prefer.

But this thread's really got me thinking about this "resort" mentality. Clearly the new Pelican Hill resort is chasing some high-end clientele. But even for those people -- and even if they aren't looking for Riviera number 10 when they step on the tee -- do attractive vistas and a few canyon carries for drama add up to a worthwhile experience at, what is it -- $275 or something? Does that leave the general resort-goer feeling like they got their money's worth when they walk off the eighteenth green?

[Matt_Ward]

Ross, et al:

Resort golf unfortunately has to wear many hats and candidly the need to appeal to all "deep pocket" people who venture to such places can be maddening for the core player who wants to experience a stellar design bolstered by playing conditions that compliment one's time there.

Ross, I remember playing Whistling Straits a few years back and amazed me how thoroughly unprepared a good number of people were in attempting (and I use that word loosely) to handle such a demanding and physical layout. No doubt the folks there had the $$ and the staff handled them accordingly. But, the experience was a real CRRRRRRAWL -- six hour golf and I was hoping that at each tee they would have had a different Sunday section of the NY Times because you needed to read something as the play just crawled along.

For many of these people the "experience" was in being there -- the golf element and what they could on the course itself -- was just a side light. In sum, people had play a "touring" fee to wander around the grounds.

For many of these people the "golf" side is merely an appendage to other elements encountered -- the spa, locker room, customer service, qualty of the room, etc, etc. Because of its location in Newport Coast -- the opportunity to "justify" such a fee is easily explained because of the location and because of the close proximity of the Pacific Ocean.

Frankly, Golfweek didn't help me out in wanting to return to such a facility because the focus of the article was on most items with little mention to the golf. Golf is present there -- but for those who are true lovers of the game the overall "experience" will be likely similar to what I felt in my two previous visits a few years back -- just shaking my head and wondering how such land could not have really been something more than what you see there now.

That's the reason for my "pity" statement.

[Ross Waldorf]

It's an interesting balance. Bandon is an ideal golf experience for me (and many others on this site, obviously). But I can imagine many people I've played with (who would look at a picture of Pacific Dunes and say "wow! fantastic!") out there trying to hit  a shot off the (very) firm fescue with a 30 mph wind in their face with the temperature at 53 degrees. A whole bunch of them might want to be magically transported somewhere so they can hit a high 7 iron over a pond with a bunch of pretty rocks. I can understand that everybody doesn't crave the experience of trying to hit a knock-down three wood 160 yards! Luckily, there's a nice place for them to go in Orange County. Hey, I'd be happy to do it too, for about $75.

[Damon Groves]

Kalen:

It's sad because the SoCal area did benefit from the involvement of past design pros like George Thomas and the like many years ago. It's a shame for all the effort that Irvine Trust put into the battle against the California Coastal Commission to get Pelican Hill up and running that the end result would be what's there.

It's not a dog track -- it's just that with such a spectacular vista it could have been even more special and noteworthy.

Good land and many $$ have been wasted for a so-so outcome.

That's a pity.

I grew up in the Pasadena area in Arcadia but spent, and still do, a lot of time in Newport Beach. Those familiar with the area know the Irvine Co as the "Evil Empire". They only do what is best for them so not surprising what they came up with at Pelican Hill. Plus sadly they are catering to the majority of the people in the area and for most they like the experience of a "country club for the day" and a pretty golf course. They wouldn't dare be seen with me at Santa Anita (my local muni that costs $23).

[Richard Choi]

Matt.....I don't get it

A course thats very pricey and overvalued.  Check
A course that lacks substance and depth.  Check
A course which is just mostly eye candy and beauty only skin deep.  Check
A course where one should be seen over actually playing.  Check
A course with views to solicit lots of visual ooohhs and ahhhs.  Check.
A course that fits in the dumb blonde category?  Check

Sounds like it fits in perfectly with its locale and citizenry....where's the problem?  

Sounds like a roll in the hay with Paris Hilton.

I think many people would pay for that too...

[Carl Nichols]

While I agree with the overall sentiment about Pelican, Iīd still go there 10 times out of 10 over Monarch Beach -- similar clientele/pool and bar eye candy, etc., but better golf.  Not that thatīs saying much.......

[Damon Groves]

While I agree with the overall sentiment about Pelican, Iīd still go there 10 times out of 10 over Monarch Beach -- similar clientele/pool and bar eye candy, etc., but better golf.  Not that thatīs saying much.......

I agree completely. Monarch Beach is simply a waste of money. Barely a memorable hole and no real strategic elements.

[Jon Spaulding]

Monarch certainly stinks, but I don't know of a better hole that Monarch #7 in the 36 holes at Pelican. It's also a lot cheaper that the moment.....and you don't have to deal with Newport people. Hey, who says a Doak 2 can't be fabulous!

To answer original questions......

Mike, there are many, many cougars. But, when you hang out with golf nerds......well, Lou and I have had zero success. I do hear that San Mateo has an up and coming population......

Matt, the golf side is not materially different. All they did is returf with Bermuda, resolve some drainage issues, add a few meaningless bunkers, change the color of the sand, and make the green fee the same 7 days a week. Oh, and the old driving range is now the clubhouse with the old clubhouse now some place reserved for weddings/events that ain't going to happen at the moment.

Having said that, it's a bit different/more adventurous than other local golf and I generally have a good time up there 1-2x per year.