News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rankings and houses
« on: February 04, 2002, 07:31:57 PM »
A previous thread leads me to ask this question -

Fact:  Courses which debut on the ranking lists often fall
quickly.

Question:  Is it because they often are quickly surrounded
by houses?


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2002, 07:37:48 PM »
Examples:

Wynstone - debuts at #85 on the 1993 Golf Digest list.  Never
appears again.

Wild Dunes - debuts in 1987 at #37.  Falls steadily to #91 by
1995 and then no longer appears.

Barton Creek - Fazio Foothills debuts as the #60 course
on Golf Digest's list.  By 1995, it falls to #94.  By 1997 it no
longer is ranked.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2002, 10:36:26 PM »
Paul,
I don't think that is the case, at least not from my perspective. If a course is good, subsequent housing developments aren't going to keep me from coming back. I prefer no housing marring the landscape, but I think a lot of courses falling off the charts is due to a lack of quality architecture. Many of the "flame out" courses I think are due to the golf media hype. I have seen at least 4 articles touting Stone Tree out here in NorCal as a great example of good architecture in the past year. I have had feedback from at least 4 GCA guys that assure me the course isn't very good at all, certainly not in the same league as Barona Creek or Stevinson Ranch out here in Calif.

So I don't think housing has much to do with it. I think the reality of the architecture becomes apparent and the courses drop off the radar.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Dan Grossman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2002, 10:47:41 PM »
Ed,

I tend to agree with you.  There are many great courses that are housing developments, but are still ranked highly.  Muirfield Village and Long Cove, for example.  

Glad to hear that other people think that StoneTree is as bad as I did.  I almost got sick when I saw its profile in this month's Golf Digest.  The front nine is mundane and the back nine is on a site ill-suited for golf.  Combine that with $115 greens fees, and you have yet another public golf course in NoCal that isn't worth playing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2002, 03:41:14 AM »
ed and dan:

So if it's not the housing, then what is the reason for the
huge flame-outs?  

There must be SOME reason for Wild Dunes to fall from #37
to off the charts!?!? ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2002, 03:48:03 AM »
Paul,
I think most people don't think about the architecture as much as we do here, so for them I suppose its just a matter of moving on to the next "best course" perhaps.  :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

John_D._Bernhardt

Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2002, 05:44:22 AM »
Paul, I tend to agree with Ed and the others. However, if the housing is not set back with trees and minimally occupied, then the golf experience can suffer. Noting like power saws and fun loving children to take away from the tranquility of a round.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Daryl "Turboe" Boe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2002, 06:32:57 AM »
I would say it is a combination of many of the above mentioned reasons.

1.  There is nothing worse than playing a course when it first opens and every hole is beautifully framed by pine trees and native vegitation, then come back 3years later to find out evey hole (or nearly so) is lined by houses or condos especially  those that intrude too much on the corridors of play.  The examples mentioned above Muirfield and Long Cove had the forethought and financial ability not to force too many lots too close to the holes.

2. I am sure there is some of that "Flavor of the year" mentality that says they couldnt have possibly seen a better course than the new one that comes out.  Only next year to again make that claim.

3.  Conditioning changes.  Many of those courses open with a flourish of money, optimism, and maintainance  budgets.  I have not personally seen this but I understand Stonehouse, and Royal New Kent in VA went through some dramatic drop off in condition from when they first opened, and fell out of favor accordingly.

4.  Mother nature also has some input as I have numerous times heard the stories about how Wild Dunes is not the same as it was before Hurricane Hugo.  Again I have not personal experience to draw upon on that one, but I have heard it stated numerous times.

Probably a combination of many of those things produce the turnover that is seen over the years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Instagram: @thequestfor3000

"Time spent playing golf is not deducted from ones lifespan."

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2002, 10:26:27 AM »
Turboe:

Excellent points. thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2002, 07:38:09 AM »
Wild Dunes fell because of Hurrican Hugo's damage and the houses are UGLY. There is absolutely no question that the housing diminished the quality of the golf course. Murphy Creek in Colorado, one of GD's best new courses last year, is a great track, but I perish the thought of what it will look like when the adjacent housing is finished. One of the challenges developers who wish to include housing must face is how to incorporate the housing into the environment without adversely affecting the golf experience. Troon North was quite a bit better pre-housing, too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2002, 08:26:14 AM »
Wild Dunes fell because of Hurrican Hugo's damage and the houses are UGLY. There is absolutely no question that the housing diminished the quality of the golf course. Murphy Creek in Colorado, one of GD's best new courses last year, is a great track, but I perish the thought of what it will look like when the adjacent housing is finished. One of the challenges developers who wish to include housing must face is how to incorporate the housing into the environment without adversely affecting the golf experience. Troon North was quite a bit better pre-housing, too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Coral_Ridge

Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2002, 04:09:34 PM »
I have to say that housing developments can ruin or contribute to lossing appeal at very good golf courses.   A very good golf course that lost appeal with me because of housing was "The Sedona Golf Resort".  When I first played this Gary Panks course, I thought it was great.  A couple of years later with all the houses/condos I thought I didn't want to play it any more.  Some courses do well with housing, if the homes are set back away from the course.  For example, Atlanta CC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2002, 05:25:56 PM »
I think a lot of the initial appeal of Wild Dunes was that of Fazio making his initial, big, solo splash. Upon its completion, Fazio had more design offers on the table than he knew what to do with. Golf Digest even went so far as to call the 18th the  "greatest finishing hole east of Pebble Beach." I think the course's rankings demise has as much to do with him
subsequently building many courses that are the equal of
Wild Dunes, as the housing influx.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2002, 03:45:41 PM »
Interesting! I'll tell you a course that was actually planned with about ten times as many lots as it actually ended up with---Pine Valley!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2002, 05:06:40 PM »
TEPaul:

That tidbit raises an interesting question.

Part of the mystic and aura of Pine Valley is that it's a men's
club and another part is the privacy and seclusion of that
wonderful place.

In your opinion, would Pine Valley be #1 (or #2 to Golf Digest!)
if it were surrounded by a bunch of tract housing?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

TEPaul

Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2002, 08:42:50 PM »
Paul:

If Pine Valley was surrounded by tract houses would it be #1 or #2 to Golf Digest? I have no idea--as you probably know I have very little idea what appeals to Golf Digest in their ranking considerations and diliberations.

Would I think the aura of the place would be the same with tract houses around it? Of course not.

But if the course had tract houses around it that had no actual effect on the architecture of the course would my opinion of the quality of the course and its architecture change? No.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2002, 01:50:36 PM »
Come on Tom be honest.  Visual stimulation is a part of the architecture!  Golf architects go out of their way to ensure such sensations are incorporated into their designs.  Even C&C would agree with this and you know it.  

I just played The Dunes at Seville, a wonderful Hills design in Brooksville, Florida.  You would really enjoy the place as I did.  It's low profile with some great looking golf holes.  It's not over maintained and is just a fun place to play golf.  One of the holes is a really cool short par three of about 130-160 yards.  It is somewhat reminiscent of #10 at Pine Valley.  It has a huge blowout bunker (actually this was a bomb testing area and Hills incorporated many of these blasting areas into the design) on the right and is surrounded by trouble.  But sitting directly behind the green (about 75 yards back so it is not in play), is an elaborate rest area.  You know, one of those 20' by 20' concrete structures that you can go into if it rains or something.  So you've got this beautifully designed golf hole with just nature in all directions and then this obnoxious building behind it.  If Hills saw it he would throw up!  In my opinion the guy who put it there didn't know anything about "golf course architecture".  He surely didn't say, "this building will not impact the quality of the golf hole since it will be set back behind the green 75 yards so it has no impact on the architecture"!  

Trust me, architects are concerned about the visual surroundings and they "are" part of the architecture.  Sometimes like this building, they are just out of the architect's control!

Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2002, 02:15:20 PM »
Mark:

You and I have been over this subject about three times before and I know how you feel about this and by now you should know how I feel. We do not agree at all and there is absolutely no mystery as to why. You're not changing your mind and neither am I.

I realize that there is visual stimulation in architecture even beyond that which an architect controls. But when I talk about architecture I'm talking about that which the architect can control, that which he uses and makes for the actual architecture of the golf course itself and that on which golf is played, not framed by 75yds behind the golf course or golf hole on which golf is played.

It may be a shame to have a backdrop distroyed by something obnoxious but that's out of the hands and out of the control of the architect and his architecture--always was and always will be.

The tacky trailor park behind #14 Royal County Down may effect your analysis of that hole and it may effect a lot of other people's opinions too, but it's never going to effect my opinion of the actual architecture of the hole. And the same goes for Pine Valley if there were tacky houses all around it! It would be a shame but the actual golf course architecture would be unchanged.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rankings and houses
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2002, 02:22:53 PM »
Tom,
We agree (to some extent)  ;)  But if it doesn't affect "the golf architecture", at least tell me you think it affects "the golf course"  ???

How about this example, run the Atlantic City Expressway next to Pine Valley so you can't hear yourself think and tell me it doesn't downgrade, at least a little bit, "the golf course".  

Valencia in CA is a good example of a very good RT Jones Sr. course that has this problem!  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up