Name a golden era golf course that COULD NOT be built today.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Further to the thread asking which golden era course could not be built today, I would suggest:

In Canada, these are some of the major roadblocks to building golf courses.

1.  No golf features below the 100 year flood threshold.
2.  Setback of 30 metres from any river or stream.
3.  No cutting of hardwood forests.
4.  200 metre setback from any agricultural buildings.

Some examples would be: Banff, Jasper, Capilano, Highland Links, St. George, Thornhill, Ancaster (Hamilton) Mississaugua, etc.

[Joel_Stewart]

Cypress Point and Pebble Beach. 

The California Coastal Commission wouldn't even consider allowing those two courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dick,

I'd say pretty much every one, in the context of identical replication.

[Bill Seitz]

With the cost of real estate, could any of the L.A. clubs have been built today?  I used to play Hillcrest CC every once in a while, and I recall our host once telling us that about 20 years ago, a developer offered to buy the land.  In exchange, he'd build them a new club with two championship courses in the Sepulveda Basin, and in addition each member would receive about $100k back from the deal.  They turned it down.  I can't imagine any of those properties (Hillcrest, Riviera, L.A., Lakeside...) not being sold to developers if there weren't already clubs sitting on them.  

[Ronald Montesano]

Patrick hits the hammer with the nail: context.

Why is this important? Same goes for the other thread.

Imagine that we didn't have X number of Golden-Age courses? Wouldn't we have others in their place and use them as the baseline?

What if the sandhills had been used during the 0s, 10s, 20s of the last century instead? Would topsoil-base or farm-links be the new trendy thing?

Plastics, I mean Context.

[jim_lewis]

Fishers Island

[Tom_Doak]

With the cost of real estate, could any of the L.A. clubs have been built today?  I used to play Hillcrest CC every once in a while, and I recall our host once telling us that about 20 years ago, a developer offered to buy the land.  In exchange, he'd build them a new club with two championship courses in the Sepulveda Basin, and in addition each member would receive about $100k back from the deal.  They turned it down.  I can't imagine any of those properties (Hillcrest, Riviera, L.A., Lakeside...) not being sold to developers if there weren't already clubs sitting on them.  

Bill:

The cost argument is pointless.  Nobody builds a course close to a big city downtown once it's a big city; but in 75 years some of the courses that are being built out in the boonies now will be downtown and then they will seem cost-prohibitive, too.  Development is always on the fringes, but the fringe is always moving.

Also, 50 years ago you never would have thought of knocking down blocks and blocks of the city of Detroit to build a golf course, but that land wouldn't cost much now ... the only problem is it's hard to imagine that anyone who lives in the city could afford to play it regularly.

[Ronald Montesano]

Fishers Island? Paying attention to the number of courses being built by wealthy dudes on their own private islands?

Of course it could be built today...it will be built today!

[jim_lewis]

I suppose one could build Fishers Island today, if he had enough money to bribe a whole bunch of regulators and environmentalists.

[Philippe Binette]

Garden City,

I can already listen to somebody say: you can't leave this flat piece of land,  flat !!!

[Jim Nelson]

Lido

[Garland Bayley]

The original Lido.

[Jason Topp]

Any course that had wetlands drainage - which I suspect is a very large percentage.

Any course that is so tightly routed that it would raise liability concerns for the architect if it were built today.

It also would be tough to make the financial model work for a core golf course. 

[Mark Chaplin]

Tom you are spot on, from memory Royal Melbourne is on their third site and now is surrounded by housing and miles from the edge of town.