How does housing affect your opinion of a course?

[Jason Way]

I fancy myself an anti-housing snob when it comes to my assessment of golf courses, and my personal ranking of those courses.  I typically don't like seeing houses, and I really don't like playing through housing developments.  With the exception of places like Crystal Downs, Old Elm and Essex County, where older houses are visible around the perimeter of the property, almost all of my favorite courses are house-free.


That being said, I had the pleasure of playing Colorado Golf Club this week (thanks B.D.) and I loved it.  Upon being asked to rank it among my C&C faves, I had it higher than Bandon Trails and Old Sandwich.  After reading the Nicklaus housing thread, it occurs to me that there were plenty of modern houses in sight around the course, and so now I feel like a sell-out to my own snobbish principles.


So I ask you, how does housing factor into your assessment of a course?  Examples of how you apply or don't apply the "housing standard" to your faves lists are invited.  Perhaps reading your responses will help me sort through this completely trivial internal turmoil.

[Eric Smith]

I'm sure there is a course or two out there that I haven't enjoyed as much as I could've due to housing but my first favorite course was Pinehurst #2, and there are houses on it. In the 90's my favorite course was The Ocean Course at Kiawah and there are houses on it as well. Today my favorite is the Old Course at St. Andrews, so I would say that housing hasn't played much of a role in negatively impacting my appreciation of a golf course.

[K Rafkin]

Id prefer there to be no housing on the course that I'm playing for all the obvious reasons.


That being said having housing on a course doesn't necessarily make it a bad course.  Deciding that a course is not worthy based solely on the fact that there are houses on the property is fairly narrow minded.  Its an easy opinion to have (especially here), but i find that its overused as a blanket criticism by those who aren't actually looking for any arcitectual merits.  If you can see a house from the tee box how exactly does that ruin the strategy of the hole?  Are the best holes in golf no longer great if someone builds a house next to it?  If you can't recognize a good golf hole when it has a house on it, you're fooling yourself if you think you can recognize a good one that sits next to the ocean. 


Part of the reason that so many housing development courses are terrible isn't just because they have houses on them, but rather the fact that the course was built on unfavorable golf land.  The perfect site to build a housing development does not align with the perfect site to build a golf course.


Housing development courses are often bad because
-They were built on an unfavorable site
-They weave across streets and though neighborhoods, which makes many virtually un-walkable
-Many were built during the "dark ages" when length, difficulty, and stupid hazards were in style


While i still feel houses lessen the "feel" of the course i find i dislike courses with housing for more than the obvious reasons.

[Tom_Doak]

I am amazed by the number of people who discount the quality of a course significantly if it has even a handful of houses around it.


I can understand a deduction in scores if the course is lined with repetitive patio homes [a la PGA West], or if there are lots of road crossings and green-to-tee gaps because of the housing. 



It seems to be only modern courses that are discounted, too.  Pebble Beach has lots of houses around it, and they don't cost it a thing.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The proximity of houses to the playing corridors of the holes is the most critical.


If a course is lined with houses on both sides of each hole but do not encroach on normal play I would have little issue. This can be accomplished by either setting the home well back from the fairway or separating the home from the fairway by a line of trees. Harbour Town is a course that comes to mind that is lined with houses but rarely seem to be in the way.


On courses where houses are found hugging the extremities of the course, they rarely intrude on play as there is always playable space on the opposite side of the hole.


Pebble beach seems to exist within all 3 scenarios, as many of the homes are set further back off the course and many holes are only bordered by homes on one side.

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm with TD on this one, but not necessarily because I'm a BB.


I played Lake Shore CC in Erie, PA last week. From the overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lake+Shore+Country+Club/@42.080553,-80.218523,814m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x883279119f4d972f:0x7c2c812a2e6bc559!6m1!1e1)


I imagined it would feel claustrophobic. Nope. Flat piece of land upon which Bendelow worked wonders. I also liked Wachesaw Plantation East in Myrtle Beach, which has lots of houses around its fairways.


Housing and waterfront are conditions, not causes.

[Chris DeToro]

Interesting point about modern courses being discounted more for having housing.  Maybe it's because we feel the intent of the course is more for housing and less for golf.
I don't have a problem with houses on the course as long as they don't impede playability.  Pinnacle CC in Arkansas was one housing development course throughout which the homes influenced play such as the par 5 2nd, a hole that would be easily reachable if not for the fact that you had to hit over a home

[Jeff Shelman]

I don't mind houses on the perimeter.


My issue is when you have houses on every hole or houses on both sides.


Is it great when there are no houses on a course? It certainly helps the 'getting away from the world' part of the experience, but there are many, many great courses that have some houses on them.

[Jason Way]

Thoughtful and helpful answers folks, as always - thanks.  Reading Tom's post reminded me of my recent trip to Pasatiempo.  Houses everywhere, but the course and the community felt like they existed in harmony, and therefore, it didn't bother me a bit.  Same thing is true at Skokie CC here.

[Ryan Coles]

Depends on the housing.

Does it detract from say Isleworth, St George's Hill, Wentworth and Quinta do Lago?

I'd say not.

[Sean_A]

Housing doesn't effect my opinion of a course unless it effects the course. 


Ciao

[Jason Way]

Housing doesn't effect my opinion of a course unless it effects the course. 


Ciao

Perhaps this is what I am trying to tease out within myself as my tastes get a little more developed.  For you Sean, define "affects the course". 

[Andrew Buck]

Houses on the outside of a course that are done well rarely bother me.  Pinehurst #2 is a good example.  Anytime there is housing on both sides of a hole, it severely discounts the experience for me, even if it shouldn't.  For example, the ugly condo's around the outside of PGA West (stadium) don't bother me as much as holes 15 - 17 at Pine Needles going through houses on both sides.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jason,

Actually, Crystal Downs is seriously flawed.

If you stand on the 17th green and look back towards the fairway and then turn 45 degrees to the left, you will see what I mean. 

The house you see should either be torn down or shrubbery should be added to avoid ruining a golfer's day.

Mind you, I am not an anti house snob - just an objective observer of the harm that houses on a golf course can do.

[Sean_A]

Housing doesn't effect my opinion of a course unless it effects the course. 


Ciao

Perhaps this is what I am trying to tease out within myself as my tastes get a little more developed.  For you Sean, define "affects the course".

The main issues with housing causing grief are loads of OOB and long walks between greens and tees.  If they aren't an issue than housing isn't a bother for me.  Sure, its lovely to have open space around courses, but if a membership is savvy it will find ways to accentuate what is nice about the property.  A golf course in a city can have its own charms which make it attractive.


Ciao   

[Carl Rogers]

..... It seems to be only modern courses that are discounted, too.  Pebble Beach has lots of houses around it, and they don't cost it a thing.

From the pics of PB that I have seen through the years, the residences are single story, away from the course edge, understated in design and have some landscaping buffer.
Tom, as you know Riverfront is the poster child for golf course housing.  A long time ago, I learned to ignore them.  The houses are to close to the course, too big and too all over the place stylistically all over the place and IMO, they are UGLY.  Riverfront is the standard I use to evaluate other courses.


I do wish others on the site would make the trip to Suffolk.

[jeffwarne]

Id prefer there to be no housing on the course that I'm playing for all the obvious reasons.


That being said having housing on a course doesn't necessarily make it a bad course.
 If you can't recognize a good golf hole when it has a house on it, you're fooling yourself if you think you can recognize a good one that sits next to the ocean. 

Housing development courses are often bad because
-They were built on an unfavorable site
-They weave across streets and though neighborhoods, which makes many virtually un-walkable
-Many were built during the "dark ages" when length, difficulty, and stupid hazards were in style

some truth there


I'd say the homes on North Berwick enhance it, same as St George's Hill or Maidstone.


When the best land is used for the golf I'd say they have the chance to enhance, especially if they are well removed from play and on only one side of the play

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, Crystal Downs is seriously flawed.

If you stand on the 17th green and look back towards the fairway and then turn 45 degrees to the left, you will see what I mean. 

The house you see should either be torn down or shrubbery should be added to avoid ruining a golfer's day.

Tim:


It's been a while since you visited.


The concrete block house on #17 was torn down three years ago.  In its place, someone is building a new house that it is at least 5 times as big as the old one.  They've been at it two full years now and it's still not finished.  It looks like it will be a beautiful house, though completely out of keeping with Crystal Downs.  Fortunately, when you stand on #17 green, there are better reasons to look the other way and keep it to your back.

[JStewart]

I am amazed by the number of people who discount the quality of a course significantly if it has even a handful of houses around it.


I can understand a deduction in scores if the course is lined with repetitive patio homes [a la PGA West], or if there are lots of road crossings and green-to-tee gaps because of the housing. 



It seems to be only modern courses that are discounted, too.  Pebble Beach has lots of houses around it, and they don't cost it a thing.

This is how I feel, more or less. What I don't like is the stereotypical Florida course that is lined by condos/homes and any shot more than 25 yards off the fairway is clanging off someone's roof.


I'd say there are even rare instances where a housing development can improve a course. There is a community in Naples called Mediterra with two nice Fazio layouts that have a bunch of huge, cool-looking mansions all around that improve the ambience of the experience.

[John Cowden]

Consider Pacific Grove Muni.  Lots of houses surrounding the front nine, which many would prefer to skip, but almost no houses on the back side, from which the "poor man's Pebble Beach" is coined. 

[Wade Whitehead]

Housing has absolutely destroyed the experience at Royal New Kent.

WW

[Chris DeNigris]

Housing has absolutely destroyed the experience at Royal New Kent.

WW

The back nine at RNK is the epitome of the wrong kind of housing and how it can completely change the golf course.  Thankfully the magnificent front nine is unscathed.

Sadly, Ballyhack has fallen victim to this same type of mass building explosion- the house on the opening hole has completely altered the experience for me 

[Carl Rogers]

Housing has absolutely destroyed the experience at Royal New Kent.
WW

Housing / banking / lending crisis has forestalled the development portion of many development golf courses.

Agreed Wade & Chris, the RNK super funky back nine routing is even more noticeable by the housing.  At some point, the RNK front nine will be ringed with homes.  RNK has struck me as a course that was intended as $200 a round golf, but management could never pull it off.  Wildly over built clubhouse.

On the 22nd, I will be at Ballyhack and will  observe the house on the first.  I thought the plan, at Ballyhack, was to ring the entire first and second hole with lots for sale.  I am sure there would no size, landscape buffer or scale restrictions .... ah ah the good old days!

[Josh Tarble]

I can understand a deduction in scores if the course is lined with repetitive patio homes [a la PGA West], or if there are lots of road crossings and green-to-tee gaps because of the housing. 

This is how I feel about houses on the course.  I, like Jason, just played Pasatiempo.  No one could ever say it's the housing isn't all over the course, but somehow feels like it adds to the experience.  Same with Harbor Town.  The courses still feel cohesive and tight.


However, a course like Sagamore in Indianapolis, it really detracts from the experience because of extensive green to tee walks and tight OOB on the sides of holes. 

[MCirba]

I'm a hypocrite when it comes to housing.

Take for instance Brigantine GC, which was built by Stiles and Van Kleek as one of the first "planned communities" in a resort town in the country back in 1927.   Every hole has low-profile housing, sometimes along both sides, but well set back from the lines of play.  To me, these cottages add to the aura of the place, and help give it a sense of place.   In fact, I think they ADD to the golf course experience and I couldn't imagine the course without them.

On the other hand, I find myself rushing to agree with Wade Whitehead who mentions the housing built on Royal New Kent along some of the holes.   I find it jarring, out of place, distracting, and ruinous of the golf course experience.   Why is that?   I'm not sure I know exactly, but I think part of it might be related to the architecture of the housing being incongruous to the architecture of the golf course.

Does that make any sense?   Is it consistent?   I'm not sure, but I feel just as strongly about both statements.