So, is this clustering of par 3's to help navigate more severe parts of a property something I should have noticed years ago?!
Or is it just one way of handling such terrain?
Anyone wish to guess the architect of the three courses for the diagrams above?
Well I recognized Philmont North, so I wouldn't be guessing as to the architect. Is the top one Sylvania?
I think there are a few reasons you might see this:
1) If it's important to the architect to have his par-3's going different directions, this is an easy way to go about it.
2) If there are big elevation changes to take on, up or down.
3) If there is a forced carry over a barranca or a stream, and the architect prefers to have people hitting over such a hazard from the tee, where he can control the difficulty of their approach, rather than on the second shot of a longer hole. [It is also the safest way to use a single bridge for two holes, across and back.]
4) If there is a very narrow corner of the property, and par-3 holes are the better solution to ensure a wayward drive doesn't injure someone on the neighboring hole. [Ex: Philadelphia Cricket Club]
While others were thinking about it, I checked on Google Earth to see how common this was, and thought through some of my own work.
Pacific Dunes has the three short holes [5, 10, 11] clustered together, but that's partly because Bandon Dunes crowded that corner from the other side. Rock Creek has parallel par-3's at 12 and 13, due to a last-minute routing change. But most of my courses don't really have the short holes together.
Likewise, a quick look at Shinnecock, National, Sebonack, and Maidstone [W Park Jr] did not reveal any instances of similar clustering. So, it's natural for it to happen sometimes, but it's far from a sure thing.