[Pete Lavallee]

A common lament on GCA is that modern “Housing Courses” are a poor place to golf your ball. Pasatiempo and Rancho Santa Fe are both great and “Housing Courses”. I’m trying to think of other examples; I hear St. George’s Hill should be considered. Shadow Ridge in Palms Springs is very good also. What makes them so different? We have many of them here in So. Cal. and I can’t think of any that I would play tomorrow, even if you comped me. Why have modern architects produced such poor products to sell houses?

[Cal Seifert]

It seems many of the good ones have great courses built before the houses are added.


Some of the bad ones just wind golf courses through the houses where ever seems to fit.

[Tom_Doak]

The simple answer to the title question is:  housing density.


Rock Creek had thousands of acres to work with, so we routed the golf holes over the natural terrain how we wanted, and then they sited some homes around it ... but the homes are set way back from the golf course, and not at even distances from the fairways.


On a course built for housing, the golf holes only get 300 feet or 400 feet of width, and then the houses take over.  So there won't be any "leftover" space, they start from one side of the property and measure out lots and fairways from there ... so the fairways fall at a certain dimension from the boundary, whether the terrain is suited to it or not.  On many, the grading is wall to wall, with house pads built up and golf holes sunken in.


The answer to Pete's last question is that modern architects are often stuck with whatever land the land planner gives them, without a shred of natural interest to incorporate into their designs.

[Mike_Young]

The worst of the housing courses are the ones built where the routing is developed for most of the water from the roads to come down the fairways.  Just not many good housing courses...

[Greg Smith]

I live in Hagerstown, MD and the (very nice) local country club is a beautiful "housing course".  This is Fountainhead CC, built in 1924 and designed by Ross.  I'm pretty sure Ross did visit the property to do the routing and plans, then the course was built to his plans after he was done -- which is somewhat better than a true "mailed in" course.

In aerials from the mid to late 1920s, right after the course went in, this area was north of the main built-up portion of the city.  However, about 30-40 percent of the houses were already in place -- chiefly on the northern and western perimeter of the course.  You could see how the holes had been laid out to allow some new avenues within the property, keeping future development in mind.  But the room provided was generous.

By World War II, aerials show most of the neighborhood was built out.

Today, the golf course retains its original routing.  And because Hagerstown has never really been a thriving city, the club had just enough money to nicely maintain -- but not enough to go around tearing things up and modernizing.  From what I can tell in the rounds I've played there, the small features look original and resemble what I see in photos of many Ross New England courses (there are numerous holes built in rocky areas just like the 8th at Charles River, for instance). 

What makes this a good  "housing course"?

1)  An excellent architect designed it with the houses in mind, but with golf as a priority (judging by Ross correspondence I have seen or heard of re: Fountainhead).

2)  The land was perfect for the design of the golf course, with good movement/features and decent pre-existing drainage in most parts of the property.

3)  The architecture of the HOUSES matches the Golden Age design of the golf course -- nice bungalows, stone ranchers, larger colonials, etc.   The design relationship between the building architecture and the landscape/golf architecture makes me think immediately of the 5-part Tom MacWood essay on Arts & Crafts influence on golf's Golden Age.

4)  Proper space was allowed for both houses and golf course to have some breathing room.  There are few if any places where one is in danger of driving into someone's back yard, much less their picture window.   Yet in most cases the occupants of the houses can see nice views.  These are fairly large lots, inasmuch as their setback from the fairways anyhow.

All of this prevents the Fountainhead development from seeming contrived -- from both a golfing and housing standpoint.  It's by far the nicest neighborhood in town without seeming transparently ostentatious the way a 1980s cooked up scheme on bad land with McMansions might be.

[mike_beene]

Housing couseses where one of the nines has some holes with housing on both sides is the original line I draw. Some good courses where this happens include Oak Tree, Shady Oaks, Pine Needles ,Pebble Beach, Muirfield Village, Bent Tree. Worst double side offender in Stonebriar north of Dallas

[Joe_Tucholski]

A common lament on GCA is that modern “Housing Courses” are a poor place to golf your ball. Pasatiempo and Rancho Santa Fe are both great and “Housing Courses”. I’m trying to think of other examples; I hear St. George’s Hill should be considered. Shadow Ridge in Palms Springs is very good also. What makes them so different? We have many of them here in So. Cal. and I can’t think of any that I would play tomorrow, even if you comped me. Why have modern architects produced such poor products to sell houses?

Pete what do you consider a housing course?  I wouldn't have considered Pasatiempo a housing course.  To me a housing course is one where there are houses lining both sides of fairways.


If you consider Pasatiempo a housing course there are a number of really good courses that have houses bordering (it does look like Bird Hill Ln is on the interior of Pasatiempo).  Pebble is the course that first comes to my mind with houses within the course.
Others with houses within the course:
Muirfield Village
Wade Hampton
Gozzer Ranch
Castle Pines
Monterey Peninsula CC
Sawgrass
Oak Tree National (from the aerial this is my definition of a housing course)
Boston Golf Club
The Quarry at La Quinta


Lots are bordered by houses.

[Thomas Dai]

There is also the modern technology aspect.
At a MacKenzie local to me the course was fine while persimmon and balata were still being used. Once metal, graphite and the modern ball came along however shots started going into gardens etc more often and the course had to be re-routed.
atb

[John Emerson]

I have played a couple really great “housing courses” that I really enjoyed, remembered holes, was interesting, had options, and most importantly-had fun.  This situation seems to bean anomaly in the grand scheme of housing courses though.  Played many more that I absolutely loathed but nevertheless there are some out there.  Just because there is houses doesn’t automatically mean crap golf course, but it definitely is a safe bet that it might not be very good.

[Pete Lavallee]

Joe,


I guess my definition of “Housing course” is a golf course built to help sell houses; it’s a given they will border the course in some fashion. Let’s face it, if we narrow our discussion to courses which have 18 holes bordered by houses closely on both sides our list of good ones will be very short!


I’m also interested in examples of the good to great ones. I never knew Pine Needles was a “Housing course”.

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom touches on it, but the most important factor in making a housing course a golfing success is a sympathetic land plan. Typically much of the work that would be considered 'routing' is done on a development course by a masterplanner before a golf architect is ever involved. It is very difficult for any golf architect to do anything with a land plan that has all the golf holes double loaded and separated by roadways.


The more the developer and land planner understand this and either decide of their own accord, or are able to be convinced to make a golf course as core as possible, and to congregate houses in little 'villages' rather than spreading them out in lines along golf holes, the better.


This is why Kyle Phillips, to name just one architect, has been saying to land planners for many years that they should choose and involve their golf architect as early in the process as possible, and certainly before the site masterplan is agreed.


We can have a good and productive debate about the financial implications of reducing 'golf course frontage' from houses, but it is, to me, unarguable that a golf course that is spread in such a linear way is going to be a lesser experience, and has less chance of attaining financial sustainability.

[Pete Lavallee]

Thanks Adam,


What are the top 5 Housing Courses in the UK? If I win the lottery, where should I buy a house a stones throw from a really good golf course?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

With a few exceptions, GD's Arizona Best in State for '17 & '18 is mostly " Residential " and #1 is a Top 100 course:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/arizona-best-in-state-rankings

[Kalen Braley]

And don't forget even Augusta National and Cypress point have houses on the course.


Seems to me there is one common thing among the good ones....having the housing well set back from play.

[Duncan Cheslett]

What are the top 5 Housing Courses in the UK?

I'm not sure there are five housing courses in the UK!


It is not really a phenomenon that has caught on here. We have plenty of courses which have subsequently had houses built up to the boundaries, but not ones where housing was an integral part of the original development.


I can only think of St Georges Hill.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played a course in Florida, that had the housing in one developed area and no houses on the course itself. It was styled after Charleston. The architect, I think RTJ Jr, had all the land he wanted. I thought it was a great idea. I seem to remember that the Senior TOUR played the Father/Son there at one time.

[Adam Lawrence]

What are the top 5 Housing Courses in the UK?

I'm not sure there are five housing courses in the UK!


It is not really a phenomenon that has caught on here. We have plenty of courses which have subsequently had houses built up to the boundaries, but not ones where housing was an integral part of the original development.


I can only think of St Georges Hill.

There are a few, they were mostly done quite a long time ago when planning permission for such developments was easier to get. Planning policy has tended to rule out developments on that scale in the last forty or fifty years.


Wentworth was obviously a housing development. So was Colt's Effingham. I can't remember many others off the top of my head but will check.

[Jeff Schley]

What are the top 5 Housing Courses in the UK?

I'm not sure there are five housing courses in the UK!


It is not really a phenomenon that has caught on here. We have plenty of courses which have subsequently had houses built up to the boundaries, but not ones where housing was an integral part of the original development.


I can only think of St Georges Hill.

How about North Berwick? 

[Jeff Schley]

And don't forget even Augusta National and Cypress point have houses on the course.


Seems to me there is one common thing among the good ones....having the housing well set back from play.

Correct.
Although they oversee the course, what about Riviera CC?  There are mansions on the hillside surrounding almost the entire course. LACC also as who could forget the Playboy Mansion?

[Adam Lawrence]

The fact that there are houses adjacent to a golf course does not mean that the course was part of a housing development

[Jeff Schley]

The fact that there are houses adjacent to a golf course does not mean that the course was part of a housing development

Similar to Pebble Beach in that you have houses on one side and water on the other. Certainly no master planning back in the early 1800's at West Links.

[Tom_Doak]

The fact that there are houses adjacent to a golf course does not mean that the course was part of a housing development

True, but the question below just asks where would be the best place to own a house?

What are the top 5 Housing Courses in the UK? If I win the lottery, where should I buy a house a stones throw from a really good golf course?

Our list from volume 1 of The Confidential Guide:


St. George's Hill
North Berwick
Royal Liverpool
St. Enodoc [there's only one house but it's very nice]
Royal Portrush (Dunluce) - any of the houses behind the tee at the 5th would do
Royal Dornoch
The Old Course
Elie
Dooks
Peebles

[Jeff Schley]

Our list from volume 1 of The Confidential Guide:


St. George's Hill
North Berwick
Royal Liverpool
St. Enodoc [there's only one house but it's very nice]
Royal Portrush (Dunluce) - any of the houses behind the tee at the 5th would do
Royal Dornoch
The Old Course
Elie
Dooks
Peebles

That's right.  Don't you have two sections for this?  One where, "if you don't have to pay for it."  The other "you have to pay for it" or something similar.  Basically cheaper housing vs. mansions?

[Carl Rogers]

The simple answer to the title question is:  housing density.
..........

The other issue is housing size.  Single story, clear buffer zone w/ fairly dense planting ... and non-clutzy housing.  Very rare.
The opposite of Riverfront.

[Mike_Young]

The simple answer to the title question is:  housing density.
..........

The other issue is housing size.  Single story, clear buffer zone w/ fairly dense planting ... and non-clutzly housing.  Very rare.
The opposite of Riverfront.

Carl, I respectfully disagree.  First there needs to be a clear defintion of "housing course".  I don't consider courses that are basically "core " courses to be housing courses.  I consider courses where the routings have been created to optimize lots, drainage issues and floodplain/wetland land at the expense of a good routing vs. lot count, to be housing courses.  There can be plenty of density and still be away from the golf course.  Actually you will find many develpments where the spraying og water on teh golf course takes precedents over the golf course itself. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()