What separates a great “Housing Course” from a bad one?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian Andrew designed a very good one, on the flattest of sites. Terrific greens.
Peter

[Steve Sayre]

Agree that the primary differentiators are setback distances and density. Also like the suggestion that "tasteful" architecture sympathetic to the environs is an important consideration.


I think clear sight lines from approach shots (or tee shot on Par 3's) directly into somebody's house or backyard pool area are unfortunate. The financial interests of developers often trump this bit of aesthetic malpractice. Im sure those house lots are among the priciest.

[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-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.

Would Pebble Beach be considered a "housing" course?  I think it would be.  The pics I have seen follow the pattern I have outlined.  Harbortown 18th hole has been badly compromised by too big, too close and clutzy.

[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.

Would Pebble Beach be considered a "housing" course?  I think it would be.  The pics I have seen follow the pattern I have outlined.  Harbortown 18th hole has been badly compromised by too big, too close and clutzy.

I don't consider Pebble Beach a housing course?  But that's me. 

[Jeff Shelman]

To me, there are two key things:
- No holes (or maybe 1 or 2 max) that have houses on both sides of the hole. I can deal with one side, but not two.- Having a routing that is still walkable for average golfers. To me, that means maybe one or two long walks, but largely reasonable walks between greens and tees.

[James Brown]

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.

Would Pebble Beach be considered a "housing" course?  I think it would be.  The pics I have seen follow the pattern I have outlined.  Harbortown 18th hole has been badly compromised by too big, too close and clutzy.

I don't consider Pebble Beach a housing course?  But that's me.

Would it be fair to say that a “housing course” is one where the course and the housing were designed or at least planned at the same time as part of the same development plan?


This would be different from a course with housing around it, where the housing and course were developed on separate tracks.

[mike_beene]

Weren't 4 and 5 (5 and 4) added to Pinehurst 2 with some housing thought. Sure feels like it. 1,15,18 plus 13 and 14 on Pebble. To defend Pine Needles ,the last three or four holes have housing on both sides of the fairway.

[Pete Lavallee]

St. Enodoc [there's only one house but it's very nice]

Is that the one behind the 9th hole, accessed by the road in front of the 3rd green, with the cypress trees? You would need a motor boat to get to Padstow for supper.

[Lou_Duran]

Nature of the housing, width/set-backs, sight lines, scale, topography, drainage, flow of the routing, # of street crossings, etc. are factors which if the architect and contractors get them right can yield a very good residential course.  I am not sure that modern residential courses are disproportionately bad, though I don't doubt that many were built without consideration to the type of golf we like on this site.  I know of any number of unappealing courses which serve the purposes of their customers and are held in high regard.  Routings with housing which dictates cautious play = "bad one".   

[mike_malone]

 I believe that Odessa National is an outstanding example of a course in a housing development. The first hole has some unsightly houses but then the course winds nicely through the land. Number 8 has the line of homes at a diagonal forming the out of bounds. I find that well done.

[Tim Gavrich]

Isn't The Old Course partially a "housing course"? At any rate, the Road Hole is definitely a "housing hole," and perhaps the strongest example of the intrusion of real estate on any single notable golf hole. We celebrate it!

As has been suggested in previous posts, routing is usually the biggest loser at "housing courses." There are definitely courses where a real estate developer has clearly dictated pretty much the entire routing of the course, which really torpedoes a course's chances to be better than just okay.


I'm interested in courses where the presence of housing makes a positive contribution to the ambiance, rather than being just a nuisance.


- Mid Ocean Club: Is there any doubt that the integration of the course with the residential area in which it was built adds to the experience?
- Mountain Lake: Same thing here. ML is gated and self-contained in a way MOC is not, but there is a harmony between the course and the greater planned community (including the houses).
- St. George's Hill: Similar to Mid Ocean, looking at the houses as you're walking the fairways here is part of the fun.
- Windsor: RTJ Sr. course in Vero Beach that is the centerpiece of a New Urbanist community. Most of the housing is in a central area, with larger homes ringing the perimeter of the course. The West Indies-style architecture of the houses is really cool to look at, and the main part of the course feels like a big room to play golf in.
- Brays Island: Super low-density, with the houses on the course being set back farther than at any other course I've played.


Here in Florida, there are so many housing developments - with and without golf - that are just overwhelmingly cookie-cutter. The houses look the same, they're lined up close together and there's no vegetation to lend even a semblance of character. I get that there's an urge to maximize revenue, but damn, at what cost?

[Adam Lawrence]

Isn't The Old Course partially a "housing course"? At any rate, the Road Hole is definitely a "housing hole," and perhaps the strongest example of the intrusion of real estate on any single notable golf hole. We celebrate it!

I'm not sure what on earth you're talking about Tim. The Old Course was there before the hotel; indeed it was there before the railway yards that predated the hotel. It is an interesting question to ask why that corner of the links acquired its shape, but it had nothing to do with any buildings that are there now.

[Kalen Braley]

Adam,

I think Tim's question is a reasonable one.  To me its a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma of which one came first..and in terms of experience and impact...it doesn't really matter does it?  Sure maybe some of us might know the Hotel wasn't there from day one, but does that really affect how you evaluate whats currently there, especially for the masses who don't know?

I think about Wine Valley, a terrific course with a nice laid back, somewhat remote vibe/experience.  Even thou its been planned from day one to eventually ring that course with McMansions, for the time being it's no doubt a better experience without them. And if/when they put them in it will be changed forever...

[Mike_Young]

NO way Old Course is a housing course....simple explanation is a housing course is one where the golf is there for housing and not where the housing is there for golf..

[Kalen Braley]

NO way Old Course is a housing course....simple explanation is a housing course is one where the golf is there for housing and not where the housing is there for golf..

Mike Young,

That's all fine and good, but how then would you explain Pasatiempo, Pebble, or CPC, which doesn't really fit either of those descriptions?

[Mike_Young]

NO way Old Course is a housing course....simple explanation is a housing course is one where the golf is there for housing and not where the housing is there for golf..

Mike Young,


That's all fine and good, but how then would you explain Pasatiempo, which doesn't really fit either of those descriptions?

Kalen,Yes it does.  It was intentionally developed to have homes around it.  Olmstead did the land plan if I'm not mistaken and it was an excellent blend.  If they had chosen a routing that would bring more views into homes etc instead of allowing for good golf then it would have been different.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Its still a chicken and egg thing...

If I build a golf course on purpose to attract people to build/buy a house overlooking the course, how does that not fit the description of the "golf is there for housing".

And for all the people who currently live in those houses, I would guess most of them are there for the housing and its great location...not to play the course.  And I could probably infer same of Pebble, Riviera, etc.

Either way, I think its a difficult line to draw...

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Its still a chicken and egg thing...

If I build a golf course on purpose to attract people to build/buy a house overlooking the course, how does that not fit the description of the "golf is there for housing".

And for all the people who currently live in those houses, I would guess most of them are there for the housing and its great location...not to play the course.  And I could probably infer same of Pebble, Riviera, etc.

Either way, I think its a difficult line to draw...

Kalen,That's what I said.  A course built so that housing can be built on it is a housing course.  A course built for glf that happens to attract housing is not a housing course.     Think about it this way.  When we build a course for spraying treated wastewater then the spraying of the wastewater i first and foremost and the golf is secondary and has to give way to spraying when needed.  That's the same for housing. 

[Tim Gavrich]

NO way Old Course is a housing course....simple explanation is a housing course is one where the golf is there for housing and not where the housing is there for golf..

Mike--


I don't understand the point of narrowing the definition like that. Could you please explain why it's important? I ask because 90%+ of golfers who play a course are not at all interested in the distinction; they're just playing the course and noticing the houses around/nearby, and reacting (usually negatively).


Adam, I understand I'm probably stretching even the generous definition of "housing course" a little bit by roping in TOC, but while in this case the course predated the hotel, nevertheless it's currently the case that one must hit either over or around part of the hotel in order to play the course's most famous hole. I think that's a fact worth considering in juxtaposition with the popular preference to avoid playing golf shots in close proximity to non-golf buildings.


There are several other courses where one of the things that endears them to golfers is that they "play out of and back into town." If this proximity to residential development is indeed charming in some courses, it's worth contemplating why it's objectionable in other courses.


I have my suspicions, and I think they have to do with people's subjective (i.e. arbitrary) aesthetic preferences and the passage of time, and lack thereof.


Finally, on a long enough timeline (i.e. enough population growth, etc.), there's a future where there are almost no golf courses that are not "housing courses." We'll be long dead by then, but that sure will be an interesting confrontation between our beloved game and basic human habitation needs.

[Sean_A]

I spose a basic way to decide if a course is a housing course is if there wouldn't be a course without the houses.  That said, I can see Tim's point.  From the punters' PoV what is the difference? To them (and me to be honest), I don't care about the initial plan, what matters is the course.  It doesn't much matter to me if St Georges Hill and Yeamans Hall are technically housing courses where the designer was given latitude to design something worthwhile.  I guesswhy I don't care comes down to not judging archies too critically based on projects of which I know little.  Its the course which matters, the archie is very much secondary.

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Let's stipulate that the aesthetics and routing will inevitably suffer on a course that is part of a residential development.  I don't believe that all such courses therefore need to be relegated to the bin of mediocrity.  Assuming the hole corridors are sufficiently wide to accommodate my push-slice and double-crossed hook it all boils down to one thing for me:  It's the greens, stupid.

I bet this group could come up with a list of 100 prototypical green complexes that could be adapted to virtually any site and thereby create interest sufficient to deem a course "good."  A few examples off the top of my head:

Doak's 14th at Quail Crossing - a deep rectangular green sited just behind the crest of a modest slope that results in significant tilt downward toward the rear.  One might even scoop out a small depression across the fairway just short of the crest and use the dirt to slightly exaggerate the crest, creating a semi-blind approach.

Travis' 1st green at CC of Troy - brilliant in its slightly pushed up simplicity and surrounded by short cut.

The 4th at Spyglass - instead of sinking the green between two mounds of flowered grass, how about duplicating the footprint but push the green UP a few feet with fairway cut on all sides.

A green at fairway height rising uniformly to a high back - the 10th at Teugega and 5th at Cuscowilla come to mind.

In short, greens of various sizes, elevation and orientation. 

[Mike Hendren]

Come to think of it, I think I'll compile a laminated menu like they have a Waffle House that has photographs of a myriad of greens that could be adapted to any site.  The developer gets to pick and choose with prices commensurate with size and complexity!



Paging Mike Young.

[Tom_Doak]

Come to think of it, I think I'll compile a laminated menu like they have a Waffle House that has photographs of a myriad of greens that could be adapted to any site.  The developer gets to pick and choose with prices commensurate with size and complexity!

Paging Mike Young.

Nicklaus Design is rumored to have a menu of greens like that, but it didn't come at Waffle House prices.


The real problem though is you would freak out the Raynor fans if you had a menu with more than 25 items.

[Chad Anderson (Tennessee)]

I think this is a good question.  To be a good "housing course", which I wish there were less of them built these days, I think the key is to make sure the homes are out of play.  There is nothing worse than standing on a tee box and thinking if I slice this one, that house is getting pegged.  I have played some really good golf courses that have houses on them and you don't really notice them, and none are in play.


Here are a few:


The Virginian - Fazio - It has huge lots and monster houses, but none are in play and the homes are beautiful.


Tennessee National - Norman - The lots are built out, so maybe it changes over time but none of the homes are in play at this golf course and it isn't every hole.


Black Creek Club - Silva - The front 9 has lots of homes on it and the back 9 is open except for hole 18.  It is a great Raynor like design and tons of fun to play.  Even though it has homes, the design keeps your interest instead of the homes.


The Grove - Norman - The layout is in a neighborhood, but the holes that have homes aren't in play and it is minimal.  The front 9 there are homes are the right on 5 & 6.  The back 9 there are homes on 11, 17 & 18 but they don't draw your attention away from the course.


TPC Southwind - It is one of the harder courses on Tour with the most balls hit in to Penalty Areas and is in the middle of the FedEx Compound and a neighborhood.


That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

[Pete Lavallee]

Chad,


Great call on Black Creek, I had totally forgotten that it’s a Housing Course. Brian Silva did a very good job recreating the Raynor style there.