Modern course design. Do they really expect us to walk these things?

[nevets88]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Haha, I've probably played only 0.01% of all of the courses out there, and I'd be pretty confident in still saying that you are correct on this one.  To those who've never been there, below is a picture of a portion of the course where you can see how long the treks are from hole to hole.  But pay particular attention to the 11th and 12th holes.  I've never seen anything like that before.

 

Making a note to myself - Do not leave anything behind on the 11th hole if you ever play The Crossings in Carlsbad.

[Golfingdad]

54 minutes ago, billchao said:

Most of the courses I've seen that aren't friendly to walking don't allow you to walk at all. They just give you the cart and the cost is built into the greens fees.

That being said, I don't like most courses where I can't walk and I hate courses that have OB everywhere because they are lined with houses.

Same here. I generally prefer the courses that are one piece of land, but unfortunately, it seems around here, too many of the newer courses aren't like that.

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Haha, I've probably played only 0.01% of all of the courses out there, and I'd be pretty confident in still saying that you are correct on this one.  To those who've never been there, below is a picture of a portion of the course where you can see how long the treks are from hole to hole.  But pay particular attention to the 11th and 12th holes.  I've never seen anything like that before.

 

The absolute worst I've seen is Harbor Shores in Benton Harbor, MI. Looking at it from above, it's hard to believe a functional course could be made out of such an incongruous set of holes.

Even worse, this course has a contract to host the Senior PGA Championship on even-numbered years, meaning that the old guys and their thousands of fans are expected to walk their way around this place! And don't get me started on the ethical nightmare that allowed a golf course to be patched through the middle of a distressed Rust Belt town in the first place.

And for a real-life aerial view...

 

[ppine]

It seems like a terrible loss to design a golf course that can't really be walked.  Maybe it is to discourage walking to speed up the game with carts, but probably it is just bad design.

[Buckeyebowman]

4 hours ago, ppine said:

It seems like a terrible loss to design a golf course that can't really be walked.  Maybe it is to discourage walking to speed up the game with carts, but probably it is just bad design.

Some very good points above. However, being carts only is no guarantee of fast play. I've played behind groups of cart riding golfers where the carts zipping back and forth across the fairway looked like a demolition derby! My friends and I would stand on the tee, taking it all in, wondering what in Hell they were doing out there!

And, yes, even if they don't seem to be charging you a cart fee, they are! This thinking reminds me of apartment dwellers who think they don't pay property taxes. Of course you do, it's just built into your rent.

And it's not just bad design. As I said, I love the track at Firestone Farms, just not to walk it. The nine I originally played has no housing on it, but has plenty of natural areas hat the holes are routed around.  I've seen deer, turkey, pheasant, fox and ducks there, and that's not all bad. It's the other nine that runs through all the housing.

I've played both Rose's Run and Boulder Creek in Ohio. Rose's is kind of similar to Firestone Farms in that part of the course runs through a housing development, but some holes are delightfully removed from civilization. Boulder Creek has no housing near it, at least the last time I played it. The holes are routed to take advantage of the land, but there are some distances involved.

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Some very good points above. However, being carts only is no guarantee of fast play. I've played behind groups of cart riding golfers where the carts zipping back and forth across the fairway looked like a demolition derby! My friends and I would stand on the tee, taking it all in, wondering what in Hell they were doing out there!

And, yes, even if they don't seem to be charging you a cart fee, they are! This thinking reminds me of apartment dwellers who think they don't pay property taxes. Of course you do, it's just built into your rent.

And it's not just bad design. As I said, I love the track at Firestone Farms, just not to walk it. The nine I originally played has no housing on it, but has plenty of natural areas hat the holes are routed around.  I've seen deer, turkey, pheasant, fox and ducks there, and that's not all bad. It's the other nine that runs through all the housing.

I've played both Rose's Run and Boulder Creek in Ohio. Rose's is kind of similar to Firestone Farms in that part of the course runs through a housing development, but some holes are delightfully removed from civilization. Boulder Creek has no housing near it, at least the last time I played it. The holes are routed to take advantage of the land, but there are some distances involved.

I agree with almost all of this.  Carts only speed up play when the eliminate long treks between holes.  Otherwise, slow players will be slow, in carts or on foot.  And obviously you're paying for the cart if you're using one, its built into the price.  That doesn't mean I'll take the cart, even if I'm paying for it.  If the course is laid out well, and they'll let me walk, I'm walking.  A particular favorite of mine is Mid Pines, an old Donald Ross course near Pinehurst.  Its a treat to walk, but no discount.

The bit I disagree with, and I'm only guessing here, is the stuff I underlined.   I bet if you found the zoning and planning records for some of these really spread out courses, the ones out in nature, you'll find that they're planned to include housing at some later date.  Building will happen depending on demand, it never happens all at once, but I'd just about guarantee that its in the plans already.

[Golfingdad]

18 hours ago, ppine said:

It seems like a terrible loss to design a golf course that can't really be walked.  Maybe it is to discourage walking to speed up the game with carts, but probably it is just bad design.

This only makes sense if you're under the assumption that they chose to design the course to be un-walkable.  In reality, so many other factors went into the design, that more than likely, it being un-walkable was just an unfortunate side effect.  The lay of the land, the overall development goal of the builders, etc.

If you have an area of canyons and valleys that somebody wants to build a course on, then its not going to be walkable regardless.  So the choice is an un-walkable course or no course at all.  Look at it that way, and then ask yourself if that is really a terrible loss?

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This only makes sense if you're under the assumption that they chose to design the course to be un-walkable.  In reality, so many other factors went into the design, that more than likely, it being un-walkable was just an unfortunate side effect.  The lay of the land, the overall development goal of the builders, etc.

If you have an area of canyons and valleys that somebody wants to build a course on, then its not going to be walkable regardless.  So the choice is an un-walkable course or no course at all.  Look at it that way, and then ask yourself if that is really a terrible loss?

Agreed, once again.  For a course that's "unwalkable", its substantially more expensive to build than a more compact course.  You'll be looking at much longer cart path areas, longer irrigation lines, more pumping stations for the irrigation, more rough to maintain, since none of it can be shared with another hole.  The builders choose to accept this additional expense because either the resulting golf course will earn enough money to make the expense worthwhile, or more commonly, the resulting golf course will add value to the surrounding properly.

[Lihu]

This course was probably an after thought. The houses were probably planned with no yards, and to make up for it they added a tiny bit of green around them. Walking this would have been pretty bad.

[ppine]

Or the design is crummy.  What good is it if you can't use it?

[Buckeyebowman]

10 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree with almost all of this.  Carts only speed up play when the eliminate long treks between holes.  Otherwise, slow players will be slow, in carts or on foot.  And obviously you're paying for the cart if you're using one, its built into the price.  That doesn't mean I'll take the cart, even if I'm paying for it.  If the course is laid out well, and they'll let me walk, I'm walking.  A particular favorite of mine is Mid Pines, an old Donald Ross course near Pinehurst.  Its a treat to walk, but no discount.

The bit I disagree with, and I'm only guessing here, is the stuff I underlined.   I bet if you found the zoning and planning records for some of these really spread out courses, the ones out in nature, you'll find that they're planned to include housing at some later date.  Building will happen depending on demand, it never happens all at once, but I'd just about guarantee that its in the plans already.

I can appreciate your skepticism, but in the the cases I outlined (Rose's Run and Firestone Farms), if one wished to build in some places on the course, they'd have to sink pylons in a swamp! And how one could get a driveway in there I have no idea.

The story of Boulder Creek is delightful since it was originally supposed to be a housing development! The developer, who was also a golfer, bought 100 acres and set about planning the development. Then the owner of the adjacent 100 acre parcel came to him and said he wanted to sell, so he bought it. Now he had 200 acres of ideal land on which to build a course, and that's what he did! He designed and built the course himself, and he produced a beauty!

Despite being that close to Cleveland, it's still out in the country. One time I left the course with the intention of trying a new way back to the turnpike. In no time I found myself driving on rutted dirt roads through cornfields! It's amazing how quickly city can become country sometimes!

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I can appreciate your skepticism, but in the the cases I outlined (Rose's Run and Firestone Farms), if one wished to build in some places on the course, they'd have to sink pylons in a swamp! And how one could get a driveway in there I have no idea.

Obviously they'd have to work around creeks and wetlands in any kind of land development, including golf courses.  However, each of those courses have plenty of homes already adjoining the courses, with what looks to me to be apparent plans to build more at some later date.  That out-in-country feel won't last forever.

I do like the look of Boulder Creek, at least from the Google Earth perspective.  I'm really impressed that he built a stand-alone golf course, that's pretty rare these days, and the fees seem pretty reasonable by metro-DC standards.  I hope it stays financially healthy.

[Buckeyebowman]

I don't think Boulder Creek has to worry. The course is noticeably absent from services like GolfNow and Golf18Network. He doesn't need to be there, the place is always packed! I don't know about prices in the metro-DC area, but I can guess they're expensive. Boulder Creek is considered a little expensive around here, but for the design and conditioning you get, people consider it worth the money.

As for Firestone Farms, I think there may come a day when housing might be built "around" the back nine, but not through it. Those wetlands and natural areas (and they are extensive), are there for a reason. Water has to move through the course from Beaver Lake, and various springs and watercourses in the area. The 15th hole, Par 3, about 150 yards, plays across the northern end of the lake right by the dam. In fact, the cart path runs along the top of the dam. Quite picturesque and a nice design touch.

[Coronagolfman]

A number of newer courses (within the last 10-15 years) in Orange and Riverside counties in California are built on terrain that simply is basically suited only for goats or wildlife and thus carts are necessary for all but the most fit of players. 
Only in rare cases is there relatively flat land that is available for golf courses and in those instances the motive for golf may be more for real estate purposes than for the golfing aspect alone.

From my point of view, the more courses the better and so if some courses are walkable and others are not, so be it.

On 4/21/2016 at 10:32 AM, Lihu said:

This course was probably an after thought. The houses were probably planned with no yards, and to make up for it they added a tiny bit of green around them. Walking this would have been pretty bad.

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Coronagolfman

[Lihu]

29 minutes ago, Coronagolfman said:

A number of newer courses (within the last 10-15 years) in Orange and Riverside counties in California are built on terrain that simply is basically suited only for goats or wildlife and thus carts are necessary for all but the most fit of players. 
Only in rare cases is there relatively flat land that is available for golf courses and in those instances the motive for golf may be more for real estate purposes than for the golfing aspect alone.

From my point of view, the more courses the better and so if some courses are walkable and others are not, so be it.

 

Yeah, more courses are better. This course played nice, but was not exactly walkable. Also, comparing it to the Champions Retreat course a few miles away it looks like an afterthought.

[Buckeyebowman]

I can appreciate the "more courses is better" sentiment in So Cal. I've never golfed or visited there, but have done so in what might be called Mid Cal, around the Paso Robles area. There, an "inexpensive" round of golf might be $65, at least the last time I was there! That would be screamingly expensive around here.

At one time NE Ohio was blessed with a multitude of courses, and we still are, just not as many. We've lost population, and the golfers that are left aren't enough to keep all the courses alive. One of my favorite tracks was auctioned off to the neighboring farmer!

[Coronagolfman]

On 4/23/2016 at 8:12 AM, Lihu said:

Yeah, more courses are better. This course played nice, but was not exactly walkable. Also, comparing it to the Champions Retreat course a few miles away it looks like an afterthought.

The Retreat is pretty much a poster child for Jack and Sons taking a horrible piece of property and doing nothing to make it playable for golfers other than single-digit indexes.  All the greens are small, hard, extremely sloped and either well above or below (mostly above) the fairways.  Add in a bunch of forced carries to narrow fairways and you have a course which is very tough, impossible to walk and probably eats a ton of golf balls among anybody with a handicap above 10.

Its a bit ironic that within view and only one freeway exit away from the Retreat is Eagle Glen Golf Club which has a course that has a front 9 which is on terrain similar to that at the Retreat but which utilizes larger green complexes to at least give players that can keep the ball in play a chance to hit a green. I guess Jack and Sons were told to make their course tougher for what was meant to be a private course that would attract good players but that strategy never worked and at this point in time the Retreat is run more as a public course than an exclusive private one.

The other course you mention, Trilogy at Glen Ivey, had at least some areas of flatter ground and the firm of Robinson and Son, building on the father's expertise in designing courses that fit in with real estate developments, knew how to use the land to fit in their holes around potential homesites.  It is only in the the last 4 holes that TR used the higher slopes to build a trio of spectacular holes (15, 16 and 18) that include a 200-ft drop from the 18th tee to the fairway below.  Again, certainly not a situation designed for players that want to walk but since  the Trilogy development is limited to seniors it was a given that most all golfers would be riding.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Coronagolfman

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, Coronagolfman said:

The Retreat is pretty much a poster child for Jack and Sons taking a horrible piece of property and doing nothing to make it playable for golfers other than single-digit indexes.  All the greens are small, hard, extremely sloped and either well above or below (mostly above) the fairways.  Add in a bunch of forced carries to narrow fairways and you have a course which is very tough, impossible to walk and probably eats a ton of golf balls among anybody with a handicap above 10.

Its a bit ironic that within view and only one freeway exit away from the Retreat is Eagle Glen Golf Club which has a course that has a front 9 which is on terrain similar to that at the Retreat but which utilizes larger green complexes to at least give players that can keep the ball in play a chance to hit a green. I guess Jack and Sons were told to make their course tougher for what was meant to be a private course that would attract good players but that strategy never worked and at this point in time the Retreat is run more as a public course than an exclusive private one.

The other course you mention, Trilogy at Glen Ivey, had at least some areas of flatter ground and the firm of Robinson and Son, building on the father's expertise in designing courses that fit in with real estate developments, knew how to use the land to fit in their holes around potential homesites.  It is only in the the last 4 holes that TR used the higher slopes to build a trio of spectacular holes (15, 16 and 18) that include a 200-ft drop from the 18th tee to the fairway below.  Again, certainly not a situation designed for players that want to walk but since  the Trilogy development is limited to seniors it was a given that most all golfers would be riding.

They took away a lot of the bunkers at the Retreat. I've never played it with all the old bunkers, so it wasn't quite as horrible as you described? Yeah, Eagle Glen is a pretty nice course. They also have those tee time specials advertised in the golf magazines. The Trilogy felt like a casual senior course. I liked it, but definitely not walk-able.