I know what Mark Fine is talking about and I know what Mike Cirba is talking about and I think Ran's question is an important one to answer, which was 'Why spend the money on construction and manintenance to build something like a bunker if it doesn't come into play?'
In a way MikeC's citing of Donald Ross's statement ("There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker") is a bit inaccurate, in my opinion. Ross was undoubtably talking about the kind of bunkering he used throughout many of his holes that was used to make the game fun and interesting for the entire spectrum of golfers (the best to the worst). In this particular way Ross was a bit of a genius in his ability to accomodate every level but it was also a style that was roundly misunderstood over the years. In a sentence Ross's style and remark was; "It will be strategic for someone."
It was a style that also subjected many of Ross's bunkers to removal (topshot bunkers, bunkers for the poorer player etc.) The reason for that was the phenomonal misunderstanding of people with stewardship control that was; "if it doesn't effect MY GAME then it doesn't need to be there!").
I don't think that's what Mark Fine is talking about. I think he might be talking about bunkering that clearly DOES NOT come into play for anyone--for no level of golfer. In other words it has no real strategic value for any level. I think I even know what course he's talking about.
And I think there is a good answer for that too. You have to first look at the inherent oddity of bunkering, period, on some sites. Hunter and Behr talked a lot about this!
Bunkering is an apparently necessary golf feature that is the sole vestige from the original linksland where it was extremely natural to those sites even before golf was played on them. It is not natural in the farm fields of Pennsylvnia or the Rocky Mountains of Canada. But still it seems to be a necessary feature requirement of any and every golf course.
Using it in places where it may not necessarily come into play therefore is simply a tie-in, a blend, if you will, with the bunkering on golf holes where it does have strategic function and value. If it is ruggedly natural looking like the bunkering that is strategically useful then it sort of ties the entire site together into a undifferentiated whole, if you know what I mean.
This could very well be getting closer to the ideal of the "Golden Age" guys who looked forward to creating entire courses, entire sites, the playable areas with the nonplayable areas, that looked like they were all part of the same undifferentiated whole and also extremely natural! They hoped for the ideal of creating something in which the golfer felt he was playing in nature alone almost untouched by the hand of man. Or at least they wanted to get as close to that idea as possible. It really never happened--went quite the other way, in fact!
If you look across the open expanse of Applebrook the entire visible site looks somewhat this way. You see bunkering all over the landscape and it's sort of hard to tell if it's on a golf hole or just part of the landscape that was always there.
Some people might call that "Eye Candy" but I would call it a great total tie-in and blend. I would call the whole damn thing natural and great looking!
How expensive is it? I don't know, but it's built now and it's so damn rugged I really don't think it would be all that expensive to maintain. They can probably just sort of let it be from here on!