Even reading all the old books, and NGF publications, as I did when I was a kid, you will probably find architects talking about needing site location (ie customers) utilities, roads, etc. first. Lack of natural golf features can be overcome, with enough money. That's not all "wasted" earthmoving. Think drainage in Florida, Rock blasting in the Rocky Mountains, or irrigation in the desert, necessary to make golf possible in a desireable location near you!
So, the fact remains that if an interested party wants to build a course to capture a portion of the golf market in a given locale, the addtional cost of irrigation, drainage, earthmoving is a cost of doing business. As I have pointed out, the cost of building the course is 1/3 of the total cost. The cost of earthmoving is not more than 1/4 of the golf construction cost. Massive discretionary earthmoving could not increase project cost today by more than 8%. Even allowing another 8% for associated waterfalls or landscaping, your greens fee would rise at most 15%-20%, such as from $50 to $57.5 or $60., and probably less, as often, the cost of course construction is subsidized by housing, a municpality, etc.
To build a great course, you need a great site. To build a sucessful course, you need a lot of elements, but not necessarily a great site. It's even possible to build a great course on a great site, even while ignoring some of its best features. What, after all, is NGLA? While CB did pick a site that most closely resembled the Scottish links he was trying to replicate, he did want to impose his design ideas regardless!
The basic concept of fitting a vision to a site is well established. The money of the 90's simply made that easier, as did the money of the 20's. Of course, I hate to carry that analogy forward to the 2000's versus the 1930's.........