Paul,
So enjoyable to play with you yesterday! At minimum, I got to see the holes played in a way that it was meant to be. Thank God that golf lets the weaker player catch up with the long-hitter at some point! 
Ok...
The Architects Club...for a golf course architectural purist like myself, it was difficult not to go there with considerable expectations. However, given that 99% (as Mark Fine might say) of golfers do not give a whit about architecture, it might be instructive to try to discuss this collection of styles as a golf course first.
The course starts straightforwardly and fairly simply. The first six holes are all relatively short and the course definitely builds in challenge as one goes along.
Despite the different design styles, it still all clings together through several incorporated elements that are consistent throughout. They include;
1) Uniform lush green conditions
2) An attempt to isolate each hole from the others to a large extent through some fairly extensive earthmoving and general building of holes in the lower areas.
3) A focus on making the holes suggestive of differing design styles rather than an authentic attempt to capture the most severe and differentiating features of each architect.
4) A very good, contiguous piece of natural property that is generally unmarred by many of the negatives of modern golf (i.e. housing, long cart rides, focus on "signature holes"
5) A very walkable course with short green to tee walks
Generally, I think the place works pretty well as a "golf course", irrespective of the novel design intent. If I didn't know or didn't care a thing about architecture, I would not find much incongruous or interruptingly spectacular. The course has an nice flow to it, and it's more of a progressive challenge than a balanced one.
Now...onto the stuff that we care about.
First, the good points. To a large extent, Kay and Whitten were able to capture the general "look" of each architect presented. In and of itself, and as an exercise that intends to educate the golfing masses, that is a very good thing and they should be highly commended (as well as the owners).
Several holes stand not only as good representations of the architectural style, but also as very good holes in their own right. The best among them include the Hugh Wilson (3), Walter Travis (5), Donald Ross (9) (the green is wonderful), William Flynn (11), Perry Maxwell (14), and Stanley Thompson (17).
For those reasons alone, it's definitely worth seeing for the fan of architecture.
However, despite the effort to capture the general look and playing characteristics of the architects honored, one inevitably feels disappointed in many respects.
The unfortunate tree-planting program has already been mentioned, but I think that the most uncharacteristic compromises to modern golf have already been made during the construction.
One begins to sense the trouble at the "Macdonald" second hole, which is an uphill par three to a plateau green with some steep sidewalls to bunkering. The problem is that the hole and green orientation is completely straightforward with no real strategy involved. I have never seen a par three Macdonald green where the green wasn't on some sort of diagonal orientation, and to present such a straightforward hole as indicative of his style is inevitably a downer.
One sees the same type of thing on the Harry Colt 6th, which is a drop short par three to a large green. Although the bunkering is fairly rugged, the target is much to big.
There are par threes by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks and all of them are disappointing. Raynor's in particular is a yawner that doesn't do him the slightest justice, playing uphill to a boring two-level green with no character whatsoever.
If the idea had been to showcase their par three style, a true redan, biarritz, short, or interesting variation of any of them would have been much more interesting.
Other holes suffer from the fact that there is almost no real strategy from the tee. Two classic examples include the Thomas 10th, which tries to be a somewhat reverse image of the 10th at Riviera, yet is too long to accomplish the mission, not to mention that the orientation of the green is at the wrong angle to properly reward the bold drive. The Mackenzie 13th, which emulates the green setting of Augusta's 13th, suffers from the fact the it is straightaway and only require a LONG drive to give a go at the green. Otherwise, there is no safe or challenging play from the tee.
But the biggest failing of the Architects Club is the lack of interesting green surrounds. Not only is the thick rough a deterrent to attempting any shot but the boring "blast from rough", but the grassed areas around the greens are almost modern in style, with blase' slopes and generally flattish, benign greenpads.
It's as if the general look of the architects was emulated, but everything is just a little softer, a little rounder, a little tamer, a little less exacting, than what those architects actually created.
If anything, the Golden Age architects made their mark by using and creating BOLD features, usually at greenside, and within the surfaces themselves. At the Architects Club, just when things should get really, really good, it all sort of breaks down.
I understand that those are the type of compromises that need to be made given the public nature of the facility, but it was still a disappointment to think of how good it might have been if Whitten had his druthers.
All in all, the Architects Club is a good golf course, based on a better idea. It's a lot of fun to play, has some real good openness, nice mountain vistas, interesting architectural features that certainly attempt to be true to the honored designers, and presents a testing challenge, primarily due to the length (3653 yards) of the back nine.
However, I know I'd love to see Whitten someday get a freer hand to design some green complexes that are more in tune with the wild, creative men of the Golden Age.