I like the 'look' of these bunkers. The irregular edging contrasted with the fescue is striking. That being said, I agree with Steve Curry assessment that they appeared too organized and would benefit from allowing the fescue to bleed into the sand. I'd also like to see the introduction of some other ground cover, maybe some weeds here and there, the fescue just looks too consistent. Those changes would help soften the look, the bunkers themself have a very natural appearance, almost too natural and clean, the introduction of encroaching vegetation would help give a less constructed appearance. Without the softening there is just too much going on. However these bunkers are a huge improvement over a similarly placed water hazard or over a bunch of oval grass-rimmed bunkers.
As far as the strategy of the hole is concerned, it is difficult to comment without actually seeing or playing the hole. It does appear there is a choice, the direct line to the green surrounded by sand or a bail-out area to the left -- which appears to be a bowl backed by a grass covered mound. It is still a forced carry but that is also true with the 16th a Cypress Point.
When you think about it there a very few great par-3s that require significant choice or strategy. The 12th at ANGC, 7th at PBGL, 15th at Cypress Point, 17th at Sand Hills, 14th at Crystal Downs, 13th at Merion and the threes at PVGC, are all pretty much do or die. Even at the 11th at St.Andrews the golfer eventually has to ascend the steep slope when trying to avoid the bunkers. The most famous exception of a strategic par-3 is the redan and the many derivations of it.
My origanl reason for joining this conversation was the use of the term eye-candy and its negitive connotation as a superfluous feature. What seems to be eye-candy on a modern course is not eye-candy on a classic course. In my opinion bunkers can be strategic in nature without being obviously in play. They can play a strategic role as a target or as a directional marker (either to lead or mislead). Their role can be psychological, it is exciting to see your ball flying over a very intimidating bunker that really isn't in play -- the 10th at ANGC is an example. And if the bunkers are strategic or psychological in nature, what is wrong with them being attractive or aesthetically pleasing. I think one of the reason that the NGLA stands out above all other Macdonald/Raynor works is because the bunkering is more natural, more artistic and less geometric. And what wrong with a 'look', MacKenzie courses have a look, as do Thompson courses, as do Thomas course, as do Raynor courses. The problem is when you have a 'look' without any apparent strategy.
I define eye-candy as bunkers that do not have to be negotiated in any way, they are not used to penalize, they do not force decissions, they are not directional and they are out of the direct line of play and therefore can not give pleasurable excitement in being carried. They are meant only to frame the picture.
As far as minimalism is concerned, if it means minimal use of hazards, I am not a minimalist. My definition of minimalism is to maximize the use of the natural features of a site -- minimize earth movement. And some sites are obviously better suited for minimalism than others. If it is defined as minimal use of hazards then Cypress Point, Pine Valley, NGLA and even Sand Hills would not qualify.