Gentlemen,
The facts here might be a tad surprising.
All but 38 acres of the Bayonne site lie on earth moved specifically for the purpose of creating a golf course (and one that I think is infinitely interesting and yields far more pleasure than pain over time). Those unique 38 acres (and I'm near certain centered at, or near, the clubhouse construction area) represented a previously-active landfill and landfills do settle a little bit over time. I'm told this has been well identified and anticipated by the construction engineers. It's not at all expected to impact the course or any measure of the course architecture or playability.
Surely anyone can label the course "totally manufactured." It is. So was Shadow Creek, most of the four Trump courses along with a quite a few others debuting over the past decade. In fact, several courses by many GCA-esteemed archies have 70% "manufacturing" in them yet don't come close to the creativity exampled by Eric Bergstol and his team at Bayonne.
Is the course too "difficult" and are the greens unreceptive to approach???....perhaps for the mid-to-high handicappers or others unwilling to give serious thought to terrain, or audience to a caddy's advice. However, well thought out and smartly executed approach shots yield good results. This is a course, like it's Irish and Scottish brethren, that calls for significant thinking and adjustment as the aerial or "bomb and gouge" player will simply never go low without intuitively thinking about how to use the ground to get near most pins. I should think watching Tiger at Hoylake this year would be living proof of this type of strategic golf.
Yes, the areas surrounding the greens can swallow up mis-hit balls into the fescue at an alarming rate, but recent and significant trimming of such fescues has produced a far more benign error zone than earlier this season. Missed drives, even into adjoining fairways, are now findable and playable, if not still awkward and penal. Nothing about Bayonne is predictable or ordinary and nor should it ever be diluted by that sort of conventional thinking (just look down the road in Jersey City for that kind of design).
Most importantly, is it not preferable to build a tough and stiff course from the outset that can be "softened" or "eased" over time? Can (or should) courses that are "totally manufactured" be built "soft" then firmed-up shortly thereafter? Which would you do if you were trying to create something quite unique? Why build soft greens into a course that is designed to emulate the great tracks over the pond? Interestingly, everyone here raved about Ballyneal, yet when I played it with another GCA'er in late August, those greens were very soft and very slow. In fact, scoring there required full shoulder-turns on anything outside 10 feet. Just weeks later many said it's green speeds were perfect yet it's pro and owner said they'd never go north of 9.5-10 for fear of making them "too difficult." The point is that it has the help and aid of mother nature to provide it's flexibility and range of playability. Bayonne is the work of the hand of man, and yet will likely achieve a far greater measure of such range and flexibility over time, but until you've played it a few times...think match play over medal and take in all the wonder of it's strategic and architectual achievement.....that's the key.