George, thats a definite maybe......
and the point of the topic.
The low 10% are golf factories and the top 10% are in the elite, but bell curve theory puts most courses right in the middle of the pack, where the concerns of maintenance, design, and aesthetics must be reconciled with nearly equal emphasis if the course is to survive as a business.
In design school, we used to lament that we never got a chance to do "pure design." In the real world, there is no such thing. As a few have pointed out, there is a design program and if the course is a golf factory, or on a low budget, it does affect the kinds of features you put in. You have to look for things that work while not costing the owner more to build, and more importantly, more every year down the line.
Frankly, some of the romantic ideas about what makes the perfect course - touched on in the original post - probably only work if there are a perfect storm of other factors out there - perfect site, strong market, etc. etc. etc.
For example, a course with non returning nines costs the owner money, as does one where the driving range is remote and inaccessible, or too small, etc. Ditto some of the features listed in the original post, like wild green contours. Assuming (and its always true) that a minimum area of cuppable space is required, most golf course owners build the smallest greens possible (with variations, of course) to get a functional surface, rather than building them a few thousand sq ft bigger to accomodate the contours that a gca might think are great. 30,000 extra sq ft of green is over $100,000 to build, and perhaps $10,000 extra a year to mow, etc.
My question to the golf design buffs out there was whether you think, based on what you know about yourself, that if it were your own money, would you have the same tendency to look at, say a plethora of bunkers (and golfers within them) and mentally do the math that the ten minutes that guy took to get out just cost you 4 rounds at $60, or whatever plus the cost of raking. I figured some would, although its hard to say what we would do when push comes to shove.
As some have pointed out, courses like Rustic Canyon do this quite well, other than being on a site prone to flooding, which has really cost the Owner money, but in SoCal, thats probably the only land available free or low cost. On the other end of the LA valley, waterfalls were expensive, but perhaps quite necessary to give that market exactly what they wanted. They would be a total waste most places.
As pointed out, I think pretty wild green contours have their place - when the Wilderness asks golfers to drive past a hundred other courses to get to there , they better give them something to talk about. I haven't heard too many complaints about the greens, other than the Biarritz, but I think thats growing on them, and its frankly to get them talking, although the strategy on the short par 4 works well, I think.
I know you guys prefer to dream about "pure design" but I thought I would bring up the topic of the compromises that are typically made.
Its another way to ask course owners in the 30's, 60's and now are really bad guys for eliminating bunkers, softening bunker edges and green slopes, etc. And whether the majority of designs of all ages do what they were supposed to - meet the owners needs.
Lastly, it illustrates that design concerns are about things you guys never think about - cart path paving material, bunker sand that withstands wind blowing, golfer circulation around the clubhouse, and so on.
Just a thought.