TEPaul,
Your view of the City Beautiful Movement, though popularly held, is only one aspect of its ideology, and, if I may also say, you seem to underestimate the contribution of Olmsted.
First, while it is true that the Beaux-Arts style of architecture was widely used, this neo-classical motif, which was underscored by it's formality and grandeur, was only part of the whole. More than this, proponents of City Beautiful tried desperately to create a functional, liveable world, while at the same time imitating the beauty of the natural world. The winding paths and boulevards of a George Kessler park system shows this clearly.
Olmsted, of course, is the de facto father of this notion, though even he was not averse to formality in the landscape where it suited his purposes. So, while it is no secret that Olmsted disagreed with where the end product of the City Beautiful Movement, his contributions (the positive influence of natural scenery on humans) are visible, and important.
City Beautiful, then, is not intrinsically concerned with formality, but, quite simply, with beauty. Formality was simply an oft-used tool.
Golf courses, similarly, are concerned with functionality and with beauty. Tillinghast wrote, “It seems to me that he, who plans any hole for golf, should have two aims: first, to produce something which will provide a true test of the game, and then consider every conceivable way to make it as beautiful as possible.” Truly, golf course design and City Beautiful are, at their core, quite alike.