Mike:
Someone gave me a chance a couple of months ago to write about Mr. Dye and one of the things I mentioned was how he treated the lowliest kid on the crew with the same respect he treated Deane Beman or Jack Lupton or Jack Nicklaus.
I also believe that, contrary to reputation, if you had just a couple of million dollars and wanted to build something special, Pete Dye would be one of the best choices for the job, not one of the worst. He was always innovative and knew how to get value for money, so from that perspective, he's a "good investment".
However, I'd disagree with Mark that Pete is anywhere near as well known as Jack Nicklaus or Arnold Palmer. And I think the article cited is a bunch of hogwash, because there are too many external factors to make valid comparisons on the value of architects' names. The fact that big-name courses have $2 million marketing budgets to sell their houses tends to drive up the price of homes. This newer study was an interesting twist because it purported to show long-term value ... I still don't think it can ... but golf course developers don't really care about long-term value, they only care about how much money goes in their pockets at the first sale, and how fast the project sells out.