Patrick:
That's a very good question! No I don't seriously believe that but I don't really know. My sense is that they do care about their clients and that they all (their clients and themselves) share a common purpose and probably vision in design, whatever that may be. I stress a common purpose in design not necessarily how the club is structured, membership, daily fee, whatever!
I see Coore and Crenshaw as designers and architects, not necessarily developers or creators of particular kinds of clubs etc whether that be private, public, high end, affordable end, etc! But then again, that may not be necessarily so with Ben Crenshaw and the Austin C.C. but I don't know that.
Primarily, I think they're into the architecture of it all not how or by whom the course will be used later or sometime in the future.
Clearly, RJ may be suggesting that architects who get to a certain level owe golf and golfers something in return in the way of affordable public golf. He may believe that would basically round out their career portfolio! Maybe it would, but I'm not sure that's necessary--it would be nice of course and I see nothing at all wrong with that, but necessary.....?
I guess what I'm really trying to say is I wouldn't really support a "premise" that for any architect to round out his career portfolio he would at some point have to create an affordable public golf course(s).