Patrick, just because small greens are more one dimentional than large greens, I don't think you should make the leap to intrensically inferior. When I said you have to look at this in the context of putting surface (green) and green complex. A small green can play bigger than it's size if the surrounds are set up to do just that. It depends on how the grass is treated. If shaved down, a ball can be funneled a ways away but still leave the opportunity to be putted in - from off the green. Unfortunately US courses tend to be too soft and over-watered to take complete advantage of this. Across the pond, I usually will take a couple clubs less and try to land the ball in front of the greens and let it chase on up. The greens don't have to be big because they aren't my primary target.
Conversely, a multiple-sectioned big green can be more one-dimentional if the only option is to land on the green and then once there your next option to advance the ball is to use the same shot over and over - to putt. To be multi-dimentional, shouldn't the player have multiple ooptions?
One of the problems I have with TV golf is it is boring when it becomes a putting contest. Perhaps that's why I like Pinehurst for an open venue and why the Open is my favorite to watch. So when you state aren't they (putting greens and green complexes) intertwined. Sure, but if you wish to frame the question on just the putting green without taking into account the surrounds, you're operating in a vaccum.
Since, as you agree, variety is the spice of life, I believe the designer should offer just that to the golfer. Since we(I) don't design greens or green complexes without takiing into account the rest of the hole (and the other holes on the course), we(I) are asking golfers to execute different things on different holes. Therefore, there might be instances where a small target is in order, others where a bigger one is what's called for.
Is water issue on a green bad design? Maybe, but with today's penchant for USGA greens, and inside/perimeter irrigatin, that much water shouldn't be manually applied. If it comes from either run-on or the green is too flat for surface drainage or if the water is directed by the contours to narrow swale that don't have much pitch, then the design is problematic.
An architect designs small greens to play...small. Not always, sometimes just to provide a small target either to reward accuracy or to create an optical illusion that the distance is greater than it actually is.
Conversely, we don't necessarily always make big greens to play...big. That is why you will find sectioned greens or greens within a green. This may be done for variety within the context of the hole, offer different strategies for fairway play based upon the pin position, or to spread out the wear and tear (the may be agronomic issues like limited sunlight or breeze).
One final item (sorry to get technical) is knowing what maintenance equipment will be used - walking vs riding - to cut the greens. The clean-up pass for a riding moxer is 3x's the width of a walker which visually make the green look smaller. Plus, what size collars are you going to have - 18"-21" with a walker or 72" with a tri-plex?