I picked two pictures that shows the primary hazard on the golf course shown in the landscape.
Compare them.
Red Sky Ranch
Tetherow
I find the bunders at Red Sky Ranch unattractive and think they don't match the landscape. IMO the opposite is true of the features at Tetherow. The are attractive and they fit into the landscape very well.
Just the beginnings of the genius I see in the eyebrows and mohawks.
One thing that can be deduced about hazards is that pot bunkers are of course depressions and the land around them may run down to them, whereas Kidd's features are arched upwards and the land around them may run up to them. Therefore, a ball running near a pot bunker is more likely to run into the bunker, whereas a ball running near an eyebrow or a mohawk is more likely to run away and past the feature. Furthermore, a ball landing in a pot bunker will not escape, whereas a ball landing on these new features may escape especially if landing on the backside.
As we know a pot bunker, or any bunker for that matter, requires maintenance. The side can cave in, the sand can be depleted or contaminated, there may be drainage issues, the player or caddy has to take time to restore the bunker for the next player's use. These new features from David Kidd would seem to me to be maintenace (and thereby cost) free.
So what are the downsides? As with any new feature that players are not accustomed to, they will probably feel like a gimmick for a significant number of players until, and if, they gain widespread acceptance and familiarity.
In a game where visibility is highly valued, they diminish the visibility of the playing field.
Even with these considerations, I think the "eyebrows" and "mohawks" are a definite plus.
BTW: How do you like my eyebrows? And, don't worry, I will never get a mohawk!