Well, this is the type of discussion I love!
I had an idream of this group being present at the writing of the constitution of the good ole' U S of A in 178(8?) When T.J. stood up to declare the need for a new constitution, that would act as the guiding force while deciding all future laws in this country, the GCA contingent stood up, and walked out in protest, after the other delegates refused their plea to "avoid any guiding principles, and just let individual circumstances decide in each case!" Oh yeah, on the way out they started calling Jefferson nasty names, of which "slave boinker" is the least offensive.
I don't think there is anything wrong with formula, or a strong design philosophy (ie the constitution) or rules of thumb in design, as long as the architect is flexible enought to make one one of the rules is to "break the other rules as you see fit." The golden age guys had them, or they couldn't have pumped out articles entited "the ideal golf course" and such.
My old mentor had the philosophy - which I share - that you should establish some rules to ensure basic playability. You can break them, but if you break them too often, your course can cross the line into something pretty goofy and unpopular. The dilemma is similar to those of football coaches, in that you have to fight the tendency to become to conservative over the years, always making the "safe" choice.
I don't know what "consistent shot values" means, or if it is necessary. Using the bunker depth as an example, lets say my "formula" is one foot of depth for every iron out, ie 9 feet for a 9 iron, etc. on the recovery line. If all bunkers followed that formula, they would be of different depth, but have exactly the same shot value, if you accept the basic premise that that formula for total depth (combined with steepness of slope as described before) makes each recovery shot about a 50-50 proposition.
If that is my rule, how often should I break it? Should it be in force all the time, or half the time, for the 14 long tee shots? Actually, it seems to me that an "ideal course", if the site conditions allow it, would be for about half to meet any given basic criteria, or 8, with the remaining six shots either guarded by hazards easier or harder than the formula for variety (ie - inconsistent shot values) to set up different shot thoughts for players, like "This tee shot is a breather", or "I better be extra careful here."
A formula? yes. But also a formula for variety, rythm and balance. I think competitive golfers (not Tigre, but the 1-12 handicap guys and gals) notice the differences in things like that.
I thnk what architecture buffs really object to is not some idea of appropriateness/fairness in design, but when those ideas are forced on the landscape unnaturally. For example, if I chose to put a really deep fairway bunker on a flat site, necessitating 10 foot of fill to the top of the bunker, and followed up by deciding to place a shallow one on a steep site, also necessitating 10 of fill on the base of the bunker.
Had I (which I would) reversed those to fit the natural landscape, I would have natural looking bunkers, good playability, and a few tee shots that make the golfer go "HMM..." because of the hazards, no?
Just some early morning, pre coffee musings. As such, if you don't agree, I can always plead the fifth!