Tom Paul,
You make a very good point about the huge difference between aerial views and ground level views of bunkers. And, I certainly don't want to risk beating a dead horse here, but the whole travesty with Riviera's "restoration" just reopened old wounds. I must admit, I'm starting to CRINGE when I hear that word bandied about by architects and clubs who don't have a clue and use that word to justify and spin doing whatever it is they want to do....in fact, I had a discussion not long ago with the brother in law of a lower-level associate of that organization who proudly insisted that his relative was really the guy responsible for the "redesign" of Merion.
I don't even find real fault with the clubs, to be honest. After all, what more can they do than hire someone who general wisdom insists is the best in their field? They should reasonably assume that they are getting expert opinions and quality work. Perhaps they should do more homework, or even be as studious about architecture as many of us, but is that a realistic expectation?? Especially when the membership numbers in the 500s, and everyone is partly driven by name recognition?
And yes, the bunkers at Merion do seem to be slightly deeper in some cases. However, I would argue that this is only a deterrent to the worst bunker players, and hardly a concern for the type of player that this work was done to attract...the touring professional.
Especially when one considers that the inconsistency and hazardous nature of the original bunkers were primarily responsible for the fate of one Jack Nicklaus in the 71 Open, when he repeatedly either failed to get up and down from them, and in some cases required multiple shots to even get out.
The new style bunkers, while deeper, are also much more consistent and fair. Even forgetting the questionable aesthetic factors completely, I can't imagine that they improve the challenge of the course for the better player, whatsoever.