David,
The 1950-60 era architects who taught me architecture often spoke of the "design triangle" or playability, aesthetics and maintenance requirements ALL needing to be met to some degree. I noticed that the last version of Cornish and Graves "Golf Course Design" put "Environment" in the middle of the triangle.
I suppose each of the triangle points might even have their own dangling triangles below - for playability it might be "good player, average player, beginner, for example. Maintenance would be environment, minimizing inputs and matching maintenance regimen. Aesthetics could probably remain aesthetics alone.
Pre 1990, most courses in the post WWII probably had pretty equal triangles, or maybe ones tilted to the maintenance side a bit. With the advent of tour pros in design, and the one upmanship boom of the 1990's, most designs focused on the aesthetics and then playability (for good players more than likely necessary) and the maintenance side of the triangle got pretty skinny in comparison to the other two.
The short answer to Pat's question is, that for a professional architect, in most cases, all three points of the triangle must be appropriately addressed. A great challenge for good players isn't really a great course unless it accomodates other levels of play (flexible), drains well, and looks fairly decent, although, as always the aesthetics side is hardest to quantify.