I play often at a course that opens with a short, easy par four, followed by a long, difficult par 3. There are logjam issues. The starter helps by letting players tee off on no. 1 only after the prior group has reached the green at one. Still, there is often a wait at the second, but afterward there is a dogleg par four, so the tee shots can go off as soon as the group ahead rounds the corner and the course opens up. Now, my opinion is that this is not a big deal. Golf, for me, has become a game of taking things as they are.
My home course ("Ross 1929") has a difficult par 3 as the third hole after easy par 5 and 4 openers. If you've got a group ahead of you, there's almost always a wait at no. 3. It opens up immediately afterward, with shorter waits sometimes at other par 3s. Why did Ross make the third hole a par 3? He didn't. The order of play was changed by the club a number of years ago. The order of play as designed by Ross opened with three par fours, followed by a par five, with the first par 3 being the fifth hole. What's now the difficult par 3, no. 3, was the eighth hole in Ross's design. Lesson: don't always blame the architect.
No hole is perfect, no round is perfect (pace of play) -- why not a little leisure time early in the round? I'm not advocating 5 and 6 hr. rounds, but the difference between 3:45 and 4:15 is not a problem for me. Somebody wrote a book called something like "golf is not a game of perfect." I assume he was referring to individual skills, but he could have been talking about a lot more. Sorry, but that's my opinon.