Thanks for the conversation, everybody.
Whether or not to "dumb down" the greens is an interesting topic. My plan says "greens sloped just enough to encourage strategic play", which overstates my perceived need for restraint. Let me use two greens from Old Macdonald, as examples of greens I think are a bit too wild for mass consumption, #5 (Short) and #6 (Long). #5 is very severe, with enormous contours. If you hit the wrong quadrant, sometimes the best you can do is a twenty footer. #6 green is perched above fairway grade, generally slopes away from the approach shot, and is filled with complex contours to boot. The worry with greens like this is the consensus opinion of the local golfing clique, who sees it once or twice, and together they decide they don't want to come back. This kind of happened at Stone Eagle, which took a few years to gain traction. But that's a private course with relatively deep pockets, not a public course seeking quicker approval than that.
In the movie "Mozart", the young musician is brought to the court of the Austrian king. The king, who admires and personally appreciates his young prodigy, registers the complaint from the public and Mozart's peer musician Salieri, that there are "too many notes" in Mozart's music. Same concept.
I think if you had the chance to build a "Long" hole, you give the people Hell bunker and a sloped green, but the whole thing can't be as tough as Old Macdonald's version. It's a very tough par with a neutral or north wind. Every shot after the drive is hard. I played St. Andrews #14 once, and it was slightly downwind, so the Hell bunker didn't really come into play. I was two yards short of the green in two shots, but the pin must have been five feet above my ball, on a downslope. I made par.
On the other hand, a big sloped green I think would appeal to many players is #15 at NGLA, the "Narrows" hole. A steep but regular back to front slope.
Two other things that could offend a large percentage of golfers. A huge, steep false front, like Sand Hills #1 and Crystal Downs #8, where a yard short means 60-80 yards on the nex shot. Of course I'm mentioning two of the all-time greats. Another thing is buried balls in the top of flashed bunker faces. I imagine flashing the sand costs extra money, so maybe you stay away from this type of bunker presentation.
As we've discussed many times before, the designer can build steeper slopes and compensate with slower, and perhaps healthier putting surfaces. The problem is almost everybody loves fast greens. Seems nowadays most regions of the country can have fast greens within 2-3 years of planting the best new strain of grass. Personally, I kind of like the slower greens, which are a lot less nerve wracking on short putts. They allow you to put a nice solid rap on short putts, and discourage yippie behavior.
There have been several tribute courses built, like the Tour 18 in Houston. I've never been there, but my sense is that hasn't been a wildly successful concept. This is not much different, except the idea is not to excatly duplicate holes. Also water hazards play a part in a typical tribute design. And despite JK's argument for water hazards, I don't like them very much, unless they are a natural tributary of some sort.
I will likely go back and tweak the plan, then repost it.