'In addition to the obvious distance concerns, what are the other architectural considerations that apply much more to women than men. For instance, are greenside bunkers of a certain depth all but unplayable for women who generally do not hit the ball as high as men?'
JLahram, my apologies for this late response.
Yours is a very good question - and one that should be asked more often by both architects and Green Committee members.
These are the key elements that affect the masses of shorter hitters:
Long carries!
Around 65 yards / 60 metres is a fair length for the average female golfer to tackle on a carry. Longer than this and trouble may arise for the shortest hitters - particularly where water, wetlands, waste areas, sand and/or heavy rough are encountered.
Long carries do not only occur from off the tee - they may also present at a point along the fairway corridor. It is not very satisfactory for these golfers to have to play - for example; driver, seven iron, five wood, seven iron, to find a par four green – all because these players must negotiate a cross hazard at a mid-point in the fairway. Better to consider a broader spectrum of player when setting out the golf hole and paying closer attention to the position of the tees.
The problems associated with long carries lead to reduced levels of enjoyment, lost balls and an overall slower pace of play - these negatives impact the 'fun factor' of golf, the reputation of a course, levels of participation and return play.
Bunkers:
You are right that deep bunkers are a challenge. My feeling is, where the face has a variety of depth the golfer is provided the option to play across a more manageable line - sideways, or if necessary, backward. Bunkers are hazards. That said, deep bunkers (say 4 feet / or a metre or so) are obviously tough and multiple attempts at recovery does take time. I have seen many women golfers and seniors also, continue to play until they run out of stableford stokes, then pickup. In stroke play these bunkers can destroy an otherwise good score altogether. On the other hand I have often watched a golfer persist with the challenge a steep face presents when the solution could be easily found by approaching the recovery via a different angle.
One of the bigger problems encountered with bunkers - for seniors in particular, is access and egress from deep surrounds. In most cases I believe a good design solution will provide manageable access to the sand from the rear or side of a bunker, while still presenting the necessary challenge at the face.
Thomas Dai makes a good point about heavy rakes - an unnecessary impediment to players raking after play.
Heavy Rough:
Penal, difficult to manage, slows play, not fun.
Does nothing to encourage player enjoyment.
Mounds / sharper slopes:
Many typical women and senior golfers whose ball has come to rest on the steep upslope or downslope of a mound struggle to recover well, particularly from longer grasses. If such mounds are a part of the natural topography so be it - however if they are artificial and serve no clear purpose then perhaps the course is better off without them, or perhaps the decision makers might consider having the slopes reduced.
We do not need to dumb down courses to address these issues - in most cases we just need to think a little more broadly. Good question - thanks for asking.
Lyne