Jud - I would agree the initial reaction to Mach Dunes was pretty mixed, but would argue that most of the negative responses were caused by things that weren't within David's control. You have to remember the restrictions under which that course was built; they weren't allowed to move any earth, except for tees and greens complexes, and there were many areas of the site they were forced to avoid. It was largely this that led to the complaints of excessive blindness and a tough walk.
I remember shortly after we reviewed Mach Dunes in GCA receiving a letter from an American golf tour operator saying that in his opinion the course should never have been built, because the restrictions were too tight to allow something good to have been created. I disagreed at the time and still do. And it's interesting to note that, over time Scottish Natural Heritage and the golf course have developed a more cooperative, trusting relationship, and thus they've been allowed to fix a lot of the problems. I note also that negative reviews of the course are much fewer now than they were at first.
I've contrasted the development of Mach Dunes with that of Trump Aberdeen in print a number of times. In Kintyre, the developers were required to tread very carefully and proceed slowly; at Trump, the MO was bluster and confrontation, and that got him most of what he wanted. But I know which model I think is better for golf and its relations with the world around it. And I know which is more sustainable.