I'm guessing this could be an extremely long list if we include parkland courses but Sean and Ally's discussion under the thread Great Hole - but the architect didn't do anything made me think about two courses I just played that fit perfectly in my opinion into this category and made me wonder about others you think also work well.
The first was the Castle Course at St. Andrews. Now I know this course has been controversial and is hated by many. I would agree with many of the criticisms such as: the course being full of unnatural shapes, some of the greens shaping are on the extreme side, the course was created at very high expense, may not be very playable for all hcp'ers and some of the locals I spoke with claim it's a tough walk for them.
On the other side for strong players I think the course is fun and challenging. Several of the really extreme greens have been softened. It's an A+ site in terms of scenery. I enjoyed the putting and short game aspects of the course very much I have to say. The conditioning was superb for this time of year and the routing had a nice flow to it. Could it have been better, yes perhaps but to me it's a nice addition to St. Andrews area that is full of solid to great links courses that are built on gentle landscape.
The second course was Dundonald Links. This is also a 100% man-made links experience that has not been built on true links land but a flat muddy field bordering links land. It's full of containment mounding, on nearly every hole in fact, but IMO it works well enough to be an addition to any trip to the area.
Putting these courses into perspective, take them out of their highly competitive surroundings which are full of world class, famous links and they would be arguably standouts in my opinion. Where they are they are highly criticized.
Any other examples or people that really think these courses should or should not have been built?