Lots to respond to this time around, but some similar themes, so hopefully this won't be too long. First off, as always, many thanks to you all for the kind words.
Thomas: As noted, there is background noise--trucks and cars on the bridge and the highway, planes (lots of planes) overhead--but I heard very little of it. That might well be because, as a native New Yorker, I'm used to it, or just because my visual sense is stronger than my aural one. I note that Jon Cavalier found the bridge traffic quite loud when he played the course a few weeks ago. So it probably depends on the person, but I haven't heard say it detracts from the experience of playing the course.
JWL: Thanks for the clarification on some of the background details. Very helpful.
Grant: Thanks for clarifying your earlier comments. But I think the ideal you set forth is, even more than most ideals, impossible to attain. How can any golf course legitimately mimic the rigid, geometric lines of urban buildings (Raynor's geometric style, at the end of the day, still features rounded edges)? Even assuming you could build rectangular pillars instead of mounds out of earth, I'm pretty sure you'd be laughed right out of the golf industry. Unless I'm missing something, the fact is that golf courses in urban landscapes can hope only to complement, not mirror, their environments. With that premise, Ferry Point does quite well in my opinion, even accomplishing some subtle visual mimicry along the way with mounds in the foreground and red-brick buildings in the background (see, for example, my picture of the par-3 3rd). Given the scale, variety, and industrial beauty of the urban surrounds, I think it's smart that the designers chose a relatively low-profile course. It highlights, instead of competes with, the surrounds. Should Frederick Law Olmsted have injected more geometry into the design of Central Park to mimic the encircling skyline? Or was he wise to create ample open expanses and reservoirs to let the skyline sing to mesmerized onlookers? Also, I'm confused by your comment about repetitiveness: Aren't the dunes at "real" links also visually repetitive, and isn't that part of the charm? Finally, I'm glad you brought up Raynor. Why is it that most of us so love his and CB MacDonald's work--which was explicitly premised on copying template holes from Great Britain--and so hate "faux links"? Is it somehow better to copy individual holes than general landscapes? If so, why?
All of which leads me to the Steve-and-Sean exchange: I'm with Steve (and Keith), and I don't see a need to repeat what he so eloquently said in his initial post. Not that Steve and Sean are all that much at odds. As I read Sean's initial comments, his response was hardly all negative. In fact, he very much likes a lot of what he sees. Regarding his question about predictability in the mounding and the routing--i.e., the former follows the latter--I don't know if efforts were made to buck that trend and play over, as opposed to through, mounds. As you note, playing over mounds usually means blind shots, and we all know how pros--and many recreational golfers--feel about blind shots, so my guess is that the answer is "no." Sure, the end result might have been slightly enhanced by more over-mound shots, but I don't think it suffers from a lack of them.
At the end of the day, Ferry Point accomplishes what it was set out to accomplish, and not many courses can say that.