From the public view these two courses represent rather polar interpretations of how a golf course should be presented. Regardless of how the public may gravitate one way or another and trying to overcome some of the practices enjoyed by each course due to their very large working capital. If we were to replicate one of these courses general presentation but with a more modest budget which one would ultimately be the cheapest to construct and maintain?
For clarification, Features like Augusta's sub air system and their seasonal operational model with overseeing would not be specifically representative of their course presentation.
At face value it would appear that a Pinehurst-eque course with its lower water coverage and native areas off of the fairways would be a fairly economical approach, but I've also head there is a tremendous amount of man hours required to tend to those native areas. Managing the density of sand to scrub plant and controlling potential sand runoff from weather.
An Augusta National-like course, on the other hand, has a much larger area of watered and manicured grass, Which would suggest a higher cost in water and care. But being that the course is "virtually" all the same grass , the majority of it the grass is cut to the same height, and the course has a relatively small number of bunkers; do those factors help to reduce man hours dedicated to daily maintenance and reduce the overall cost?