Matt,
This might be the best topic ever on golf club atlas.com! Obviously, the answer is yes, and your phrase "bubbles to the surface" pretty well describes what happens all too often in golf architecture, because some of the most important aspects are irrigation and drainage (water, always too much or too little, just a couple of minutes a week where you have the exact right amount.....)
I have made a point of posting in ten plus years here about some of the elements that make a design complete, even knowing it bores the snot out of golf architecture buffs who prefer to think only about strategic aspects of the game. You got a sense of it last week when I dragged out my 75 point checklist to make sure a green design works.
It is my belief that the professional architect gets paid to take those golf elements, and make sure they work through proper turf, irrigation, drainage, flood control, paths and circulation, other agronomics like soil, etc. While I understand other good architects will have different opinions than me on what constitutes "working" I will say I am surprised at how some of even the big boys miss on the infrastructure and circulation aspects of design, that result in hard to maintain, worn areas, etc.
The list is too long to even start, not to mention, anyone could go to any one of my designs and find at least a few circulation or whatever flaws. Sometimes in design, some things just can't be worked out to satisfy all criteria and compromises must be made. I have told the stories before, but my biggest dumbfounding moments in architecture occurred when I was told by known architects that they spend a maximum of two days routing, and accept there will be bad holes because of it.......I had another instance on a current project, when I found out an engineer had laid out the course, and not even bothered to get a topo map. Both golf and houses suffered....
I sometimes wonder about the subtle issues and ethics. One well respected architect seemingly gets a lot for their money. Upon deeper digging, I find they put in far less irrigation than I would, and only drain the course for the smallest storm, like 1/4" per day (I would drain for at least that much in an hour to get play back on the course). The drainage is a problem forever, until fixed, and most of their courses realize the shortages and go back and add irrigation. Is it right to make yourself look good (at least for a few years) by spending more on pizazz that is easy to see, over more important stuff underground?
Another builds bunkers they knew would be rebuilt in a year (maybe by them) that look great and increase chances of "Best New" awards. Is it right to make yourself look good (at least for a few years) by building something that looks great, but is a beast to maintain (depending on how sophisticated the owner is....some may know, want and agree with this plan)
Of course, sometimes you spread it all thin because the Owner's budget is just too small to start with, but that wasn't always the case in the first example. And "how much to irrigate" can be a judgement issue, with supers usually wanting more, and environmentalists and budget guys (who probably don't know golf....) wanting less, and perhaps it is they who force the issue on the unsuspecting course. Of course, having seen the same mistake many times over 39 years as a gca, I wonder when they will learn. But, its always a new "they."
I am sure not calling out other architects, nor calling for some kind of industry standards about how to spend money.
Sorry for the long wind, but the key statement here is that professional architects SHOULD design good golf elements, and simultaneously design/engineer for safety, good turf, irrigation, drainage, flood control, paths and circulation, other agronomics like soil, etc., to make sure the design truly works and functions well.
Otherwise, in my humble opinion, just playing in the dirt. One without the other is not a good design.
And yes, as revered as FLW is, he has been called out for too small doorways (he was short), roof leaks, some structural issues, and some impractical (uncomfortable) furniture in his designs, design more for looks than sitting. I did the FLW Chicago Tour a few years ago, including the Robie House and was amazed at how dark the place was, of course, knowing that electricity was not quite as prevalent in those days. But, there were other issues, and in general, I came away thinking he spent too much on style, not as much on usability in his designs.