JC,
I don't know you, but wonder if you are aware I am a DFW area resident? I considered putting a bid in to design the project (but didn't knowing that tour courses usually go to Tour player type firms, and my chances were small.) I visited the site during construction, and, while the article was an easy thing to post to give an idea of my thoughts, I have had many discussions around town about this. Lastly, despite my great interest in gca, I was personally one of the thousands who
didn't show up in the 2 years the tournament was there after reading reports about lack of shade, so my views are very much a result of personal experience.
Not sure what your link is trying to demonstrate? That the course does have trees? It was built on a landfill that had to remain treeless to avoid piercing the soil membrane and prevent release of gases which is typical on many landfills. I am quite familiar with the various ecological regions in the DFW and Texas areas BTW.
The mission of this website is clearly stated as frank discussion of architecture. Tom Doak mentioned a while ago that golf course critiques are probably too focused on the architect's name or brand, and not the product. Of course, he was probably talking mostly about the fawning over the last generation of top architects, but now that he, CC, Gil Hanse, etc., are top dogs, the same may apply to them! Short version, the few negative responses seem to me to be more concerned with me actually mentioning something even slightly negative about a favored architect here, not a reaction to the fact that a treeless course isn't always a good idea, even if it is trendy.
In fact, that was my main point - it is better to have form follow function rather than try to push something trendy on all sites. That is exactly why Golden Age courses got "disfigured" in the eyes of many. Too many people presumed the then new "modern style" worked better everywhere.
A side point was, I believe the current generation of architecture nerds needlessly blast the WWII generation and their decisions. In general, sight unseen, I would tend to believe that generation was better than mine in nearly every way. Not perfect, of course.
For me, it follows that if, in previous golf booms, many courses were built in cornfields, it made perfect sense to plant trees. It was very practical to the then situations, and yes, it may have been trendy, with the Parks movements of the 1920s, Arbor Day and tree planting in the post WWII era, where studies showed the human comfort and environmental benefits of shade (further studies, in light of anticipated future water shortages show some side effects, too, like more water use by trees). But, with what they knew they, they weren't all wrong, and IMHO, those tree planting efforts are disliked more due to bad design, i.e., straight lines, poor tree choices, etc., rather than the overall idea of tree planting.
Lastly, there are many ways to judge the "success" of a project. There are many records and films that critics loved and audiences stayed away from. Were those a success? My guess is that those who put up the money thought no. And, ditto with TFGC.
My guess (and you are correct, I really don't know) is that they people who set out to build a mostly purpose built course to host the Byron Nelson would say no, if it served its purpose for only two years. There has to be a bit of egg on all their faces, no? At least, from reaction around town, and of course, its all local politics where someone will jump on any perceived failures of some other guys.
While some may love the architecture, design is more than frilly edged bunkers and dramatic green contours. And, I understand that you might not consider site selection, building on dump sites, etc. truly architecture. I, more than most, know that CC chose to take what was given, and most likely felt little responsibility for the financial success. That might even be in their contract (I know it is in mine!)
Lastly, once a gca builds more than 10 courses, some of them cannot be in their personal top 10. Some projects just fit the bill more than others, its not all black and white, but it is hard to discuss shades of grey on social media sometimes. (or so it seems,)