I was referring to Curt Sampson.
Could have just edited your original post, and it would not have revealed the failing memory......
Back to higher tees....
In most cases, they are a good idea. As DM said, they give a better view of the hole. Not sure 6 feet changes how much the wind affects your 100 foot high shot, but still. Golfers like the view, because only gca nerds really like blind holes, architects like it, because if we have created an artistic hole (usually at least one goal of gca) we prefer golfers can enjoy it. And, you need to raise the front tee about a foot for drainage in most cases, (but not more, for ADA access) so if there are four in a row, the others often need to be 3, 5, and 7 foot higher, or so. Hopefully, the ground is higher in the back so that doesn't all have to be fill.
I have the impression that most of the argument against them around here focuses on how standard they are thought to have become. So, the question of "Do we have to do it every time?" is a good one. That said, I doubt any courses other than dead flat ones really have 18 holes in a row with 1,3,5 and 7 foot tall tees. I could be wrong, but as I mentioned, in my quest for variety (even it tees, since I still subscribe to the Packard "tees as artistic elements" school, I actively look for a few that work fine without artificial elevation, usually gently uphill holes where a lower forward tee isn't necessary to preserve vision from back tees. I look for a few tees where they can be scattered from side to side rather than elongated, etc.
I think most architects do the same, but I really don't study each architect that closely, so I could be proven wrong........again.
