I’ll go back to what I said on reply 16:
If you have (or want) a 7,000 yard course, then have three teeing areas: One at 7,000 yards, one at 6,000 yards and one at 5,000 yards. If you must have more options, you use a combination of the 6 & 7 to get you 6,500 and a combination of the 5 & 6 to get you 5,500.
Job done without scattering multiple teeing areas everywhere.
Above open to project specific tweaks. Obviously.
Ally:
I like your approach but here is the problem: there are a lot of golfers now [especially Americans] who think they need another tee for themselves so they can play the hole with the intended "shot values", i.e., hitting 6-iron to the green or whatever.
This is a byproduct of bad design from A to Z. Links courses are built to be more accommodating for players who have a long club into the green, because sometimes the conditions will mean that even the best players have to hit that long approach. But many American designers would build a green for a 6-iron, and then if you couldn't get that close, just shrug and tell you that you are playing the wrong tees.
I agree with Mike M. that littering the landscape with teeing grounds is a poor solution to the problem, but there are many golfers who just feel entitled to their own perfect tee, and there are always guys willing to build them.
I'll side with Mark Fine, and say it is NOT! I prefer the customer always right to the gca (or gca snob!) is always right. Why shouldn't they want a tee where they can reach greens in regulation, as God and Old Tom intended? It's not their fault that Tour Pros bomb it an average of 294 while they are stuck at 225, 200, 170, or 140. Why should any design cater to those 1% of golfers, when 99% of golfers on a particular course are in the tee shot distances above. Your attitude towards golfers needing to play what you give them, vs you provide for them to a certain extend seems arrogant to me.
And, while I agree that back tee players can find the number of tees in view to be a bit ugly and maybe even distracting, I figure that is just what they give up to the rest of the golfing world, much like old white men need to accept, ignore, tolerate people of color or lower income in society. It's not all about you, especially if you are in the 16% who can drive the ball over 260 yards.
Lastly, if we accept multiple tees as a given to allow all players to have fun at golf, at reasonable lengths, there are ways to improve the less important factor of visual clutter from the back tees. Art Hills is famous for putting small mounds behind forward tees so they aren't visible from the back. Fazio has, on occasion, used artful mounding and staggered tees to almost completely hide the middle tees. Of course, I suppose many hear would find that objectionable, feeling minimalism as a design trait trumps actually designing something that solves a stated problem. I understand the idea that tee design, once purely functional, needs to get more complicated as we seek design "perfection", sort of like the endless pursuit of perfect bunkers seems like it can never end.
That said, I think designing a playable, fun course, is one level higher thinking than providing perfect bunkers for imperfect shots.
All just MHO< of course, and posted for discussion purposes.