RJ,
While I don't disagree with your basic principals, in actual fact, it hasn't worked out that way. Perhaps it will change in the near future, but the cost of the course itself is about 33-40% of the total cost of building a golf facility.
Thus, saving $300,000 on a $3,000,000 golf course isn't a 10% savings, it's a 3% savings. Most operaters feel as if it's a better risk to add the 3% for the "wow factor" to build a better mouse trap, and hope that the greens fees can reflect that.
More math - That $300,000 translates (at $7-10 per month, per 100, to about $25,000 K per year, or about $1 per round. The operator needs only $1 more per round, or a few more rounds to justify the extra expense. Reallly, a pretty easy justification.
More than that, the typical golf course annual budget - $400,000-600,000 each in debt, maintenance, pro shop operations, and hopefully, profit, means that the eye candy really adds a lot less to the basic cost of a new course than many would think. And, when you consider that old courses are subtle, and for a lot less money - assuming their debt is low or paid off, the decision to spend on eye candy makes more, not less, economic sense, in the vast majority of new courses.
Spending even more money to correct basic drainage, irrigation and cart path problems before they start has a way of lowering on going costs, as well, especially in a low interest rate environment. At least, thats how the people who have the real money to build new courses view it.
Besides, there (shameless attempt to reconnect to original topic here) is no reason that a course can't have good visuals, and good strategy! Why a choice between the two?
I was going to post a similar thought under one of the Fazio bashing threads, (whoops, there goes my drink) concerning framing and strategy. There is certainly no reason a course can't have both - and Purgatory seems to be a good example of that! It is framed with bunkers and brown grass, not berms, more like MacKenzie, but it has great framing.
Jeff