Dick,
I agree with your opening sentences. Golf in Scotland had the type of roots you describe, which apparently are still strong. However, for the most part, that was not true in America and most other foreign countries.
I would argue that in Scotland and Ireland, golf is becoming less of a game of the common folk, if for no other reason that the prices have increased so much based on what tourists are willing to bear. Yes, many courses have a different price list for locals, but access is more curtailed (like at TOC and Carnoustie).
The opposite has happen in many parts of the U.S. where the number of daily fee courses have grown tremendously. And while the CCFAD category accounted for much of it, the unfortunate financial problems that they've encountered due to overbuilding and excess spending has been beneficial for the consumer in terms of more interesting designs, declining prices, and relatively easy access.
Never have I alluded that you think the way you do because of class envy. And where did you get the notion that I thought of you as a fermentor of revolution?
My comments are in general, trying to bring to light why perhaps there is so much criticism here of high budget projects and the architcts who serve this market. Objectively, I can't find sound reasons why Rustic Canyon should be resoundly praised while Shadow Creek, a much better course in my opinion, is the recipient of so much criticism and only benign praise.
In terms of evaluating architecture, should money be a consideration at all? How much did Lido and Yale cost to build? Were there members of Chicago GC derisively saying, "yeah, maybe it is a pretty good course, but look how it cost 10 times more than our little gem to build it"? Perhaps they did, or maybe is what prompted them to bring Raynor back to redo the course which remains widely unchanged and highly thought of today.
There are a number of things that could help the growth of golf, none which have to do with the development of ultra-expensive private courses. I agree with Cirba and Morrissett when both stated (at different times ) that every small city or town would benefit greatly by having a Wild Horse or Pinion Hills. NYC and CA could probably use by having several Bethpages and Rustic Canyons.
Interestingly, one of the reasons why the higher-end courses keep popping up is that the cost of land is so high. In turn, this is largely due to the onerous regulatory and permitting barriers to entry that developers have to overcome before they can begin to break ground. The math does not work very well when you are paying a bunch for the land and not much for improvements. Typically, the higher alternative use for the land is not a municipal course, but maybe a shopping center, office building, apartments, single-family housing, or perhaps a CCFAD or private course to spark interest in the surrounding real estate.
As a proponent of inexpensive, populist golf, perhaps you should be calling for the local, state, and federal governments to make available public land for that use. I would not have a big problem with JVs with the private sector to build good affordable courses operated under certain restrictions in consideration for the special pricing on the land.
As to what courses I would rather play, I am sorry Dick, but at this stage of my life, I can't get excited about playing a little mom and pop with pushed up greens and artificial turf for teeing areas.
BTW, the Fazio course we played is a resort course, open to members (property owners) and the hotel guests. They probably do let a few others on the course when they're not busy, but I am sure that they pay a premium.