The Rawls would be interesting because on the surface it appears to be a blank slate with everything created and planned vs found, and it'd be interesting to learn why you did what you did. But I don't know if that's true or not, or if you had constraints not known to others outside the design/client team.
There were two real constraints at The Rawls. One was that the donor's name was going on it, so he wanted it to be pretty, which meant a ton of work blocking out the apartments to the east, and a ton of landscaping.
The other was that there was some sheet flow going across the northern half of the property, and if we weren't very careful, we would be digging a giant bathtub that would fill to the brim in the first big rainstorm, with no drain to let the water out
. So I spent a ton of time with the civil engineers to sort that out, which changed the original design concept considerably. [Among other things, I was schooled on why you see the "100 year flood" way more often than once every 100 years.]
Really, though, The Rawls Course is the last course I'd like to listen to everyone else talk about, for the same reason I don't like that kind of job in general: because we could have done ANYTHING, so what do you measure it against? On a good piece of ground, you are looking for the best solution to that piece of ground, but with a blank slate, there are just tons of people who all have their own idea, and what use is talking about that?