An interesting angle, from a playability perspective, would be to ask the question(s):
  Doesn't the placement of bunker between the green and a water hazard give some measured relief to the slightly missed shot or better yet, the shot that hits the green and spins back into the bunker...short of getting wet? Is that a double hazard?

   You cited PV's 14 as an example. I have personally experienced shots that have spun back onto the beach and some of those that have backed all the way into the pond. The margin of error increases just a little bit and gives the golfer a better chance of salvaging a dry or semi-dry shot. I like the idea of having a seamless sand/water hazard. In such cases, the sand is almost always going to be of firmer nature as the lapping (or wind-driven) water helps compact the sands.

   The archies you speak of most likely abhor anything other than clean aesthetics of a water's edge. Doesn't sound very creative to me.

The 14th at PVGC is my all-time favorite hole.

Mark,
Have you ever seen a 1939 era photo of the 5th at Philadelphia Country Club?  The pilings on the right front of the green used to be a sand bar.  Man did that look good.  Mike McNulty would love to see that returned although it would compromise the green structure.  Given the rains we've had lately and that low lying area...the green would have been washed way down stream.  I'll try to get you a copy of the photograph and get someone to post it on here.
Best,
Wayne

From a rules point of view, they are a pain in the butt.  Where does the bunker stop and the water hazard begin is always an issue.  And for the player who does hit it into a lateral hazard with a beach bunker, he might have to drop in the bunker which usually leaves a plugged lie on top of the penalty stroke which seems too harsh a penalty.  Frequently you see drop areas alongside them such as have been used along the 18th at Pebble during the ATT.

p.s.(JWK) #14 PVGC is to me the weakest - my least favorite hole, so it just goes to show how good PV can be thought of if one guy thinks that another guy's weakest hole is his all-time favorite!  

It's fun to play "weakest hole" at the 19th.  A sign of a great golf course.

Redanman, it is refreshing to have a cordial difference of opinion on this board.  PV brings out the best in all of us.

A couple of thoughts as to why this hole is my #1:

The setting - I know that it was manufactured in a wet area, yet the view from the tee, particularly in the fall 80 some odd years later, causes me to pause and give thanks that we have a game whose playing field is beautiful and varied.  The water reflects the spendid setting, and the transition from water to sand to green blends harmoniously to my eye.  

The challenge - The elevation drop, combined with its ampitheatre setting swirling any wind makes clubbing difficult.  Missing in any direction ultimately penal (Except if you get lucky with the 15th tee).  A hit green, and chance at a par or birdie fills one with a sense of great accomplishment.  While #5 may represent a sterner test vs. par, #14 with no place to miss represents an all-or-nothing swing.

The engineering - From what I have read, wrestling the routing on this part of the course greatly challenged Messers Crump, Colt, et al.  As in finding the missing piece of the puzzle, the 14th transitions the 13th second shot to the 15th tee shot with variety.  A mighty assumtion of fine play would have the strong player hitting 2-6 iron to 13th, 6-8 iron to 14 and tee shot accross the water with the Driver/3 Wood on 15.  If the 14th hole had been a short par 4 starting from behind the current tee and ending further behind the current green site, the placement of the 15th tee as well as the 16th green might not have produced as demanding shots as they are now.  Another short par 4 after 12 and before 17 might not have been the way to go.  Plus, they already had a short downhill par 4 with the 8.  This routing, also allows me to enjoy the brief respite with the walk over the bridge through the woods from the 15th tee to the fairway.

As I final note, I threw out my back on the 14th tee at PVGV on Saturday of the 1996 Masters weekend trying to nuke an 8 iron to a back pin position.  Immense stupidity/pride sent me out to compete in the afternoon round of our Ryder Cup format.  By Sunday, my spine resembled the Elephant Man's, as breathing was a chore.  I spent the day waiting in the clubhouse for the other members and guests of our group while watching Norman fold to Faldo.  It was torture on all fronts:  Try sitting in the PV clubhouse unable to play with your friends out acing #3 and reaching #15 in two with a 4 iron!  A wise-acre told me that my pain looked better than Greg's.  At the time, it was hard not to disagree.

I struggle to find a "Weak Hole" at PVGC as disaster is in play on every swing.  The off course amenities equal and complement the quality of the course.  The people at PVGC, especially the members and the caddies who have seen it all, combine to make it the most magical experience in golf.  

JWK

TomD:

I'm with you that some of the coolest things in architecture may be "rules problems". I'd go much farther than that, though, to say I think it's a real shame if the rules of golf start to have a negative effect on golf architecture. I'm afraid that does happen frequently with the seemingly constant need to make a clear distinction between what is and what isn't a bunker. To be honest I think golf would be just fine if the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf just did away with Rule 13-4 altogether and just went with Rule 13-2 everywhere on the course. Max Behr apparently felt the same way. What difference does it really make where your ball is? The whole point should simply be that you don't improve your lie---period--so what difference does it really make if your ball is in fairway, rough, sand, whatever?

Some archies - mostly the tour player kind - often seem to like the idea of "save bunkers" keeping bad shots from getting worse.

Aren't those called "galleries"?