At Phantom Horse (Phoenix) the land dictated the design to such an extent that we rarely cared about style — aesthetics are always a consideration, but here the land provided its own dose of style. To try and out-do the land would have been a mistake. Each hole takes on a slightly different look and puzzle for the golfer — that was our goal, and I believe it works well.
At The Hideout in Utah I instructed the shaper to — at every turn — think simple and not flashy. By this, I meant to be honest in their feature work and not try and outdo the territorial views, or the nuances that the land offered — I would say that course is a poster child for the aesthetics being land and site driven, not architect/shaper driven. If we had anything to do with the aesthetics, it comes from the land almost always, and not from the talents of the shaper to drive a style, or their ideas, of what might make a good "look" or a style.
At The Links at Las Palomas the dunes and terrain provided all the style we needed. We just made sure to embrace it and not get in its way.
---
My summary of style and aesthetics is as follows: I feel they are important, but less so than the game and the challenge. The thrill of golf suffers when the style and "look" is at the forefront. It is probably best when all things come together "perfectly" — the strategy, the site, the land, the natural features, the interest, uniqueness and, not forgotten, an appropriate amount of style.