I've always thought about the routing or sequencing of holes as it pertains to creating/playing interesting holes, but much of the conversation here seems to be centered around sequencing of holes as it pertains to achieving an arbitrary, and pre-determined standard of par, or as, Jeff Brauer points out, the perhaps unfortunate necessity of infrastructure and circulation (of starting and ending everyone near the clubhouse).
Maybe a given piece of property lends itself to 2, 3, or even four consecutive short holes. Should this possibility be quickly discarded? Maybe the land lends itself to only 15 or 16 high quality holes, rather than 2 or 3 incredible ones and 15 or 16 mediocre holes (to meet the also arbitrarily decided upon 18 hole golf course). It would be folly to discard these scenarios, but almost invariably, we're stuck on 18 holes, and a par that often falls between 70-72.
Routing and sequencing should be about finding great holes that "feel" right, not ones that fit a formula. Obviously, Cypress Point is the poster child for this, but even MacKenzie balanced out the long holes with the short ones, with respect to par. Balance becomes the critical word, I suppose, but there is certainly no rule that controls how balance can, or should, be achieved.