Interesting question.
I think the most important consideration to your question will be answered by the features of the piece of land. But for the sake of argument, I will assume the land is flat and relatively featureless.
I would rather see a 360 and 440 yard par 4 because this differential will allow the architect to use hazards that will allow the hole to be challenging without becoming unreasonable. IMO the 460-500+ yard par 4s should be reserved for the professional golfer in championship conditions.
But another interesting question along the lines of your thread is the use of length in designing courses. It seems like some architects try not to get fixated around 7000+ yard courses, but how much of this thought process comes from studying the works of the "Golden Age" architects. I think that MacKenzie, Thomas, Tillinghast, Crump, Fowler, Bell, Ross, Perry, etc. would be trying to build courses over 7000 yards due to technology improvements. If we really think about it, most of their designs are "growing" today to meet the increasing demands of today's game. Although I read a book where the architect discusses methods of routing the course to allow for lengthening, how many of these architects would be happy with the amount of changes to their original layout?
I am getting off topic, but I think the length differential should be enough for the course to remain interesting without making "length" the hazard. All length of hitters should have a reasonable chance at par. Making par 4s 500+ yards may be too difficult for the average to short length golfer.