Rich G:
I've thought some more about your previous post.
The problem with building a natural course is that Nature is always at work. I would love to build a course with the wind-blown look of hazards that you see in Horace Hutchinson's book c. 1895 ... in fact I suggested that to Mike Keiser before he settled on the Macdonald concept. But the problem is that if we built it, it wouldn't last, and the very natural look which made it popular would eventually be obliterated by nature and we'd have to substitute something else. That would be way less costly to maintain, but the inevitable changes would be criticized, which is not such a great business plan.
We went into Pacific Dunes well aware of the realities of Nature ... I spent a lot of time talking to Dick Youngscap about Sand Hills and listening to him giggle about how all that finicky work on bunker edges will just be wiped out within a year or two. So, I think there is a fundamental difference in how people interpret the goal of "preserving" these courses. It isn't the exact shape or position of the bunkers we want to preserve -- it's the natural character of them. If that includes some places where the sand is all blown out of the bunkers down to a dirt layer, that's fine with me, because I know that's what the site was like when we started; but I know at some point the golfers will object when there's too much of that in play, and we'll have to start the process over again.
So, we settle for somewhat domesticated Nature, as in the case of Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes or Royal Dornoch. Some architects insist there's no point in that, that we might as well admit to everything being artificial. But the popularity of the above indicates that people like the natural aspect of golf courses, so I continue with the balancing act.