Aesthetic variety? Hmmm! I'm not completely sure what that would be.
I wouldn't want to see a golf course with something like a Muirhead/Stone Harbor green, a Dye green, and then an NGLA green. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't really like to hear the phrase "out of character" that much. But if anyone wants to see a real variety, in greens, for instance, just take a look at NGLA--who can deny there's every thing and any thing on that golf course and in some unusual arrangements as well? But the point is where they are (naturally) they work very well and look good too--and they're definitely different--one from the other.
I think architects need first to find holes that work well, then check to see where they are in a routing context, and then see after that how the variety is working out. If there's some anomolie in the vein of modern "formulaics", so what?
One of the best examples of departing from formulaics in all kinds of ways in the modern age and still making everything work well--holes, routing, variety, whatever, is Pacific Dunes.