Those tee shots that carry crests of a hill are important looks, for without them how repetitious would golf courses be?
Personally, I don't think this choice is ever desirable and if used too often it is not ideal and can be counted as poor design / routing. In my estimation, I think that most designers try not to route uphill holes that have a slightly steeper incline at the start than at the end (i.e. creating a small crest which renders the tee shot blind). Many who do have to move earth to make the hole visible, generally creating unnatural looking mounding to the sides in the process.
As much as I admire much of David Kidd's work, I think that this is a fault with Queenwood. There are a few holes on that course with blind tee shots over a crest.
Ally-I wonder if you would call the tee shots at Yale #`s 10 and 17 poor design? I would respectfully disagree. 
Tim, I'm very slow to call things "poor design". I said that it is less than ideal and can be counted as poor design if used "too often". I stand by that. In my opinion, two holes can be too often in many cases.
However, I have never seen Yale - the only way I can comment is by looking at the photos on Ran's course description.... I can't tell much about 10 - Does the blind tee-shot make the hole or is it the green defences as Ran suggests?...
As for 17, there is interest in that drive. It plays over a lake, it plays up a steep incline to what looks like a flat landing area beyond. That is slightly different to what I was referring to. However, Ran does state that the ridge has been lowered 9 feet since Raynor's death... It looks like fun... Is it ideal? Probably not... If that hole did not have a blind tee shot, do you think Raynor would have thought any less of it?... Definitely not says I... He routed it as he did because that was the best available option (although the style of it actually fits quite nicely with his geometric / rampart style of design in my opinion)...