What would be interesting is knowing what directives the architects were given and how much artistic license they had. Since Mr. Thompson reports that this is a very similar look to a recent Canadian effort by the same firm, did the Club say "we want what you did there", or did the architects just do a "Play it again Sam"?
It would seem that a majority here have a less than favorable opinion of the work - to them, they just don't "feel" right. But no one has hit upon the cause. Scale, tongues and backing mounding that doesn't reflect the remaining terrain are given. What would probably help all this would be some excavation prior to the bunker.
If you look again at the pictures - especially the fairway bunkers, you will notice that the foreground has a straight horizon line prior to the bunker. I would guess the bunkers are bigger and deeper (just by the amount of spoils that was used to create the backing chocolate drop mounds) but that horizon line limits the view of both the horizontal and verticle depth of the bunkers. Plus, with some undulating excavated foreground, not only would the vision of both be increased, but the backing mounds wouldn't look as out of place.
Bunker renovation is a trickier propositiion than most assume. Existing drainage and irrigation often limits what can be done. Importing and exporting materials can be very damaging to none work areas and rarely does a course want to close to do the work so the contractor is given the crappiest weather to work in. As they say in the business - it's tough to shape mud!