I played a lot of my early golf on a course that had a total of one bunker (RS #6 rough, Hillcrest GC, Findlay, OH). I love bunkers. Lots of them of different sizes, shapes, depths, and even style. They are the most important design features next to the green complexes. Bunkers are also terrible for public golf in terms of cost, maintenance, and speed of play.
A former GM of two well-known daily-fee facilities in Dallas told me last year that he can't think of a single course in north Texas built in the last 15-20 years whose bunkers didn't require major work in less than five years. At the course I was playing that day, he said it would cost upwards $350,000 to rebuild the bunkers correctly. He noted that there's not enough money in golf for the investment to pay-off half of that cost, and that public golfers don't put much value on good bunkering anyways. Their "official" reply when people complained about the poor conditions is that bunkers are designed to be hazards and play accordingly.
I played one of the best public courses north of Dallas yesterday, Jeff's Ridgeview Ranch. The course is well-bunkered on a site with a modest amount of elevation, but poor, heavy soil. After a five inch rain last week, all the bunkers were washed out, many still had standing water in them. The course gets a tremendous amount of play- I've heard the figure of 60,000 rounds on several occasions- and serves a community with enviable demographics. The talk from a couple "regulars" is that the city is going to do some work on the bunkers piecemeal, and take quite a few of them out. Is so, the "Look" will no doubt suffer, the course will lose some of its architectural integrity, but it will probably still draw a lot of golfers. Pity that this approach appears to be the future of public golf.