Pete as the master of dead flat sights, now there is a concept worth pondering. Pete as the guy with the most grand construction vision, and daring to take on anything with a limitless budget that he can easily exceed (as Mr. Kohler once said).
Teeth of the Dog was not a particularly well contoured site, was it? Maybe Pete can't visualize a routing in and amongst all the hillocks and dunes? Maybe that is why he turned down Sand Hills. Maybe Pete would rather dig and carve and shape.
Maybe this is a legitimate mindset that varies among archies basic nature. Years ago when I was looking at some sites with Art Johnson, he was specific and adement that he preferred dead flat sites with some decent sandy loam to shape. He'd rather create with cut and fill, use pond spoils, etc.
Fazio had that at Shadow Creek. Art and I sat together when Faz and Wynn did their dog and pony presentation of building of Shadow Creek, and Art lamented how lucky Faz was with such a budget and flat unremarkable site.
Doak had that at Rawls course. What brings out the best creativity, dead flat sandy, or hillocks dunes and hollows?