I think its best to keep in mind that optimal conditions vary for each person, club budget and climate. There are always trade-offs to be made. That said, much of this debate surely must revolve around club goals. I will give you a basic example. There is now a push in the UK for courses which can eliminate poa in favour of fescues and bents to do so. An inherent trade-off with this sort of policy, because of less chemicals, less feed and likely less cutting and at higher heights, greens will not be as quick in summer as in past years. A great many golfers lament this loss of green speed. However, on the positive side, greens are firmer and thus play better throughout the year than previously. Few talk about how good some winter greens are because many think of optimal conditions as a summertime only deal. I think this is short-sighted in a climate in which one can play 12 months a year. In a place like England where winter can be wet and temps hovering around or just below the grow zone for months on end, I think a policy of year round green quality at the expense of some green speed in summer is very wise. I also think that in the long term it will be a cheaper maintenance policy.
I not only think minimal chemicals/feed/water is best for greens in England, but virtually everywhere. So long as clubs accept that greens cannot be at flying pace (maybe 8-10 instead), its hard to imagine why lean and mean isn't cheaper in the long run most anywhere. Its the ott green speed expectations of memberships which make lean and mean expensive, not the policy of lean & mean itself.
Ciao