Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.
Geoff has misrepresented every post I've made on his site today, now he comes over here to do it some more.
Sorry, Geoff, but you aren't going to teach me much about good short par-4's. Here are a few of my better ones:
4th and 12th at Barnbougle Dunes
2nd and 14th at St. Andrews Beach
3rd at Old Macdonald [hat tip to C.B. Macdonald]
7th at Tara Iti, for drivable par-4's.
6th and 16th at Pacific Dunes
7th and 12th at Ballyneal
Most of those have pretty small greens, so it's not easy to get the ball on the green, even if you are long enough to get there. Many of the drivable par-4's we see today [especially the ones on Tour] pander to the players by making a big target for the long hitters. I don't like to pander. Neither did Pete Dye.
I just don't understand why Geoff conflates "short par 4" with drivable holes. There are so many great short 4's that were NOT meant to be driven, including two or three from his list above, and there is nothing wrong with that. Witness the 2nd, 8th, and 17th at Pine Valley.
Drive and pitch holes were part of the vocabulary of every Golden Age architect. Drivable par-4's were not. Some of us are trying to minimize the gap between great players and regular golfers, not to keep widening it. The equipment companies are already doing too much of that.