Mike,
Yes, as usual, the true answer is in the middle.
Agree the routing is best done on paper, or at least formalized. Yes, you have to walk the site, but many things like wetlands, property lines, woodland edges, even topo are best seen on plan. Of course, TD routed Sebonic on paper before ever seeing the site. And, I usually test route at the office, then walk and revise. Space relationships are best explored on paper, and refined in the field after walking something that approximates how the property might be used.
Except for a very few dream projects, the legal issues of property lines need to be settled on paper. And those lines need to be set (if divvying up the property for real estate, etc) to even plat it, sell it, and start development plans. Most plans require a bunch of paper planning to set the basics.
Like you, I have given up on tile plans and started using the 1 to 10 ratio, and 1 to 20 on sand bunkers (sometimes a bit more) Whether design build or design bid to a qualified contractor, the standard pattern and amounts have become so well known that there really isn't any point any more. We often bid projects with "plug in" quantities at the Design Development level, providing green detail plans as we go, since those can best be seen after bulk clearing. Even us plan guys prefer to reduce plans to save money, and then put more time in the field, but leave only the final details to the field. Sometimes we redraw the early green details, often very sketchy over the existing plans, as construction progresses.
As to someone's comments about shapers never using plans anyway, well......the best comment on it I ever heard was from a shaper that "at least give me the approximate green size and angle of the green, a base elevation, etc. to get me started. I still believe the angle, shape, and quantities of greens mix (and to a lesser extent sand bunkers) are important. Sometimes, like when trying to keep the green above the 100 year flood plain, grades can be extremely critical.
After working with one of your long time shapers in East Texas, I got a feeling about how he never cared to follow plans! LOL. Finally, I had to tell him to start with plans, and let me adjust. First green he built was, on plan, a 10K SF green with 4 decks. His version was a 6500 SF green with a 40% cross slope. I planned that green specifically to be oddly large for variety. No way someone other than the architect can wing it, and understand the overall design intent.
I did the hat slam to express my displeasure......then asked him and the foreman for their hats so I could do a "hat trick hat slam." Those remaining on the job still laugh about it.
And, my experience is closer to Lou and Forrest. While design-build can save money, the real question for the financial types is "How do we know without a competitive bid?" For many, its a bigger question now than before. There is also the "can't wear two hats" question. When the architect is also the builder responsible for construction cost, what happens when a 20 foot fill is required, but he is behind budget? Does he favor his wallet or design quality? Yes, cost plus contracts ( a la Pete Dye) mitigate that somewhat, but
perception can become reality, and it has for many design builders.
For example, you are touting this method, but have always questioned whether RTJ (and probably many others) were ethical.
And, the typical architect charges about 5-7% of expected construction cost, usually converted to a lump sum, so there is no question that he profits by running the cost up. The typical low bid is usually about 1-7% cheaper than second bid (any more than 5% and we start wondering, though). Better plans usually equal tighter bids. Presumably the cost evens out somewhere.
As you say, it's just a matter of how much detail you believe can be left until later. I have never seen the harm in figuring out as much as possible in advance. It seems to be more efficient, but I understand there are different strokes for different folks.