Consider it from the opposite perspective.
If there wasn’t a tree there, would you plant one?
Atb
The problem with that perspective is that it takes 30-40 years for a tree to really mature and affect play as you'd imagine.
If it were easy to transplant a tree that big and not worry about losing it, I'd guess a lot more architects would do it a lot more often. But it's expensive, and there's a pretty good chance you will lose the tree.
That also explains why, when you do lose a key tree on a key hole, generally, it isn't worth trying to replace it. It just takes way too long for the replacement to become a satisfactory solution.
I know that sounds inconsistent but it is not at all ... the consistent feature is "work with what you have." If there's a great tree, use it to make the course better [though this does not necessarily mean bringing it prominently into play]. When it dies, change the hole to make it as good as it can be without the tree.