I'm not sure they need much David. What would you propose?
You don't need to be right next to them to have the ideal angle of approach.
Something bigger and more imposing in there would look wrong to my way of thinking.
There are several non descript appearance bunkers on the course so they are not total oddities.
I would disagree with a suggestion that there are several similar bunkers on he course. I think they stand out for the follwoing reasons.
- the first bunker is built on a downslope and fights the land. Most of the bunkers on the course are built into natural upslopes.
- I don't think there are many holes with more than 1 driving hazard where the hazards aren't integrated into a single complex.
- the first bunker is almost blind from the tee. This is definitely not a common feature.
- One of the bunkers is relatively recent and it looks like the soil excavated has been clumsily dumped to form a series of mounds in the rough.
- the shaping is poor.
The last point is debatable but that still leaves 4 other points.
There are several options as to what you could do. Re-shape them, remove them, move the, etc. I just hope it is an area of consideration for the incoming consulting architect. I would expect them to find the right solution.
Personally, off the top of my head, I would remove the first bunker. It is poorly located on a downslope and barely visible from the tee. I think there might be scope to expand the second bunker into a larger complex that extends up the hill. There are enough bunkers on the course that challenge the short hitter (2, 4, 12, 18 etc) that a complex that challenges the long hitter wouldn't be out of place. The tree line might prohibit this slightly though, I would have to have a better look at it.
Removing both bunkers would also definitely be a good option IMO.