Shivas
Why are you bitching. Shoreacres is a damn good course, perhaps not top-30 but easily top-100. I know you love Medinah and are disapointed (#29 seems plenty high), but why take it out on poor Seth Raynor. By the time Medinah finishes its re-do it will make its move.
How does Medinah even qualify as a Classic course anyway, its been altered so many times shouldn't it be considered a Modern course?
The GW criteria: Ease and intimacy of the routing (SA's routing is world class), Inegrity of original design (another SA strength, Medinah=Modern list canidate), Natural setting/overall land plan (SA hard to beat), Interesting greens/surrounds (SA very good again), Variety and memorability par-3 (difficult to beat Raynor, #12***), par-4s (#11, #2, #4 and #10 all very good, lacks a couple long-4s), par-5s (not a strength, #1 and #18 occupy least intresting ground, #15 one of the best in the country), basic quality of condition (the condition doesn't get in the way of the architecture), landscape tree management (I understand Medinah was once treeless), walk in the park test (albeit subjective, SA is a damn good walk. Medinah a good ride?).
If you asked 10 experienced well-traveled architectural aficianados if they would rather play Medinah or Shoreacres, I'd guess the vote would go 8 to 2 in favor of SA (and that might be understated). Shouldn't the goal of these lists be to identify the best architecture, not which course is a better US Open venue.
Back to the original question. I think there is evidence that both renovation (remodeling) and restoration can help elevate a golf course. A mixed message.