James:
I agree with you that nearly all good architects have been good players (if good = single digit handicaps), but don't you believe that most architects have more empathy for the 15- or 25-handicap than most low-handicap players do? And shouldn't we?
Your story is common ... middle handicaps want their course to be challenging for the better players, and they go along with better players who make such suggestions. They tend to go along with such suggestions even when they know it's going to bother them as players, too, though, because they don't want to be seen as wimps in the eyes of the better players. In my opinion, you seldom get honest feedback from members when planning a renovation -- most are positioning themselves based on what others think.
Tom:
My experience with your design is limited only to my numerous rounds on Pac, along with some of your restorations around the northern california area.
That being said, discussing your original design at Pac, the thing I like about it from a design standpoint is the playability for the high handicapper--I've witnessed oregonians in blue jeans with old clubs (along with caddies) that can't play a lick, and yet have a great time on that track--not very "penal", very few lost balls, interesting architecture from the front tees (that play equally as good as the back tees), etc. etc.
Now, that is to say that while I don't think of Pac as that big of a "challenge" (like I would consider Trails, which in my opinion is under-rated from a slope/courserating standpoing), I think that it is one of the (if not THE) most fun courses I have ever played, providing options, shots, and holes that are extremely enjoyable.