Pat; Most of your observations are accurate and have been noted in the literature published in connection with club management. However I question the implication contained in your title. I wonder whether the "focus" of most private clubs was ever architecture.
I suspect the change in health for clubs is related to several factors. First among them is a change in the use of clubs caused, in part , by changes in social mores. 40 years ago when most families consisted of a male breadwinner and a spouse who stayed home with the children, it was not uncommon for the member to spend the weekend at the club playing golf and cards. Social activities were centered at the club and children were sent to camp or amused themselves at the pool or on the tennis courts. Today, the male spouse is expected to help out with the children and the number of organized activities for children has increased exponentially. The time spent at the club has decreased. No comment on which style is "better", I am merely observing a change that has impacted clubs.
In addition, many clubs were really out "in the country." As a result there were fewer restaurants in the immediate vicinity to compete with the dining room and it was not as easy to go back and forth to the club. This made it easier to support a successful dining room and clubhouse.
Additionally there were fewer clubs. Clubs were able to be more selective in admitting members and those admitted were more willing and able to support their club. A further symptom, not noted in your excellent list, is that members almost invariably purchased equipment from their club pro. Many today buy from the cheapest source yet expect the same level of loyalty and service from their pro.
None of this goes toward solving the issues you have raised. But because the issues are largely unrelated to the excellence of architecture, an emphasis on that aspect of the club may not help the club survive. Clearly each club has to try and reach consensus as to what is important to the bulk of its members and what they are willing to pay. In our experience, the improvements to the course which helped bring back much of the Colt & Allison, have helped in the recruitment of new members. Golf course expenditures invariably pass with little debate. We continue to wrestle with food service issues regarding hours of service, scope of menu and pricing. Gathering data regarding times of use, menu selections and the like are critical in trying to dispel myths perpetuated by members with agendas. At our club, the myth is that the older members (I am in the middle) are those that support the club disproportionately. Ranking the members by $$ spent can be very enlightening. It is also important to knowhow the $$ are spent. It is here where margins matter. When a club understands the data, it can decide which activities it is willing to subsidize and which must pay for themselves.