The maintenance has to do in this case with turf quality, consistency and heights, but the structural aspects are the responsibility of the architect.
Brad,
We were together on February 28, 2004 when Baltusrol informed us that they were realigning their fairway/rough lines vis a vis removal of the bent and introduction of wall to wall blue grass, and then, they indicated that they were going to move the bunkers in to match the new fairway/rough lines.
This came on the heels of Oakmont doing the same thing.
Rees was not involved at Oakmont.
The Board of each club must make that decision.
That's NOT a decision left to the architect.
Remember, it cost Baltusrol approximately $ 800,000 just to reconfigure the fairway/rough lines, and that money must be appropriated through club channels, usually, through the finance committee and finally to the board.
Irrespective of any architect's plans and recommendations, ONLY the club, through their operating structure, can make those changes, changes that tend to be permanent, especially in view of the cost to undo them.
So when Rees is criticized for narrowing the rough, one must examine the process, with a historical perspective of Major setups over the last 20 or so years, and with an understanding of the inability of anyone, except the club, to alter the field of play, usually at the request of the USGA and/or PGA.
I can recall the MET Amateur being hosted by Upper Montclair many years ago. Shortly after the MET Am was over, the fairways were cut wider since a PGA Tour event was to be held there the next month. My how times have changed.
Rees can't be held accountable for narrowing a golf course when that's dictated by the USGA and/or PGA and agreed to and financed by the hosting club.
Next he'll be blamed for narrowing ANGC.