Was the Reese's pieces comment necessary? Let the architecture, poor or not, speak for itself.
I'm not so sure this is a great move. From what I recall, this wasn't a green that is really accessible in two shots, although I see the yardage is 579 yds, which is, say, a driver and a long iron or hybrid. Having said that, there are low-hanging evergreens and OB not too far past the rear/footpad of the green. Not sure if the reward is worth the risk in this case. I think at PB last year on 14, worse case scenario, the ball rolls to the bottom of the green pad, maybe lands in the rough-no OB hard behind the hole, although I might be mistaken.
The bunkering short of the green is unnatural looking, and has the end effect of forcing members to play the hole in 3 full shots, rather than encourage options.
Having said that, I suppose this was the low hanging fruit to do a closely mown area-the green is a little built up, most of the other greens are surrounded by containment mounding, and it's at the point late in the round.
Additionally, I'm not so sure 6 was the better par 5 to make a risk/reward hole than 9. 6 has the ultimate penalty for those not hitting the green. 9 has the large hill short, it falls away right, and I wonder if playing out of long rough would be more difficult than taking the drop. Maybe considering television, there is something dark and fatalistic about a ball in the water vs. just landing in rough.