Mike Nuzzo:
I'm not lauding the changes since I'm not qualified to do so. For the same reason, I'm not spewing criticism of the work, either. I do feel qualified to comment on the PR failures, as I've done on a few occasions. I also feel that it's appropriate to call out some of the more hyperbolic reaction from the non-professional, hobbyist crowd. We rank amateurs should let the qualified supply the passion and try ourselves to temper our comments. If you, Tom Doak or any of the other professional architects or the qualified journalists (I'll put Ran in that category, even though he isn't technically one) want to criticize the work and even work up a lather in the process, who am I to complain? What I've seen here and in other "portals" is plenty of carping from people who have never designed anything, along with lengthy, impassioned bromides written by people who have never even played the golf course. I understand the deep-seated affection for the place and for the course itself, but extremism in any form is very unappealing to me, and I think we've seen plenty of extremism on this issue.
The other aspect of my take on this issue is a quasi-legal in nature. While I recognize that the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process that it employed, it seems to me that they have the legal right to make the call on alterations. Until a different legal mechanism is in place to "protect" St. Andrews, we ought to recognize that the trustees have the power to do what they're doing. Finally, the work is not only not finished, when it is done, it won't be permanent.