It seems to me an attempt to recreate the intent of the DZ (however that is being defined) would not be limited to simply moving the complex of bunkers in the middle and right side of the fairway. Doing that actually would create another problem. Moving them closer to the green would create a disconnect with the historical spatial relationship that complex has with the bunkers on the left side, the ones further down the fairway. In other words, doing nothing else besides moving the bunkers on the right further down the fairway would narrow the DZ considerably, creating a situation that is completely unharmonious with the original intent. An alternative, of course, would be to also move the three bunkers on the left further down the fairway, but then you have increased both the scope and cost of the work, and (as Brian Izatt has mentioned) have still left yourself in a situation whereby even though you have potentially regained the shot value(s) of the drive, there is nothing you can do to regain the original shot value(s) of the second shot. Pat has reinforced the fact that there is no more land available, and the green cannot be moved. That said, I am just not convinced that metaphor of a "half loaf" of bread that Pat has used is enough to justify any work, especially when Pat admits (in Reply 65) that even today, with the right weather conditions and the right pressure situation, these bunkers actually can challenge modern players.
Yet another alternative solution to this "so-called" problem would simply be to stop using modern equipment when you play courses with otherwise antiquated features such as being discussed. I suspect that if any of us picked up a set of hickory-shafted clubs and a haskell ball (or even a ball that predates these) and played GCGC we would have all the challenge we would need. And, moreover, this alternative eliminates any need to undertake unnecessary, and potentially disfiguring, alterations to what is effectively a living museum of golf course architectural history.