Tom MacWood:
It is not a restoration. On some of the holes, we are choosing to do things that ARE restorative, because we think the original hole was really good; but we are also completely changing holes 1, 2, 7, 17 and 18, primarily because we thought the starting and finishing holes were pretty dull and could be improved.
The interesting thing about North Shore (and the problem) is that it was designed in the mid-1910's, when Raynor assumed that good players were hitting the ball 180-220 yards ... so, many of the holes have the coolest topography in the fairways in places where the better players today don't even notice it. This is one reason that the course has been more popular among seniors and good female golfers than among the 5-handicaps who determine what's great ... it's not really about the total length, as much as it is about where the interesting features come into play.
There was no room to lengthen (most tees are up against a fence or another fairway or severe topo), but by rerouting 1-2-17-18, we were able to bring some of the better features more into play for the better golfer. On #7, we just quit fighting a short par-4 that was too short, and have turned it into a driveable par-4, based loosely on the sixth hole at Pacific Dunes. I would never have done that at Old Macdonald, because it wasn't a Macdonald concept, but the marching orders here were NOT to preserve everything Macdonald did even if it wasn't working well today.
I have very seldom considered doing redesign work like this, for two reasons:
1. It's difficult to make significant changes on a course where for 90 years, every decision has reinforced the original plan, and
2. The politics of redesign are impossible to deal with; most clubs have 300 members who joined because they like what's already there, and no suggested change will be even close to unanimous.
So, I generally have preferred to stick to restorative work, where there is no argument the membership can make. At North Shore, though, the political argument went away because many of the previous members are now gone, and I only have one owner to answer to. In fact, 15-20 years ago I looked at the same course, but declined to become involved precisely because the committees were so fractured and because they were not open to considering more radical changes.
I suspect this sort of work will be much more common over the next 10-20 years. The permitting process is much more streamlined (although tree ordinances can be a problem), and the work can happen quite quickly if there are some holes worth keeping and you are really only making major changes on a few. I do still believe there are many old courses which ought to be restored instead of redesigned, but I don't think North Shore was one of them.