I agree with Shivas regarding the work at Evanston. Fewer courses were more in need of a renovation than Evanston, that's for sure. It had become rather dreary, with the typical mix of flattened-out and featureless bunkers, tunnels of trees and soggy fairways (a problem corrected by some extensive drainage work). The work has helped with the bunkers, but the main malaise at Evanston continues to be the lack of interesting golf holes. It's just sort of boring. After the fourth hole, the course just goes to sleep, only to awake at the 11th. 12-18 aren't exactly spellbinding, either. Don't get me wrong, it can be difficult. You can get into some trouble there. The 18th, with its fronting pond, can be a real ass-pincher if you need par or better to win a match. But the shape of the plot of land and the dead-flatness of it seem to conspire against the desire of the architects to create a fun golf course. It is a terrific club with a lot of fun members and a great neighborhood social scene, but the course that existed before the re-do was not really in any way compelling from an architectural standpoint and the renovation is pretty much the same, even though it's much better visually than it was before.
One other comment about the renovation. This was easily the most contentious environment for a renovation in Chicagoland. If I recall correctly, it only passed by a handful of votes. Based on my anecdotal research, the feelings are still pretty strong, with the "no" votes being quite unhappy with the work and the "yes" votes wondering what the heck is wrong with their fellow members' eyesight.