The Golf Magazine article alludes to increased pace of play due to no bunkers. At face value that makes sense. As getting out of a bunker is a challenging skill for the average player, removing bunkers will reduce number of shots and reduce time for each player to rake the bunker.
But I've heard from those who have played the course recently that the grass in the bunker depressions are kept longer than the areas around them, in the 4-6" range. When a ball is hit into the grass bunkers the player has to spend more time hunting in the long grass to find their ball. This is not a typical case with a sand bunker as recognizing a ball in the bunker is a quick and easy task. The end result is that players have to spend more time locating their ball and playing it out of the grass bunker than they would have playing their ball and raking up the sand bunker. Which has negatively impacted pace of play.
Looking at the pictures in the article and on the golf courses websites, you can see that the grass bunkers and mounds that were build to replace the sand bunkers do indeed have much longer grasses. Which makes me believe that the decision to treat the grounds in this way was a mutual decision between the architect and the superintendent. I have to wonder, why the high grass was felt to be necessary. Shouldn't the normal rough height plus the mounding and hollows be a sufficient challenge for the typical Eisenhower player?