Moreover, building an old style course would differentiate the new Brightwood from those other Halifax area courses opened recently. Although, perhaps a majority of Brightwood's membership wants the club's new course to be more the same, not different (read: unique)?
Jeff, I think that a lot, maybe a majority, of current members don't want anything to change. The membership skews to the older side and for many they like the idea of a short, somewhat quirky course that is in the middle of town. A 7000-yd track 10 minutes away would cause a lot of them to leave. I think the committees recognize this though, and are counting on attracting a lot of new members with a new layout.
All clubs need to focus on differentiating themselves with others. Ironically, most golfers are more interested in making their home course more like others they fancy. This is a mistake.
Again, I'd be neat to see Brightwood create an "old feel" at the new site. Not only on the golf course, but with the new clubhouse architecture and the overall site plan. Hopefully, this development group that's handling the move for the club has some style and taste. If they're just trying to build something to move the club off the land they're really after, I wish Brightwood a lot of luck.
I think there may be an element of making the new course like others nearby. There was an initial desire to make the new course competitive with Glen Arbour, complete with bentgrass fairways, etc., until the maintenance costs came to light. Similarly, the initial wish list for the new clubhouse would have put it on a par with the spa at La Costa until reality set in. While the committees have agreed on an overall vision for a new facility, there is still (in my view) not a whole lot of concensus on most of the details, nor an agreed-upon list of must-haves versus nice-to-haves.
I agree totally with the view of drawing on the good parts of our heritage. In our existing late-1960s clubhouse (not a particularly interesting design) there are some old photos of the original clubhouse, a Victorian building complete with tower. From the minute I heard of the plans for a new facility I was lobbying that the new clubhouse should have similar archtecture for the very reasons you specify, much like Adam also mentioned. I don't know how that will happen though, because ultimately the club is feeling pressure to make a move and the developer, while apparently recpetive to many items so far, is ultimately only getting into this to make a profit at the lowest risk possible. We are already in a position where we will have to take on debt to get what we want, so anything that potentially adds cost is not probable. OTOH, staying where we are will also require us to take on debt or a significant member assessment in order to keep the place operational much beyond another 5 years or so, and we would still be left with all of the existing shortcomings that have caused membership rates to go into a decline.
Conceptually, I think it'd be interesting to draw on Donald Ross' architecture in planning and constructing the new Brightwood course. The Maritimes is without any good examples of Ross' work, which would make a new Brightwood modelled on Ross' style and philosophy very unqiue in the area. Moreover, a Ross-style golf course is a good fit with Brightwood's history.
I'm not so sure an island green fits 
Agreed. I really like your idea, especially since the club plays up its rather tenous existing Ross connection. Although, as I said in an earlier post, I am a fan of Stanley Thompson and I was wondering today, in thinking about the island green question, if he would have found that idea all that outrageous given some of his other somewhat provocative design features. Maybe he would have given us a schooner-shaped green or a lobster-shaped bunker? ;-)