Patrick,
In my case too, it's the I&B.
I don't recall the studies if they were referred to on this site. Regrettably I&B hasn't helped my memory. Anybody remember the thread?
You can de-stress, the USGA has regulated that there will be no tennis rackets on a 56" shaft. How about we resurrect this thread in 10 years and see if the technology saved us from our own deterioration.
In respect of the "renovation" of courses, I guess I see less of it here and where I play. It sounds like the percentage of courses in your experience that move bunkers or narrow fairways or change greens is not as large as the number that lengthen tees. It's regrettable if it happens on a course that is classic and if it effectively makes the course worse for the membership. If it's just cost that's the concern, it seems likely to me that money is not an issue for most members at classic courses.
As to whether it is harder to design courses for a variety of players when there is a larger gap in their driving (and iron) length, I'll leave that to the architects to say. From other threads I got the impression that it's always been hard to design a course effectively for a variety of kinds of players. A glaring example in the past being for men vs women. I was under the impression that it was difficult if not impossible to design a course that fits well for players both long and short, and professional to rank amateur.