Adam:
Well, it sort of was. EHills got a lot of initial publicity in these parts (and in the golf architecture world generally) in part because it was promoted as a piece of property in which the land itself lent itself to a minimalist approach to architecture, i.e., not a lot of earth moving. That has always been a central feature of the marketing of the course, and its none-too-subtle ambitions for landing big tournaments.
Minimalist design has clearly been a mis-understood concept. Look at two, EH and Dismal River. Both projects, obviously didn't have a clue what it meant. Otherwise the extensive "fixing" would not have been needed.
My bad. I meant to imply 'monster' as being about the cost of clubhouse. Adding significantly to the cost of the golf. The USGA should consider NOT rewarding this type of bad behavior. Using the USGA's interest as an excuse to turn it into a profit center.
Let's see at 2.5 mil, using the formula $10 for every million. That's a $25 dollar green fee. tsk tsk.
Adam:
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, really...but should EHills not have a clubhouse? Where exactly is your proof that the cost of the course's clubhouse has significantly pushed up green fees? EHills opened in 2006 with green fees of $150, with a small ($25) discount for Wisconsin residents. It's now $160 (actually, right now, it's $95 due to reworking at the course). Sure, EHills could have a smaller clubhouse, but it seems the relevant question would be: is the clubhouse appropriate for a course of this scale and type? As others have stated, it's not a clubhouse that dominates the land, or sticks out, or is over-sized.
If you're looking for an obnoxious, out-of-place clubhouse, see this one (not far from Erin Hills), by a somewhat name designer, at least here in the Midwest (Andy North) (it's the photo beneath the headline: Make Your Wedding Day Legenday!):
http://www.thelegendatbergamont.com/