Tom D:
We do agree -- for the most part.
American developers are wont to believe that a "7,000-yard Championship Course" is the only way to go -- anything less than that silly benchmark figure is often derided as "wussie golf." Clearly the PR and mktg people lead that charge for the selling of lots / general public exposure.
Part of the problem is also the perception of many golfers here in the States.
Let's also not forget that architects who are in need of work do little to convince developers otherwise and then you get a generic layout that has all the interest of your typical fast food meal.
Tom, to answer you question -- I don't know what "far enough" is when people talk about distance. It is relative. If you are asking me can most male golfers carry a driver consistently 200 yards in the air and I would say likely no. But here's the thing -- many of these same golfers INSIST upon playing the back tees. This is inane. These idiots have a major outbreak of "blue-tee-itis" and don't want to admit otherwise when it concerns their lack of distance.
In regards to your specific question -- I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction become the ultimate solutoin. I don't see the need for adding extra costs (re: real estate additions) but if it's possible to build extensions to existing tees within the actual footprint of the existing layout I see no reason why it cannot be done from an "elasticity" argument that Paul made previously.
What can often happen is that your solution, if carried out to the max, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath oil. I do see a need for creative design on the American golf front because what you see with any number of UK & Ireland layouts is a respect for the fun element of golf. Part of that is also assisted by the close connection that Mother Nature has when you play there (wind, topography, etc, etc).
Candidly, I don't see the fee issue dropping any substanial amount if for some strange reason all the courses in America adopted what you advocate. The fee structure is based on a number of variables and whether a courser is 6,600 yards or just over 7,000 yards is not going to be that big of a deal. Might one save $5 or $10 on green fees -- yes -- it's possible. It's also possible the developer would simply pocket the difference anyway with no net gain to the player.
I do believe -- that the push should be for more creative designs that advocate the fullest spectrum of shotmaking -- with power a part of that but not the main item to the point of craziness. On that score it will take a far reaching educational emphasis for those building and designing golf courses today.
However, I don't want to see power diminshed from its rightful placement of emphasis simply because the weak hitters don't have that capacity in their own games.