The #16 hole is far from "ideal" but it bothers me a lot less than it seems to bother others and I hate commenting on architectural choices made when I have not a clue as to how they fit into the full complement of holes which is outstanding.
I told my host that as an "outsider" the only thing I really feel comfortable commenting on is aesthetic things...which for me were two different small issues a "1" on the Doak scale and a "5" which BTW is better/fewer than the issues I find at my home club.
I do know a few members have some issues with the hole (which again I think overblown) but as golfers isn't it our charge to figure out the best way to play the hole?
I do think some changes are being made to the hole but like all these issues, they should be done thoughtfully in consultation with the architect.
In fact...and it hits on a recent thread..I am more comfortable with "changes" coming from the architect after viewing play and dynamics of hole than from memberships soliciting changes because I can see where years and years of suggestions to a consultant will eventually "wear them down".