Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: TEPaul on July 14, 2010, 09:43:12 AM

Title: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 14, 2010, 09:43:12 AM
Now that there are some threads containing lists of public or municipal course architecture and architects, it might be an interesting indicator and discussion subject to do a list of significant architects in America (or architects with signficant courses) who got involved in public or municipal golf architecture and those who never did, and perhaps some of the reasons some did and others never did.

In hopes of preventing some argument or confusion of what the era of a list should be, perhaps the subject could contain architects from the very beginning of architecture in America until the present day.

 
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: A.G._Crockett on July 14, 2010, 10:02:53 AM
Tom,
One problem with this is the same one that I see every time there is a "Best Public" or "Best You Can Play" list.  Many, if not most, of the courses that are listed are either resort courses open only to guests of the resort, or are so high dollar that for most of the "public" access is almost as limited as if it were a private club.

My guess is that there will be very few, if any, prominent GCA's who didn't design something that allows at least some degree of public access.  Whether or not the courses are reasonably accessible to the general public is a judgment question that we might never resolve.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 14, 2010, 11:22:40 AM
AG:

I understand what you mean. I'm thinking of truly public courses, like Bethpage, Bayside, Cobbs Creek and perhaps many to most of the courses that have been on a recent list on another thread on here. Also including courses of the same vein that are not as old as those.

Frankly, I think the list should basically include the architects who did courses like that at any time and not necessarily just a list of the courses themselves.

For instance, did Travis ever do a public course? Did Wayne Stiles? Did Robert White, Thomas, Behr, or particularly Macdonald and Raynor? I'm sure the list of architects to consider is quite long and quite interesting.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on July 14, 2010, 11:35:55 AM
Isn't there a big difference between public and public access - Public or 'Municipal' has to be owned by the state / city / country, does it not?

In GB&I, there is a clear dividing line between what is municipal and what is just accessible.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Jim Sweeney on July 14, 2010, 11:46:54 AM
Shall we clarify this topic as listing architects who designed municipally owned golf courses as an original commission (i.e., not a private club that became a municipal course) though he/she is known primarily for designing private clubs?

For example, Donald Ross is known primarily for his private club designs, but he designed George Wright in Boston.

Pete Dye would be anther example. He even made it a point to design municiapsl courses for little or no fee Wintonbury Hills, Kearney Hill (with P.B.).

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 14, 2010, 11:47:19 AM
Ally:

I would just go with straight public access----eg anyone can play it and it is not attached to something like a resort. Just a golf course for public play period.

Jim Sweeney:

I would agree with what you said there. I am not thinking of some course that was designed by the original architect as a private course or even a semi-private course and then became a public or municipal course later for some reason. I'm talking about architects who knew perfectly well they were doing a public access golf course and not even one that had anything to do with privacy or even limited public access for any reason.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: hick on July 14, 2010, 12:10:08 PM
Ross did Triggs in Providence on land which i think the brown brothers owned. not sure if it was ever private. It is very much a muni that is owned buy the city of Providence.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 16, 2010, 05:25:15 PM
I think T. Fazio's portfolio of public courses(non-resort) has been mentioned here as lacking. However, his new Butterfield Trail GC in El Paso, TX is highly rated and it's a muni:

http://www.butterfieldtrailgolf.com/butterfield.asp?id=172&page=3600
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom_Doak on July 16, 2010, 06:08:18 PM
TE:

I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.  But, if it helps:

Macdonald never did a public course ... The Greenbrier was his only resort project (36 holes).  What's left of Lido and the original Deepdale are now munis, but weren't intended to be.

Raynor ... not sure.  I can't think of one.

MacKenzie designed a couple of public courses in the UK, plus Bayside which may have gotten more ink here than it ever got play in its short life.  Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private.  Sandringham in Australia is a public course with a few MacKenzie holes ... I think he drew the plan for it, giving it some of the leftovers from the original Royal Melbourne course after his redesign.  But, I'm not sure of that, it might have been entirely a Russell/Morcom project.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Garland Bayley on July 16, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Didn't MacKenzie do a muni in Sacramento?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 16, 2010, 06:19:47 PM
Our Raynor course has always been open to the public even though it's owned by the school, and our players have always been welcome at Publinx events.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: DMoriarty on July 16, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken. 


Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Garland Bayley on July 16, 2010, 07:41:08 PM
MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken. 




Moriarty, you are a liar, an idiot, a fraud. How dare you contradict Tom's statement that "Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private."

That's it! I'm done with this website and the Ph.D.s that hang out here.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom_Doak on July 16, 2010, 07:47:52 PM
David is right, I forgot Haggin Oaks.   :P  Easy to do since I've never actually been there.

But my general point was that MacKenzie had done a few public courses.

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 16, 2010, 07:48:00 PM
TE:

I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.  But, if it helps:

Macdonald never did a public course ... The Greenbrier was his only resort project (36 holes).  What's left of Lido and the original Deepdale are now munis, but weren't intended to be.

Raynor ... not sure.  I can't think of one.

MacKenzie designed a couple of public courses in the UK, plus Bayside which may have gotten more ink here than it ever got play in its short life.  Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private.  Sandringham in Australia is a public course with a few MacKenzie holes ... I think he drew the plan for it, giving it some of the leftovers from the original Royal Melbourne course after his redesign.  But, I'm not sure of that, it might have been entirely a Russell/Morcom project.

Wasting your time? Please explain?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: DMoriarty on July 17, 2010, 12:21:25 AM
MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken.  

Moriarty, you are a liar, an idiot, a fraud. How dare you contradict Tom's statement that "Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private."

That's it! I'm done with this website and the Ph.D.s that hang out here.

Listen up Barley, if you want to talk to me like that you'll have to wait in line with the rest of 'em.

____________________________

Tom D.,

I've played Haggin Oaks a number of times but at least 10 years ago.  Comparing the course to the blueprint, one can see some of the basic routing features where they survived but much of it has been changed or lost.     It isn't a bad course, but if you aren't going to see a MacKenzie then this is probably a pretty good one to miss (at least as it was 10 years ago.)  
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tim Gavrich on July 17, 2010, 12:51:27 AM
There's that public nine-hole course in the Napa Valley (Northwoods, yes?) that claims to be a Mackenzie course.  Was it formerly private and therefore ineligible?

Aside from Bethpage Black, are there many public Tillinghast courses?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Garland Bayley on July 17, 2010, 12:57:30 AM
My impression is that Sharp Park is and perhaps always was a municipal MacKenzie course.
How does my impression stand up to the truth?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Garland Bayley on July 17, 2010, 12:58:13 AM
There's that public nine-hole course in the Napa Valley (Northwoods, yes?) that claims to be a Mackenzie course.  Was it formerly private and therefore ineligible?

Aside from Bethpage Black, are there many public Tillinghast courses? Don't forget Red and Blue.

Breckenridge Park in TX
Isn't there one in Kansas City too? Snopes?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 01:15:25 AM
"Our Raynor course has always been open to the public even though it's owned by the school, and our players have always been welcome at Publinx events."


Jim Kennedy:

Since you said it, not me, would it be too much to ask you what you mean by 'our Raynor course?'
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 01:19:26 AM
"TE:
I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here."



TomD:

Frankly I'm glad you haven't been wasting your time on that other thread. If you had I think I would agree it would be a waste of your time. I'm not surprised you have no idea what I'm trying to prove by posting this thread but if you are interested I'd be glad to try to explain it to you.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: DMoriarty on July 17, 2010, 01:22:48 AM
My impression is that Sharp Park is and perhaps always was a municipal MacKenzie course.
How does my impression stand up to the truth?


Posted by Tom MacWood on the thread with the list of top public golf courses before 1936:

(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43689.0;attach=7122;image)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 01:43:22 AM
Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures and to try to pass oneself off as some authority on something but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: DMoriarty on July 17, 2010, 01:51:05 AM
Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.

Uhhh . . . Garland asked if MacKenzie designed the course.   I provided him with a color rendering of the original plan done by MacKenzie's firm.  

Stop your foolishness.  It's embarrassing.  
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Kevin_Reilly on July 17, 2010, 01:52:49 AM
Tom Paul, there are many people on this site, I think, who have been interested in Sharp Park.

There is a tremendous amount of information here:

http://www.sfpublicgolf.com/resources.htm

None of what has been posted by David Moriarty or Tom MacWood contradicts any of the reported history of the course, unless you can point out something I am missing.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tim Gavrich on July 17, 2010, 01:53:33 AM
"Our Raynor course has always been open to the public even though it's owned by the school, and our players have always been welcome at Publinx events."


Jim Kennedy:

Since you said it, not me, would it be too much to ask you what you mean by 'our Raynor course?'
TEPaul--

I believe Jim Kennedy was referring to the golf course at Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, CT, originally designed by Raynor.  A few holes have been altered due to new buildings on the campus, but there's some neat stuff still out there.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Kevin_Reilly on July 17, 2010, 02:02:50 AM
There's that public nine-hole course in the Napa Valley (Northwoods, yes?) that claims to be a Mackenzie course.  Was it formerly private and therefore ineligible?

Northwood was privately owned to start, and by some accounts was built for use by the adjacent Bohemian Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove).  The history is a bit fuzzy as to whether the course was supposed to be exclusively for use by the club, but that strikes me as unlikely since the club's summer encampments take place over just part of the year.  But in any event, in the early year it was not a municipal or "public" course in the purest sense.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 02:04:16 AM
Tim Gavrich:

Thanks for that info. That is the course that "Steamshovel" Banks was a teacher at when Raynor came in there to do work at the school's course, was it not?

And is that where Jim Kennedy works now or do you think he would prefer me or this website not to know that?  
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 02:08:26 AM
Kevin:

Thanks for your info too. I know a bunch of members (or participants) in and with the Bohemian Club and that organization should be considered in some semblance as about the polar opposite of public or municipal!!  ;)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures and to try to pass oneself off as some authority on something but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.

Yes, I've played the golf course. I used to live less than mile from it. Why?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 01:23:40 PM
Tom MacWood:

I'm glad to hear that. You asked why I asked that question of you? I asked it because there have been so many instances on this website when you've tried to appear to have some kind of expert or comprehensive knowledge of golf courses you have never seen. Amongst others that would include Merion, Pine Valley, Aronomink, Myopia, Seminole etc.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 01:40:54 PM
Studying and documenting history is not site sensative...if it were I could have never written my essays on Alison & Japan and Crump & PV.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 04:32:46 PM
"Studying and documenting history is not site sensative...if it were I could have never written my essays on Alison & Japan and Crump & PV."

I can't comment much on the accuracy of your essay on Alison and Japan because I've never been to Japan and all I really know first hand of Alison's architecture in detail is what he did at Pine Valley.

Your essay on Crump was essentially about him and not anything about the course which anyone familiar with it does not already know, including all three of its history writers and a number of members and friends of the club. But I suppose for people who don't know much about the place or have never been to it your essay on Crump was fairly informative.

However, to do a detailed architectural creation story of the golf course and the details and nuances of its architecture and how it came to be definitely takes a real familiarity with the course and the material about it in its archives of course one would most certainly have to see it in person (and probably many times) to have that kind of real familiarity.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Dan Herrmann on July 17, 2010, 05:17:21 PM
Back to the 1st post, keep in mind that not all architects of munis were great architecture.  Case in point is Western NY's William Harries.  

I grew up playing Harries designs, the best of which would be a Doak 4.  The others would be in the 1-2 range, but were PERFECT for a kid working his way through college with no money.

They weren't horribly difficult, there were no forced carries, they provided good golf at a great price.  In other words, they were successful.

When I got to the first tee at Brighton Park GC, I knew I wasn't teeing up at Merion.  Hell, the tee markers were the top half of bowling pins painted blue (men's) or red (women's) acting as tee markers.  

Again, the designs were perfect for most of us who didn't have the ability to play privates.

I'd hazard a guess that most munis fit into the same category.  There are a lot more "FDR (in Philly)" type courses than there are Bethpage-quality complexes.  In fact, NY State Parks may have Bethpage, but they also have Harries' Beaver Island, and they have a lot more Beaver Island's than they have Bethpages.  

--------------------
PS - I did some quick Google'ing on Sharp Park and found that it's been targeted for closure (not good!).    See http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sharp-park or http://sharppark.savegolf.net/index.php   
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: David Stamm on July 17, 2010, 05:40:52 PM
Behr did indeed do a public facility, the Westwood pay as you play GC. William P Bell did a few as well, such as Sunset Fields, Willowick, Brookside (with Tillie) and San Clemente. George Thomas poured alot of his own money into completing the Griffith Park courses.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 17, 2010, 06:06:44 PM
"George Thomas poured alot of his own money into completing the Griffith Park courses."

DavidS:

Is that right? That's good to know; I wasn't aware of that or what you said about Behr. The list seems to be getting longer of those who did do some public courses. Perhaps the best list to do would be one with those who definitely never did do a public course. What about Travis or Emmet? On Macdonald/Raynor I'm pretty sure they never did or at least not Macdonald. I wonder why?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 10:22:00 PM
Behr also designed Montebello Park, which was one of the last courses I added to my list of public courses.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 10:24:50 PM
Emmet designed Salisbury Links and Travis designed East Potomac Park.

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 17, 2010, 10:35:48 PM
I've played Salisbury #4, which hosted a PGA tournament in the 20s (today's Eisenhower Park Red course), and it's quite good, probably a solid Doak 5, but I believe that one was private when the course opened..

The other courses Emmett built there don't exist anymore, and most of the land is taken up by two RTJ Sr. courses, which are pretty lackluster.

East Potomac Park is a mystery to me.   It was originally designed by Travis, and couldn't get built right away because of WWI, so Robert White got it built just after 1920, but a more dull golf course I've not seen.

The property itself is simply dead flat, and the out and back routing is uninspiring.   I guess at one time you could play the course in either direction, which is pretty cool and seemed to be sort of a fad for Travis, but the holes are so uninteresting you'd have to wonder who'd want to?

The only really exciting thing about EPP is that you get to aim some shots at the Washington Monument, and the Jefferson Memorial.   Other than that, it's basic golf, perhaps generously a Doak 2, and I have to wonder if it changed or lost a lot of bunkering over the years?

I sure didn't see much signs of former greatness, or even goodness, however, in what remains.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 10:45:57 PM
I'm referring to Salisbury Links which later became Cherry Valley CC. Have you played it?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 17, 2010, 10:56:18 PM
Tom,

No, I haven't played it.   I thought you were talking about the NLE Salisbury #1 course designed by Emmett that hosted that 1925 US Public Links tournament.

My understanding is that the original Emmett public course at Salisbury Links went private by 1918 or so, and then went through significant revisions such that it was a much different course even before 1930.

If we want to go way back to Emmett and short-lived stints as public courses, we should probably just use the example of Island Golf Links, today's Garden City GC.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 10:59:23 PM
I don't think so.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 17, 2010, 11:02:34 PM
Why Tom?   What's the deal with Salisbury?

Are you saying the course that became Cherry Valley is the same one that hosted the Publinks?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 17, 2010, 11:12:14 PM
Publinks?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 17, 2010, 11:17:33 PM
Tom,

The 1925 US Public Links tournament was held at Salisbury CC, designed by Emmett, on the #1 course.

By that time, 4 courses existed at Salisbury, including today's Eisenhower Park Red course, which was course #4.

In news descriptions, the course was described as flat, with smooth greens and the articles also said that bunkering was not problematic. 

Given the land I saw where those courses existed, I can vouch for the first part.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 17, 2010, 11:31:41 PM
I don't think so.

Tom,

I'm really not sure why you continue to try and pose as some expert on public courses when it took you several weeks with all of the Hurdzan Library resources at your fingertips (not to mention two 1950's Travel Guides, sort of that era's "American Golf Guide" by Herbert Pedroli and Mary Tiegren) to just put together a dubious list with no detailed justifications or architectural understanding of what you think were significant public courses of that era.  Humorously, that list still includes many courses that are simply awful.

Continuing down this path is not helping your credibility.

You are confused by the history of Salisbury, as you are confused by the history of many of these course you know only from your crammed days of recent study trying to bone up on public course history in some ridiculous effort to prove me wrong, but I guess that's what spins your prop.  

In any case, the following article should clear up the matter of Salisbury for you.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4803183719_419dc527f8_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 18, 2010, 12:05:10 AM
Tom MacWood,

Here's some more about Salisbury from 1916.

There's also some good stuff about Emmett's course at Meadowbrook.

Now, what was it I was mistaken about again?

I really wish you'd just open your mind and work with us instead of against us, Tom.


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4803252857_3f807999e9_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 18, 2010, 08:27:56 AM
Instead of having this thread devolve down into some of the petty arguments the others on public courses and their architects did I'd love to see the following from the initial post on this thread discussed:

"Now that there are some threads containing lists of public or municipal course architecture and architects, it might be an interesting indicator and discussion subject to do a list of significant architects in America (or architects with signficant courses) who got involved in public or municipal golf architecture and those who never did, and perhaps some of the reasons some did and others never did."

For instance, who were the significant architects of the Golden Age (for starters) who never got involved in a public or municipal golf course and why do you suppose that was the case?

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 18, 2010, 08:58:20 AM

If we want to go way back to Emmett and short-lived stints as public courses, we should probably just use the example of Island Golf Links, today's Garden City GC.


I don't think so. I don't think Emmet and Hubbell's eighteen hole course was ever public. The original nine may have been, I don't know, but even it was for a few weeks IMO it would be idiotic to consider a public golf course.

I'm not confused. The Salisbury Links was one of the best public golf courses during the period of 1900 to 1936, which relates to your original foolish claim. One could argue SL was the first elite public course in the country.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 18, 2010, 09:09:18 AM
Nice lie...er...try, Tom.

That's why there is no point discussing any of this with you.

Have a good day.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 18, 2010, 09:19:57 AM
I would have corrected you last night, but your flying off the handle was such good entertainment it would've been wrong to interrupt it.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 18, 2010, 09:30:56 AM
Mike
By the way the Salisbury Links on my list has always been dated 1908, the first course of the Eisenhower Park complex was built some time in the teens. Also I added the locations on my list a few days ago and my Salisbury was located in Garden city. I don't believe EP is technically in GC.

I was a little surprised by your confusion, not totally surprised, just a little surprised.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 18, 2010, 09:46:36 AM
Tom,

You'd have us believe that you selected Emmett's 1908 Salisbury course for your list of greatest public golf courses through 1936, even though;

1) It became the private Cherry Valley by 1918
2) It was evidently  so accomplished architecturally that it was completely redesigned by Emmett for the CV club before 1927.

You'd have us believe that you were talking about that one even though the subsequent Salisbury CC four-course complex that was created by Emmett in 1916 and beyond included today's well-regarded Eisenhower Park Red course which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship, and whose now defunct #1 course hosted the 1925 US Publinks.

You thought that the Salisbury course on Long Island that hosted the 1925 US Publinks was the same one built by Emmett in 1908, and when I showed you your error, rather than admit that you don't know what you're talking about, you tell us this whopper.   THAT is the only reason your list included the erroneous 1908 date from the get-go.

I'm sure you're off now scavenging for some 1908 article declaring that the original course was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that fact it was completely re-designed before 1927 for the private Cherry Valley club tells us clearly that would be incorrect.

There is no point discussing any of this with a man who is not only a poseur, with little actual knowledge of his subject, but who is also now clearly intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 18, 2010, 10:17:22 AM
Don't you two guys think you should take your continued arguing over trivialities about some list of public courses back over to the threads that are about those lists and contain those lists?

I'd prefer this thread discuss who the significant architects were who did public courses and particularly those who never did public courses as well as why they did and particularly never did public courses.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 18, 2010, 10:31:39 AM
Tom,

I'd prefer that my thread that MacWood and Moriarty derailed on Hugh Wilson's involvement on public courses through his life to still be about that, but apparently they'd rather fill it with inaccuracies and gross errors about public golf so they can have their fill.

I think at this stage everyone sees it has nothing to do with facts or truth anyway, just more of their hopeless agenda.

As far as your question, I don't know of any architects who expressly declined to build public courses, and without that info, it's tough to separate the unwilling from the un-asked.   Do you have any insight there?

As far as the matter on the table between me and MacWood, either he selected a public course for placement on his dubious list of great public courses before Bethpage because he thought it was superb, without knowing that it 1) became private by 1918, 2) wasn't either the Salisbury course that hosted the 1925 Publinks Championship, or the 1926 PGA Championship and 3) was completely re-designed as a private club before 1927, or he just made up a whopper when caught not knowing these facts.

In any case, there is nothing of value to discuss with someone who is making up the history of public golf courses before 1936 by relying on Travel Guides from the 1950s as he goes along, because it is simply a game, and I'm not playing.

If you think you can get an honest intellectual discussion with any real value or meaning out of either of them, please go for it.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 18, 2010, 11:05:12 AM
Tom Paul,

This early article may be more of what you're hoping for here.   It seems most of these guys had good intent, but like today, land for golf courses was expensive, and that led to it becoming more of a private game than a public one in the US in those early days.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4805130514_9b86ce1928_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 18, 2010, 11:24:38 AM
Mike:

Thanks for that. That's a very fine article seemingly reflecting the sentiment of that early time for public golf by a few significant architects. I particularly note Macdonald's remarks but I wonder why he never tried or never offered to back them up by getting involved in a public course project as GAP and Wilson, Crump, Smith et al and apparetly so many others did?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 18, 2010, 11:15:57 PM
Tom,

You'd have us believe that you selected Emmett's 1908 Salisbury course for your list of greatest public golf courses through 1936, even though;

1) It became the private Cherry Valley by 1918
2) It was evidently  so accomplished architecturally that it was completely redesigned by Emmett for the CV club before 1927.

You'd have us believe that you were talking about that one even though the subsequent Salisbury CC four-course complex that was created by Emmett in 1916 and beyond included today's well-regarded Eisenhower Park Red course which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship, and whose now defunct #1 course hosted the 1925 US Publinks.

You thought that the Salisbury course on Long Island that hosted the 1925 US Publinks was the same one built by Emmett in 1908, and when I showed you your error, rather than admit that you don't know what you're talking about, you tell us this whopper.   THAT is the only reason your list included the erroneous 1908 date from the get-go.

I'm sure you're off now scavenging for some 1908 article declaring that the original course was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that fact it was completely re-designed before 1927 for the private Cherry Valley club tells us clearly that would be incorrect.

There is no point discussing any of this with a man who is not only a poseur, with little actual knowledge of his subject, but who is also now clearly intellectually dishonest.


Mike
Salisbury was not a private course turned public. It was from its inception a public course, and by all accounts a nationally well respected one. It hosted the 1913 Metropolitan Open. The fact that it later became private club has no bearing on this discussion.

You claimed Cobbs Creek was the best, most challenging public golf course built prior to 1936, and Salisbury Links is certainly a worthy challenger.


Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 18, 2010, 11:28:11 PM
Can't deal with Jamestown and Beaver Trail, can you MacWood? Therefore it's probably better for you to avoid it and/or ignore it as usual, right? To EVER admit I (the self proclaimed expert reseacher/writer) may've ever made some mistake about anything is virtually unthinkable and unspeakable, right? Oh MY GOD, to admit I've ever been wrong----what a phucking disastah-----please don't even mention such a thing!  ;)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 18, 2010, 11:30:38 PM
Huh?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 18, 2010, 11:38:32 PM
It's always better on your part to ask a dumb question rather than to answer a legitimate one, right MacWood?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the archite
Post by: DMoriarty on July 19, 2010, 01:50:41 AM
Mike Cirba.   I am familiar (from old articles) with the Salisbury Links located in Garden City.  I don't know anything about the ones you throw out in your rant above.  As for digging up articles, there is no point given that once you make up your mind it is impossible for you to change it.  That said, off the top of my head I can think of a Travis article in his magazine, probably 1909-10, where he praised NGLA and two other courses; Pinehurst (with pending changes) and Salisbury Links.    

Go back and look at at Page 2 or 3 of the other thread.  Salisbury Links in on there and it is the 1908 course.  From the beginning I assumed (correctly) that the course on Tom's list was the course in the above-mentioned article and others.  Why you would assume otherwise is beyond me.  Perhaps if you read a bit more broadly on the region you would be familiar with just how well known the 1908 course was?

Plus Mike, you really should consider getting your facts straight before you flip out about these things.   I know it is easier to mischaracterize our position then try to crucify us, but you always get it wrong.  One would think you would tire of flying off the handle without reasonable basis, but since it happens with every couple of posts, I guess you will never learn.

Perhaps you need a new rule?    Make sure you actually understand another's position before you attack them.  Had you followed that one in the past we'd have 100s less pages.  
_____________________________________________________________________________

TEPaul, in another thread you offered an me an "olive branch;" something about me getting involved in the USGA's architecture archive project.  I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting, but generally I would be glad to help the USGA in any way I can, provided I felt I could make a positive contribution and that the project was advancing best interests of golf.  Honestly, though, I have serious reservations about this project and am particularly concerned about the willingness and ability of a few of those involved to actually compile and produce a complete, accurate, and relevant record of the history of these old courses.  

That said, it is possible that I have the wrong impression and I would be glad to discuss it with someone from the project. However, for what should be obvious reasons, I have no interest in discussing the project with you or Wayne.




Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 19, 2010, 02:31:43 AM
"TEPaul, in another thread you offered an me an "olive branch;" something about me getting involved in the USGA's architecture archive project.  I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting, but generally I would be glad to help the USGA in any way I can, provided I felt I could make a positive contribution and that the project was advancing best interests of golf.  Honestly, t I have serious reservations about this  project and am particularly concerned about the willingness and ability of a few of those involved to actually compile and produce a complete, accurate, and relevant record of the history of these old courses. 

That said, it is possible that I have the wrong impression, and I would be glad to discuss the project with someone from the project. However, for what should be obvious reasons, I have no interest in discussing the project with you or Wayne."



David Moriarty:

I did offer you an "olive branch" of sorts but I do not recall offering you an "olive branch" or an opportunity to become involved with the USGA Architecture Archive, And after reading your remarks that are quoted just above there is virtually no way I would do that anyway! And additionally, there is no way I can offer you an opportunity to become involved with the USGA Architecture Archive. I could suggest it but the decision is certainly not mine alone. But again, after considering your remarks just above there is no way I would recommend you. Wayne Morrison is now also on the USGA Architecture Archive Committee and even if I wouldn't pretend to speak for him my sense is he would most certainly not recommend you either.

But I think you are mixed up on what I said on here about suggesting some participation on your part with the USGA Architecture Archieve; it wasn't you I was referring to in the past in that capacity; it was MacWood. I offered the consideration of that to him in the last 2-5 years and he said every time he was not interested. That's fine and fine by me, the offer was made and he refused it every time. As a consequence that did not do much and continues to not do much with my estimation of Tom MacWood's dedication or selflessness, in a voluntary way, of course, of doing much for the future and edification of golf course architecture to the public.

Frankly, I think MacWood is a selfish and self-consumed agent who is only in this for himself, as well as someone with a fairly transparent agenda that serves nothing to anyone but himself, and his own fairly jaded agrandizment. And even with that I don't view his potential capability or contribution as important in the slightest, no matter how he tried to go about it.  Actually, since I found out that Ran Morrissett considered paying MacWood for some essay or did pay him for one, I decided I would never again make a financial contribution to this website, nor will I again until Ran Morrissett gives me his word he will never do that again to someone like MacWood.

But I did offer you an "olive branch," Moriarty and I am again offering you one here and now. What I have in mind is that you and I do a collaborative piece (essay) on the life and times of C. B. Macdonald in things other than to do with just architecture. I feel there is a whole lot of material and interest there and I propose you and I collaborate even if the piece is something of a "compare and contrast" one.

But I am reminded that I offered you this "olive branch" in the past with the opportunity of collaborating on some interesting piece on architecture, and like MacWood, you refused, and in my recollection a couple of times.

But I did make the offer in the past and I am again and therefore the ball is in your court now.


Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 06:36:27 AM
Here is an article on Salisbury Links (Garden City) written by Walter Travis in 2/1908.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 06:41:44 AM
Mike Cirba.   I am familiar (from old articles) with the Salisbury Links located in Garden City.  I don't know anything about the ones you throw out in your rant above.  As for digging up articles, there is no point given that once you make up your mind it is impossible for you to change it.  


David,

Are you saying that MacWood got his idea to nominate Salisbury Links in his piss-poor  list of the best public courses through 1936 from you, but neither of you were aware of the subsequent four-public-course Salisbury CC that replaced it, one of which hosted the US Publinks in 1925, and another which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship so therefore they didn't make the list?

I don't get you, David.  Two weeks ago you rightly told us that you knew very little about public courses and last week you were pontificating like the Oracle of Delphi, taking the unwary reader through a virtual Mythical History Tour of the forces and evolution driving pubilc golf in the first few decades.   I sort of preferred when you didn't try to pull  a MacWood and didn't try to pretend you knew anything about this subject.  
 
I would assume you were both also unaware that the brilliant 1908 design that became the Cherry Valley Links was completely overhauled and redesigned by Emmett before 1927?

That makes sense, somehow.   Good to see your collaborative powers are consistent.

p.s.   You mentioned Griffith Park, which I thought might be a good contender, but I seem to recall George Thomas himself in the mid-20s said that Ojai Valley was better than a better-ball course of LA North (at that time), Griffith Park, and Red Hill combined, didn't he?   Perhaps he was enamored with his new creation?


Tom MacWood,

See...I knew you'd be scavenging.   Sounds really, really impressive.

Why do you think they completely overhauled this masterpiece before 1927?

p.s. courses like Beaver Tail and Belvedere were essentially the resort courses of their day, where rich folks "summered", so their inclusion in your list is dubious ,at best.   Do you think the average working stiff was spending their summers in Jamestown or along Lake Michigan in Charlevoix?   Or perhaps in Southampton or Garden City?

I have an article that calls Salisbury Links a resort, as well, but as far as I care, keep it on your list because it reflects the overall quality of what you came up with rather well, I'd say.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 06:52:00 AM
Mike
I am very aware of the Salisbury Links that later became Eisenhower Park, and hosted the Public Links. It came up on your other thread, I believe Phil was the one who suggested it. I'm still considering it, along with some other courses.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 06:53:35 AM
Tom,

Now THAT's funny.

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 07:00:03 AM

Tom MacWood,

See...I knew you'd be scavenging.   Sounds really, really impressive.

Why do you think they completely overhauled this masterpiece before 1927?

p.s. courses like Beaver Tail and Belvedere were essentially the resort courses of their day, where rich folks "summered", so their inclusion in your list is dubious ,at best.   Do you think the average working stiff was spending their summers in Jamestown or along Lake Michigan in Charlevoix?   Or perhaps in Southampton or Garden City?

I have an article that calls Salisbury Links a resort, as well, but as far as I care, keep it on your list because it reflects the overall quality of what you came up with rather well, I'd say.

When I played Cherry Valley they explained to me why the course was changed. It has something to do with a land exchange. The current course is across the street from where the old course was, something like that, but I don't remember the details. Why don't you look into it?

Resort courses? I don't believe they were associated with a hotel or a resort complex. They were daily fee courses located at a vacation destination/summer colony, but I don't believe they should be excluded based on that.  Would you agree Beaver Tail and Belvedere were superior to Cobbs Creek?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 07:05:18 AM
Tom,

I've not played Beaver Tail, and only seen the two-dimensional drawing so I can't comment.

I have played Belvedere, and what I know of the original Cobb's Creek course, especially by 1928, I think the latter was superior.

Belvedere is a great place to play golf, has some very good holes and terrific greens, but also some rather mundane holes on property that is not compelling.   Tom Doak gave it a Doak Scale "5" in his book, which is an accurate assessment.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 07:34:49 AM
Actually its not that funny. I'm still trying to sort out the SL courses. I believe the PGA on one of the courses that was private and Publinx was played on the #1 course, which started life as a private club before being purchased in 1918. That leaves #2 and #5 and I'm not sure of their quality just yet.

Cobbs Creek was superior to Belvedere?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 07:42:04 AM
The 5800 yard, par 73 Salisbury Links course that became the private Cherry Valley GC and was completely redesigned before 1927, was considered a resort course for rich folks from inception as this 1908 article shows.

But that's ok...it's inclusion is certainly consistent with the quality and accuracy of most of the rest of the list so I vote to keep it!  ;D

After all, we really don't want the Yachting Set to get offended if it's removed from the list of early public courses.


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4808508108_28d1933fdf_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Phil_the_Author on July 19, 2010, 07:52:34 AM
Tom,

The PGA was played on the #4 course, what is known as the Red course today...

Mike,

If you'd like to see what Beavertail ACTUALLY looked like I posted an aerial of the course from about 1928/29 as well as photo's of the clubhouse and greenkeeper's cottage.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 07:58:58 AM

Cobbs Creek was superior to Belvedere?


Tom,

Have you seen or played either course?

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 12:43:12 PM
Mike
Either the author of that article didn't know what he was talking about or you're misinterpreting his words. IMO the latter is more likely seeing that most of the courses he listed were not resort courses. The Salisbury Links was never a resort course. Here are a few clips, the first is an article from the Washington Post, the second is an article from the NY Tribune and last advertisement is from 1916.

I have not played Belvedere, but I've been there and seen the golf course. I can only imagine what it was like with its original bunkering.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 19, 2010, 12:56:18 PM
Uh huh, those so-called "public" courses mentioned above and in those new accounts and ads sure do sound like our present day conception of a public golf course or even one created on the concept of Cobbs Creek!


"Come one, come all, we even provide facilities for you to park your yacht!"


 ??? ;)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the archite
Post by: DMoriarty on July 19, 2010, 01:38:00 PM
TEPaul:   Last night (about 1:30 a.m your time) you posted:

"David Moriarty:    I did offer you an "olive branch" of sorts but I do not recall offering you an "olive branch" or an opportunity to become involved with the USGA Architecture Archive . . .  I think you are mixed up on what I said on here about suggesting some participation on your part with the USGA Architecture Archieve".

You do not recall asking me to become involved with the USGA Architectural Archive? You think I'm mixed up?  Really?

Here is what you had posted 48 hours before, again around 1:30 a.m. Eastern Time:

"I'm going to give you another shot right here, Moriarty? The shot and question to you is do you want to help the USGA Architecture Archive research architecture and courses? And if not, why not? . . . I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if we can all work in a collaborative mode and I feel the USGA Architecture Archive and doing research for it is the trick, the key and the vehicle. . . . Are you willing to go along with that and if not why not? . . ."

Huh?  How is it that you cannot remember what you posted even 48 hours before?  And about something supposedly so important to you as the USGA Architecture Archive?  And why is it that you were treating this Architecture Archive as if it was your own personal fiefdom?

As for your other "olive branch," the two of us corroborating on a piece about CBM's personal life, thanks but no thanks.  How could anyone productively corroborate with someone who is so out of control that he has no idea what he says or does over a 48 hour span?  Besides, your supposed olive branches have proven poison in the past (remember your made up Canadian research expert and your plan to have me send you all my posts for vetting and pre-approval? Those were the days . . .) I've long ago learned my lesson.  

Most importantly, we have irreconcilably different "interests."  Your "interest" in CBM's personal life seems based on nothing more than gossip, innuendo, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation, and serves an agenda not necessarily related to reality.  If your "interest" is based upon more than that, then you've been holding out on us. (Unfortunately for the USGA Architecture Archive project, your approach to some of the great courses seems similar.)  I am interested in the history of golf course design, not gossip or propaganda.

But go ahead and write your own piece on CBM's personal life.  After all, you have been promising you would for years and years now but haven't managed it yet.   If you ever get around to it, you might even get the "compare and contrast" you desire in response.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 19, 2010, 02:44:10 PM
David Moriarty:


It's quite explainable really. You and I might have some misunderstanding about the nature and structure of the USGA Architecture Archive. I am all for ANYONE anywhere being willing and able to make contributions to it that may be both interesting and passably accurate historically. But there is a committee in place that has been given the responsibility to decide on such things.

After I offered you that “olive branch” the following was your response:



“TEPaul, in another thread you offered an me an "olive branch;" something about me getting involved in the USGA's architecture archive project.  I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting, but generally I would be glad to help the USGA in any way I can, provided I felt I could make a positive contribution and that the project was advancing best interests of golf.  Honestly, though, I have serious reservations about this project and am particularly concerned about the willingness and ability of a few of those involved to actually compile and produce a complete, accurate, and relevant record of the history of these old courses.  

That said, it is possible that I have the wrong impression and I would be glad to discuss it with someone from the project. However, for what should be obvious reasons, I have no interest in discussing the project with you or Wayne.”



Wayne and I, amongst others, happen to be on that committee and if the above is your approach to the USGA’s Architecture Archive and its  Committee, by, in effect, admitting up front you will only deal with some members of it and not others; well then, I guess you are going to be basically shit out of luck there, fella! Perhaps what you should devote your time and efforts to in the future is to write a new iteration of Dale Carnegie's book entitled "How to Win Friends and Influence People While Constantly Burning All Your Bridges To Them."  ;)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 07:41:46 PM
Tom,

For your list to have any validity at all to my point you're trying to debunk, you really need to stop adding courses after the start of the Great Depression.

You also really need to stop adding courses that were resorts.   The following is from the Chicago Tribune, June 1927.

You can keep whatever you want for all I care, but it's not relevant to anything I ever claimed here the way you're approaching this.  


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4810607364_f7f404f228_o.jpg)


If you really want to discuss this seriously, you need to start by throwing the American Golf Guide away as a primary source, and those 1950s Travel Guides, as well, and dig a bit deeper.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 08:19:51 PM
Mike
I thought you said Cobbs Creek was superior to Belvedere.

Do you know if the Belvedere Hotel was connected to the Belvedere GC? The LIRR advertised the Salisbury Links and there was no connection there.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 08:23:39 PM
Pasadena is another one that really doesn't belong.

It was not a resort, per se, but actually a course built as part of a planned resort community and opened in 1925.

It was funded by St. Petersburg hotels, most conspicuously the next-door Hotel Ralyat.

It seemed such a good idea that the Brigantine Country Club, the first planned community in the northeast (based on Pasadena), went down to see the course and commissioned Stiles and Van Kleek to build a replica of the course along the Jersey shore.  

I'm not sure what happened, but Brigantine when opened in 1927 didn't turn out looking anything like Pasadena when all was said and done, although it's a course near and dear to my heart for personal sentimental reasons.

Anyway...by early 1929 the course at Pasadena (which such big names as Walter Hagen and Joe Kirkwood behind it) didn't open, because the hotels in the area refused to fund it any longer, citing the large advantage the adjacent Hotel Ralyat had for prospective players.

Soon after, the Hotel Ralyat went into foreclosure, later in 1929.

No golf course, no hotel.


Tom,

just saw your note...I do think the original Cobb's was slightly superior to the original Belvedere (which I agree would be better with the original bunkering), but if you're wanting to have a discussion I thought that we agreed resort courses were out of play?

The ad refers to the new golf course, which opened that year.    I would think other vacationers in the resort town of Charlevoix might be able to gain access, as well, but not sure how that was structured.


by the way, by 1930 a lot was already happening both good and bad around public courses, mostly bad.   For instance, Lake Chabot was holding benefit tournaments to aid the unemployed, and I do know that very quickly courses that were funded by cities or private individuals sometimes even sat idle (witness Pasadena) through those years.  

Ironically, the exact same thing happened to Brigantine CC, which didn't reopen until the 1950s when Garrett Renn took Stiles/Van Kleek's original plans and re-created the course out of the overgrown muck.

That is why I selected it as a cut off date.

For purposes of discussion, I'd be happy to discuss any of the following in detail;

Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting  (San Francisco, Ca)
Griffith Park-Wilson (1915/1923) - T.Bendelow & G.Thomas   (Los Angeles, Ca)
Griffith Park-Harding (1915/1925) - T. Bendelow & G.Thomas  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke   (Oakland, Ca)
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell  (Pasadena, Ca)
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Montebello Park (1928) - M.Behr  (Montebello, Ca.)
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson  (Colorado Springs, Co)
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross  (Jacksonville, Fl)
Mount Plymouth (1925) - W.Clark  (Mt. Plymouth, Fl)
Savannah Muni (1926) - D.Ross  (Savannah, Ga)
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil  (Glencoe, Il)
Palos Park (1919) - T.Bendelow  (Palos Park, Il)
Pickwick (1927) - J.Roseman  (Glenview, Il)
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie  (W.Chicago, Il)
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford  (Davenport, Ia)
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson  (Des Moines, Ia)
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell  (Indianapolis, In)
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil  (South Bend, In)
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross  (Detroit, Mi)
Armour Park (1925) - W.Clark  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Keller (1929) - P.Coates  (St. Paul, Mn)
Meadowbrook (1926) - J.Foulis  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Gulf Hills (1927) - J.Daray  (Biloxi, Ms)
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis  (St. Louis, Mo)
Asheville Muni (1927) - D.Ross  (Asheville, NC)
Community (1912) - W.Hoare  (Dayton, Oh)
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross  (Youngstown, Oh)
Highland Park-New (1928) - S.Alves  (Cleveland, Oh)
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson  (Cleveland, Oh)
Ridgewood (1924) - S.Alves  (Parma, Oh)
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber  (Canton, Oh)
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan  (Portland, Or)
Cobbs Creek (1916) - H.Wilson   (Philadelphia, Pa)
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler  (Hermitage, Pa)
Stevens Park (1924)                     (Dallas, TX)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke  (Dallas, Tx)
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast  (San Antonio, Tx)
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen  (Milwaukee, Wi)
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris  (Janesville, Wi)


Incidentally, I would agree with you and David that of the contenders, the ones in California were likely the strongest, along with Eastmoreland, Brackenridge (although I've played it and don't think the land is really very good, despite Tilly's efforts), and possibly Tam O'Shanter in PA.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 08:44:38 PM
Mike
I think mine was fair question...why not answer it?  Here are two advertisements, the first from 1924, one year before Belvedere GC was established and two or three year prior to the course opening. The second is from 1930; was The Inn also affiliated with the resort? Keep throwing what you can against the wall eventually something will stick.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 08:48:05 PM
What hotel funded Pasadena GC?

Why should a daily fee golf course built as part of a planned community be excluded?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 08:49:31 PM
Tom,

My point is that by definition, these are resort courses.  

Cleveland Heights is another example... a course built as an integral part of a planned real estate/hotel/resort community designed to spur vacation travel, home sales, and the like.  

In the case of Belvedere, "The Inn" may very well have had golf privileges.

Of course, in town there was also the Charlevoix GC, which is a fun nine-holer.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 08:51:32 PM
What hotel funded Pasadena GC?

Tom,

I haven't quite figured out how to cut and paste from this site, but here's the link;

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BGoxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zE0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6756,5279995&dq=golf+pasadena+hotel+petersburg&hl=en

Here's more...

The course was to be auctioned off for $1000

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ybEtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FdgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5744,1899676&dq=golf+pasadena+hotel+petersburg&hl=en
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 08:53:02 PM
Why should a daily fee golf course built as part of planned community be excluded? Salisbury Links was part of a planned community.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 08:59:34 PM
Why should a daily fee golf course built as part of planned community be excluded? Salisbury Links was part of a planned community.

Tom,

That's exactly my point, and why I suggested earlier that Salisbury Links would most likely be considered a resort course as that article stated.

I think there is a tremendous difference between a public course built to service all the people of any socioeconomic group near a major population center versus a course built to try as part of a planned resort community strategy to attract well-to-do vacationers, second home-buyers, and other hoi polloi.

In a way, these were resorts on a larger scale than places like Greenbrier or Pinehurst, but also meant to be idyllic communities where the rich could have all of their vacation needs met, or more hopefully, a place to buy a winter home, and many of the articles around places like Pasadena and the like talk about the exclusivity of the communities.

Conversely, many of the true public courses of the era were either free, or charged some ridiculously low fee for "locker privileges" or some such thing to keep the real riff-raff away.



Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 09:04:01 PM
That was a hell of a try: golf + pasadena + hotel + petersburg.

That is pretty funny, but I don't think the golf course was part of a hotel. The golf course project was funded by developer Jack Taylor.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 09:06:20 PM
Tom,

Are you really suggesting these were separate, independent enterprises without direct economic dependencies?  

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9ZkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f1QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3570,1152232&dq=golf+pasadena+hotel+petersburg&hl=en
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 09:06:54 PM
Like I predicted a few days ago, before you know it we will only have courses east of the Mississippi, north of the Mason-Dixon, built before America's entry into WWI and inland.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 09:09:17 PM
Tom,

Courses built by rich people solely for rich people is not what I consider a public course.   

Sorry to have created confusion, but I think the lines back then were a bit clearer than what you suggest.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 09:13:23 PM
What do you have against rich people? The Old course was enjoyed by the very rich and the very poor.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Peter Pallotta on July 19, 2010, 09:13:35 PM
The 'truth' seems to lie somewhere in the middle.  I think it may be anachronistic to project back onto the 1920s the concept of the public-access courses that are part of today's planned communities; and it seems a bit misguided to ignore the socio-economic differences between the golfing population (and golfing ethos) of the 1920s and the explosion of golf as an everyman's game (post, say, Arnold Palmer, in the 1960s).  But on the other hand, it does seem to me that putting too-fine a point on what qualifies as a public course (or a municipal course, or a semi-private course) of the 1920s is a bit arbitrary and not very helpful. After all, if you asked the average man on the street his definition of a public course, he might simply say that it was any course that wasn't officially (and expensively) private. Not much help, this post - just my 2 cents.

Peter  
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 09:16:37 PM
What do you have against rich people? The Old course was enjoyed by the very rich and the very poor.

Tom,

Not a darn thing.  Some of my best friends are rich people.

But I do think that courses opened to be places to play for everyone, such as the Old Course, had been definition some degree of egalitarianism and affordability once onto the property (like the Old Course, which hosted Kings and Cobblers almost since inception), and I don't think exclusive resort communities fall into this category.

Peter,

Yes, it is a bit blurry, but hopefully this explains it slightly better.

Tom/All,

Since this whole topic and ongoing flurry of counter-activity was spurred by my comment that before the 1930s and the Great Depression, Cobb's Creek was believed by many observers to be the best public course in the country, I think I should be able to explain what I meant by "public course", and the specific timeframe I was referring to without others trying to define it for me.

I do hope that some of what I've provided this evening helped to make my contention clearer, and I remain interested in discussing anything about comparative public golf courses of that era. 

Thanks.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 09:41:36 PM
By the way, I think the list of public courses that hosted the US Public Links is a prime example of the type of courses I was referring to, and is self-explanatory.

You don't see resort type courses here, or resort community courses, until modern times, probably starting around 1980 with Edgewood Tahoe, which I'm sure was a marketing move by that resort.

However, most of the courses listed are exactly the type of true public courses that drew my original comparison.

http://www.usapl.org/history/past-champions/index.html
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Phil_the_Author on July 19, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
"Why should a daily fee golf course built as part of planned community be excluded? Salisbury Links was part of a planned community."

Tom, what planned community would that have been for which the Saisbury daily fee courses were SPECIFICALLY built?

Also, what has been overlooked is that Salisbury served as the course used by guests of the Garden City Hotel with transportation arranged for by the hotel for them.

Mike, when you payed Brackenridge Park it had been substantially altered due to land being taken over by the city for a highway. The restoration done by Colligan is stunning and remarkable. Change some of the photos from color to black and white and you'd think you were looking at Tilly's handiwork. Unfortunately three holes have been lost forever... It was a VERY good course for the time period from the teens though the thirties...
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 09:52:10 PM
Phil,

If you like the restoration, I'll be sure to visit Brack again next time I'm in San Antonio.   

I do realize the course I played had been quite compromised from the original, and I'd be interested in anything you have that detailed the original course so I can see specifically what had been lost.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Peter Pallotta on July 19, 2010, 09:55:33 PM
Mike - fair enough, but might I make a suggestion, i.e. take a 'positive' approach to this. Since the thread has morphed into something else (as almost all threads do at some point), why not let Tom M have his list (and his definition) while you re-visit YOUR list. What I mean is, can you produce a list of those courses that YOU consider true public courses built before 1930 -- that list would include the courses that hosted the Publinx, but are there any more? How many (if any) from Tom M's ever increasing list would you now add to YOUR list? And outside of Tom's list, what other courses upon reflection do you now consider fitting your criteria? I think such a list would be useful. (And sorry, if you have produced one already I have missed it).

Sorry, Mike, I see that you've already taken my suggestion :)  For the others who might be, like me, increasingly liable to miss posts, here it is again:

Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting  (San Francisco, Ca)
Griffith Park-Wilson (1915/1923) - T.Bendelow & G.Thomas   (Los Angeles, Ca)
Griffith Park-Harding (1915/1925) - T. Bendelow & G.Thomas  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke   (Oakland, Ca)
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell  (Pasadena, Ca)
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Montebello Park (1928) - M.Behr  (Montebello, Ca.)
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson  (Colorado Springs, Co)
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross  (Jacksonville, Fl)
Mount Plymouth (1925) - W.Clark  (Mt. Plymouth, Fl)
Savannah Muni (1926) - D.Ross  (Savannah, Ga)
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil  (Glencoe, Il)
Palos Park (1919) - T.Bendelow  (Palos Park, Il)
Pickwick (1927) - J.Roseman  (Glenview, Il)
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie  (W.Chicago, Il)
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford  (Davenport, Ia)
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson  (Des Moines, Ia)
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell  (Indianapolis, In)
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil  (South Bend, In)
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross  (Detroit, Mi)
Armour Park (1925) - W.Clark  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Keller (1929) - P.Coates  (St. Paul, Mn)
Meadowbrook (1926) - J.Foulis  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Gulf Hills (1927) - J.Daray  (Biloxi, Ms)
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis  (St. Louis, Mo)
Asheville Muni (1927) - D.Ross  (Asheville, NC)
Community (1912) - W.Hoare  (Dayton, Oh)
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross  (Youngstown, Oh)
Highland Park-New (1928) - S.Alves  (Cleveland, Oh)
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson  (Cleveland, Oh)
Ridgewood (1924) - S.Alves  (Parma, Oh)
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber  (Canton, Oh)
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan  (Portland, Or)
Cobbs Creek (1916) - H.Wilson   (Philadelphia, Pa)
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler  (Hermitage, Pa)
Stevens Park (1924)                     (Dallas, TX)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke  (Dallas, Tx)
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast  (San Antonio, Tx)
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen  (Milwaukee, Wi)
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris  (Janesville, Wi)

Peter
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2010, 10:02:25 PM
"Why should a daily fee golf course built as part of planned community be excluded? Salisbury Links was part of a planned community."

Tom, what planned community would that have been for which the Saisbury daily fee courses were SPECIFICALLY built?

Also, what has been overlooked is that Salisbury served as the course used by guests of the Garden City Hotel with transportation arranged for by the hotel for them.

Mike, when you payed Brackenridge Park it had been substantially altered due to land being taken over by the city for a highway. The restoration done by Colligan is stunning and remarkable. Change some of the photos from color to black and white and you'd think you were looking at Tilly's handiwork. Unfortunately three holes have been lost forever... It was a VERY good course for the time period from the teens though the thirties...

AT Stewart was the guiding force behind the development of Garden City, which was a planned community. After his death his heirs formed the Garden City Company to carry out his original vision. The GCC built Salisbury Links in 1907.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2010, 10:17:44 PM
Peter,

Good suggestion! ;) ;D

Seriously, thanks for trying to bring some positivity to this discussion...it's most appreciated. 
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 06:42:17 AM
Added Pelham Bay (NY) back to the list.


Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting  (San Francisco, Ca)
Griffith Park-Wilson (1915/1923) - T.Bendelow & G.Thomas   (Los Angeles, Ca)
Griffith Park-Harding (1915/1925) - T. Bendelow & G.Thomas  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke   (Oakland, Ca)
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell  (Pasadena, Ca)
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Montebello Park (1928) - M.Behr  (Montebello, Ca.)
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson  (Colorado Springs, Co)
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross  (Jacksonville, Fl)
Mount Plymouth (1925) - W.Clark  (Mt. Plymouth, Fl)
Savannah Muni (1926) - D.Ross  (Savannah, Ga)
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil  (Glencoe, Il)
Palos Park (1919) - T.Bendelow  (Palos Park, Il)
Pickwick (1927) - J.Roseman  (Glenview, Il)
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie  (W.Chicago, Il)
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford  (Davenport, Ia)
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson  (Des Moines, Ia)
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell  (Indianapolis, In)
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil  (South Bend, In)
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross  (Detroit, Mi)
Armour Park (1925) - W.Clark  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Keller (1929) - P.Coates  (St. Paul, Mn)
Meadowbrook (1926) - J.Foulis  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Gulf Hills (1927) - J.Daray  (Biloxi, Ms)
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis  (St. Louis, Mo)
Asheville Muni (1927) - D.Ross  (Asheville, NC)
Pelham Bay (1908) - L Van Etten (Bronx, NY)
Community (1912) - W.Hoare  (Dayton, Oh)
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross  (Youngstown, Oh)
Highland Park-New (1928) - S.Alves  (Cleveland, Oh)
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson  (Cleveland, Oh)
Ridgewood (1924) - S.Alves  (Parma, Oh)
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber  (Canton, Oh)
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan  (Portland, Or)
Cobbs Creek (1916) - H.Wilson   (Philadelphia, Pa)
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler  (Hermitage, Pa)
Stevens Park (1924)                     (Dallas, TX)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke  (Dallas, Tx)
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast  (San Antonio, Tx)
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen  (Milwaukee, Wi)
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris  (Janesville, Wi)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 20, 2010, 06:51:46 AM
The 'truth' seems to lie somewhere in the middle.  I think it may be anachronistic to project back onto the 1920s the concept of the public-access courses that are part of today's planned communities; and it seems a bit misguided to ignore the socio-economic differences between the golfing population (and golfing ethos) of the 1920s and the explosion of golf as an everyman's game (post, say, Arnold Palmer, in the 1960s).  But on the other hand, it does seem to me that putting too-fine a point on what qualifies as a public course (or a municipal course, or a semi-private course) of the 1920s is a bit arbitrary and not very helpful. After all, if you asked the average man on the street his definition of a public course, he might simply say that it was any course that wasn't officially (and expensively) private. Not much help, this post - just my 2 cents.

Peter  

Peter
Why don't you start your own list based on different socioeconomic strata, and good luck trying to determine if rich or poor played at any of the courses. And good luck trying to determine how much was spent on each project and where the funds came from. One of the most interesting aspects of studying golf architecture history is the fact that great golf architecture can come from the most modest to the most extravagant and every where in between. My goal was to find the best public golf courses during this period in reaction to Mike's comment. I don't recall him adding so many caveats....do you?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 06:56:10 AM
Tom,

That's ok...you have your list and I think that's fine.

But adding courses that were created as part of large resort communities to attract the second-home set and "exclusive" vacationer is really not the comparison I was looking for, nor were courses after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and I thought I had at least made the latter point pretty clear about two or six zillion times.  ;)

In either case, I am starting to like your list now that we're at least getting into some architectural specifics and appreciate your findings.   It's just not what I'd use for comparison to my original statement, and that's ok too because I can try to show the difference here.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 07:16:28 AM
Tom MacWood:


Regarding your Post #100 why don't you start your own thread with your lists of public courses to prove Mike Cirba wrong about something he said about Cobbs Creek instead of putting your irrelevent lists on a thread I started which was not intended to be about public course lists to prove Cirba wrong? This thread was intended to figure out which significant architects did public courses and which didn't and particularly why some did and some didn't.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 07:22:00 AM
Mike Cirba:


That article from 1908 you posted in Post #70 is pretty amazing. Do you know which newspaper it's from? That kind of article about the rich and socially prominent was not uncommon back in that day. I doubt there is a mainstream newspaper today though that would dare write and publish an article like that one, except for some vestige of that kind of thing today like Palm Beach's famous "Shiny Sheet." That article is a great example of a newspaper "period piece" and I think it says a lot about that day and age even if Tom MacWood doesn't seem to understand it or understand the distinction.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 07:22:55 AM
Uh...Tom...

Blame me, not MacWood, for bringing my edited version of the list to this thread.

btw...That article was from the NY Times.

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 07:34:29 AM
"btw...That article was from the NY Times."


That doesn't surprise me. Even in my Deb party days back in the early 1960s the NY Times still had what was labeled the Society Page. I don't read the NY Times anymore but I would sure bet that doesn't exist anymore. Those writers specialized in that kind of content and we knew them and they knew all of us. I guess it was basically their business to know who the people were at the parties and such they were reporting on. Some of those articles actually pretty much tried to list most of the people who were there. I bet you could find some like that back in that day of the article in your Post #70.

Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 07:36:24 AM
Tom,

Those type of articles were pervasive back then, and yes, there were pages listing all the folks at such and such's hob-nobbing party or wedding,etc.

The one's in Florida were a mixture of news and marketing for the latest "community".

I'd like to see what would happen if Howard Wheeler had strode up to the gate, clubs in tow, at one of those places. ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 07:48:28 AM
"The one's in Florida were a mixture of news and marketing for the latest "community"."


MikeC:

You are very correct about that. In many ways a newspaper back then like the NY Times was actually no different. I'd need to check back through all my research material but there was a guy back then who actually tried to buy up most of the Eastern end of Long Island and turn it into a massive "community" project something like what Henry Flagler had done with the East Coast of Florida basically with his Florida East Coast Railroad and all the communities up and down the Florida East Coast he essentilly created.

It was the same thing in the West coast back then too. An excellent example was that group out there in Northern California known as "The Big Four"----Harry Hopkins, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford and Collis Huntington. Those were the guys Samuel Morse basically piggy-backed his 18,000 acre Monterry Peninsula project off of.

The model was the same----buy up the land, build and own the railroads, utilities, services, many of the banks, control the newspapers and create the developments and amenities.

Unfortunately, most all the time they did not exactly contemplate the poor guy and the classic public course golfer. It was pretty much all about and for the people who had the money.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 07:56:22 AM
I would also like to take a very close look at who the people were who Macdonald did all his golf courses for. I think we might find in every case they were people, and often the same people, who were really rich and prominent. With Macdonald that would make some added sense since he was one of those who always refused to actually get payed for what he did in architecture.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 20, 2010, 08:04:44 AM
Tom MacWood:


Regarding your Post #100 why don't you start your own thread with your lists of public courses to prove Mike Cirba wrong about something he said about Cobbs Creek instead of putting your irrelevent lists on a thread I started which was not intended to be about public course lists to prove Cirba wrong? This thread was intended to figure out which significant architects did public courses and which didn't and particularly why some did and some didn't.

Good idea. I think I'll call it: A list of important courses available to the public through 1936 by Tom MacWood. This thread got off track because Mike was boycotting the other thread (hoping it would die and go away) and chose this one to address posts from over there. I'll try to stay on topic.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 08:52:32 AM
Yeah, sure, with you two (or is it you too?  ???) everything is always Mike Cirba's fault, isn't it?  ;)

In this case all anyone needs to do is check out the first and second pages of this thread before Cirba even first arrived on it.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Phil_the_Author on July 20, 2010, 09:14:09 AM
Tom Paul,

You wrote, "In this case all anyone needs to do is check out the first and second pages of this thread before Cirba even first arrived on it."

Tom, I did, and I believe this is a case where you need to admit you are mistaken. Heaven knows, and so does Tom Mac, that we bump heads far too often, but his first posts on page one were to give examples of the exact type of courses and their architects that you wanted to discuss.

It really was ONLY after he was asked questions that his posts changed from this topic. Yet, in EVERY instance, each of these posts information was not generated by him to take over the thread, but rather were in response to either statements by others, including Mike, or to answer direct questions asked of him. For example, you challenged him on page one with a question about Sharp Park and whether he had ever visited the siote, asked questions or even played it. He responded by saying that he not only visited and played it but that he used to live a short distance from it.

You are wrong on this one...
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 09:19:03 AM

Good idea. I think I'll call it: A list of important courses available to the public through 1936 by Tom MacWood. This thread got off track because Mike was boycotting the other thread (hoping it would die and go away) and chose this one to address posts from over there. I'll try to stay on topic.


Tom MacWood,

Actually, you're right in one sense...this thread did get slightly off track because I chose to use it to respond to some things being posted by you on the other thread, but now that we're talking about the exclusivity of "resort communities" versus truly public courses I don't think we're too far from Tom Paul's original intent.

However, I didn't boycott the other thread hoping it would go away.   You can personally bring it up from the back pages where it inevitably sinks from lack of interest every single day because you're the only one posting on it for the next six years for all I care.

I boycotted that thread after trying to participate for some weeks, but it became pointless to try to discuss the topic because you were more interested in holding a personal filibuster that was about as exciting and interactive as the old Pravda propadanda machine.

Essentially, you and Moriarty mischaracterized (or misunderstood) what I had said, and then created a straw man that you tried to kick the stuffing out of.   Time and again I would try to correct your understanding, in the interest of actually having that discussion, but you were impervious and arrogant and it became a total waste of time and energy.

It wasn't helped by the fact that you were obviously making it up as you went along, not relying on actual personal knowledge, but instead when pressed citing sourcces such as 1950s Travel Guides and that biblical source of truth, the "American Golfer's Guide".  

At the end of the day, I think it became pretty obvious that you needed to mischaracterize my statements because when left with only non-resort public courses built before the 1930's and the Great Deprssion, which was my original contention, you couldn't come up with a convincing enough list to feel confident in your rebuttal.

Still and all, I guess it's a list of relatively iimportant courses through 1936 that were available to at least some sgments of the public ,and that's fine, but it has nothing at all to do with anything I ever claimed, so rather continue to frustratingly try to defend against a known misrepresentation of what I originaly said, I simply walked.

No biggie.

 
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 11:44:15 AM
Phil:

You're right on #111.

Actually, I was looking at that drawing on here of Sharp Park by Mackenzie and it's just amazing to me what that golf course once was compared to what it is today. One of those holes---I think the original #5 is just amazing looking on that drawing. I was there not long ago and it looks so different now it seems. Even that lake seems to be just an overgrown marsh.

But my real original intent on this thread was to particularly identify who the significant architects were who never did get involved in public golf projects, and then discuss the probable reasons why. One who never did seems to be Macdonald, despite the fact Mike Cirba produced an interesting article that quoted him as encouraging it, even if he never seemed to get personally involved as others did such as Hugh Wilson who did less courses in his career than Macdonald.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 20, 2010, 01:15:04 PM

My point is that by definition, these are resort courses.  

Cleveland Heights is another example... a course built as an integral part of a planned real estate/hotel/resort community designed to spur vacation travel, home sales, and the like.  


Mike
Here is an article on the inception of Cleveland Heights. Apparently Mr. Stahl specialized in developing public golf courses.

Planned communities are not resorts. Planned communities can be established in all sorts of environments.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 01:42:26 PM
Tom,

You try to make Mr. Stahl look like Joe Jemsek!    

He was primarily a builder of high-class residential subdivisions, and he used recreational amenities to attract investors, built communities, sell real estate, and so on.   Nothing wrong with that, but his projects were about selling high-end real estate, first and foremost.

Here's some more accurate portrayals.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gEkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3797,3733968&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sUkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-kwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4951,5186682&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: DMoriarty on July 20, 2010, 02:10:08 PM

Wayne and I, amongst others, happen to be on that committee and if the above is your approach to the USGA’s Architecture Archive and its  Committee, by, in effect, admitting up front you will only deal with some members of it and not others; well then, I guess you are going to be basically shit out of luck there, fella! Perhaps what you should devote your time and efforts to in the future is to write a new iteration of Dale Carnegie's book entitled "How to Win Friends and Influence People While Constantly Burning All Your Bridges To Them."  ;)

I'm "shit out of luck?"   Because you recanted your insincere "olive branch," extended during one of your late night ramblings and about which you apparently blacked out?   Hardly.    

But if the USGA is really trying to develop a repository of all documents relevant to the determination of the complete, accurate, and supportable histories of old courses, then your involvement means the USGA itself may be "shit out luck."   Unfortunately, by extension, all of us interested in a complete and accurate record may be "shit out of luck" as well.  

My concerns about the USGA's Architecture Archive are well founded.  Unfortunately, whether by gross incompetence, dishonesty, or some of both you and Wayne have proven yourselves incapable and/or unwilling to locate and bring forward true, accurate, complete, and supported histories of some of the finest clubs in America, and have ignored all reasonable standards critical discourse.  Plus, you guys also have a long history of failing to deliver as promised.  (How long has the Flynn book been pending?  A decade?)

So yes, I am concerned that you and Wayne are apparently on the Committee charged with creating the USGA Architectural Archive.  Anyone authentically interested in seeing a complete and accurate history of our great courses come to light ought to be concerned as well.

In the interests of truth and accuracy I guess we should hope that, like so much else the two of you have promised, you guys never get around to getting it done.  

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Mike Cirba, if you ignore courses built with the intent of attracting residents and tourists, then you need to throw out many or most of the municipal courses as well.   Attracting outsiders quickly became a driving force behind creating public golf courses for both developers and munipalities.   Ask Phil the Author how many times the advocates at the San Antonio papers insisted that a course at Brackenridge Park would lead to a flock of tourists and future residents heading to San Antonio.  Is it any less a public course because of this?    

  
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 20, 2010, 05:20:46 PM
Tom,

You try to make Mr. Stahl look like Joe Jemsek!    

He was primarily a builder of high-class residential subdivisions, and he used recreational amenities to attract investors, built communities, sell real estate, and so on.   Nothing wrong with that, but his projects were about selling high-end real estate, first and foremost.

Here's some more accurate portrayals.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gEkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3797,3733968&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sUkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-kwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4951,5186682&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

Thank you for confirming Cleveland Heights' inclusion on the list.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
David,

Would you consider Rustic Canyon or Griffith Park and Trump National- LA as synonymous courses serving the same public purpose?  Or Torrey Pines and Aviara?

Tom,

It's your list Tom...add whatever you like.

I don't see high-end, second-home resort community courses as public courses and I'm not sure why you and David don't see any distinction.

But, since we don't want to offend those denizens of public courses, the Hamptons Yacht Set, you should also add the original Montauk Downs to your list

I'm also betting that if I drove my yacht into Newport bay I could get a game at that club, as well...what do you think?   Should we add them?
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 20, 2010, 08:27:45 PM
David Moriarty:

With posts like your #116 that seems to reflect your attitude to others and your approach to golf course architect you will just continue to isolate yourself more than you already have. The offer of some kind of olive branch will remain but not as long as the attitude you've articulated a few times on this thread and other threads remains. At this point, if anyone out there takes you seriously, I must say I'm not aware of it.

The USGA Architecture Archive has gotten some good structure and traction recently and its beginning to look pretty potential. If you want to get involved in the process you can but not if you choose to deal with some of the committee and not others.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 20, 2010, 10:22:09 PM
Although it wasn't built to sell high-end seasisde mansions, or fill adjacent luxury hotel rooms, or create a subtly distinctive air of class, savoir faire, and exclusivity, or drive marketing articles in "Town and Country" magazine like most "public courses" of the time, these articles detailing the origins of the public municipal golf course at Brackenridge Park in San Antonio are pretty cool anyway.

Strangely, it seems that the city simply wanted to maximize their park system for the recreational benefit of the entire economic strata of their citizenry, which seems oddly egalitarian and in the original spirit of the game, almost St. Andrewian even.     

Sorry for the width of them, but they are very interesting, and certainly worth perusing.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4813366880_5701b49799_o.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4813405078_2e4d0ee529_o.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4812781591_1363e743d1_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Kirk Gill on July 20, 2010, 10:37:26 PM
I looked up that Hostetter's Stomach Bitters. 94 Proof. That would definitely put me in an egalitarian state of mind.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 21, 2010, 06:34:52 AM
Kirk,

Yes, to Tom Paul's original point, I find it interesting how quickly the idea of public golf and the comparisons to affordable golf for all provided at St. Andrews and other courses in Scotland referred to by CB Macdonald, Travis, et.al. above, quickly veered into more of a "Country Club for the day" economic model in many cases, with the creation of golf courses as amenities for high-end, exclusive resort communities.

Other than the municipal courses, which were largely taxpayer-funded (but meant to at least break even with amenities like food and locker fees), not many of the leaders of early American golf actually put their monies (or time) where there mouths were, it seems.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: TEPaul on July 21, 2010, 10:19:17 AM
Macdonald and Raynor did do the Old White course at the Greenbriar early on (mid-teens) but the Greenbriar was definitely a high-end resort. At that time I believe the Greenbriar was managed by the Plaza Management Co, and the two men who owned and ran The Plaza corp were friends of Macdonald's. For many years Mr and Mrs Macdonald had an apartment in the Plaza Hotel in New York City.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 21, 2010, 08:29:01 PM
Tom,

The mention of Tillinghast above, and the articles about Brackenridge Park in San Antonio reminds me that Tilly was a HUGE proponent of public courses as a sportswriter in Philadelphia and he and William Evans virtually embarrassed the city officials into agreeing to a public course within the Fairmount Park system.   

I suspect he relished building one for San Antonio.
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Phil_the_Author on July 22, 2010, 06:44:43 AM
Mike,

Tilly enjoyed himself in San Antonio so much that he wrote an article for the San Antonio Light about the Philadelphia Athletics! as they were playing in the world series... No mention of golf in the article...
Title: Re: Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects
Post by: Mike Cirba on July 22, 2010, 08:02:02 AM
Phil,

Do you have any schematics of the designed or as-built course?   

I'd love to compare it against what was there when I played, as well as an aerial of the course that exists today.

Thanks for any info!